In a lengthy Post-Gazette commentary this week, a local developer implores the Allegheny Conference on Community Development to better target its recently announced Downtown “revitalization project”:
“I deeply appreciate the effort to transform downtown Pittsburgh,” he writes of the conference’s “vision” to create and/or update public recreational amenities to attract more Downtown living.
“However, I urge those involved to prioritize one crucial goal above all others: repurposing old, functionally obsolete office buildings into new residential accommodations.”
The developer says Pittsburgh’s historic buildings “are ripe for conversion from an engineering and architectural standpoint, given floor plate dimensions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.”
“Leaving buildings empty contributes to a downward spiral of declining property values and the corollary of a declining tax base and increasing antisocial behavior,” he further writes. “Vacant buildings often lead to low-quality retail out of landlord desperation, further deteriorating the streetscape.”
The developer goes on to say there is a “compelling logic” to expediting such conversions – from “a strong demand for Downtown living,” to maintaining “our connection to the past,” to unlocking “a substantial pool of private investment ready to fund 80 percent to 85 percent of redevelopment costs” if only they can secure 15 percent to 20 percent “public or private support subsidy investments.”
Ah, the proverbial nubs of the rub – diving into the public purse.
“Good grief,” retorts Jake Haulk, the Ph.D. economist who’s now president-emeritus of the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy.
“If there is so much pent up-demand, why are public funds necessary to proceed with retrofitting?”
It’s the simplest of questions that should stop these improper, recidivist attempts to socialize risk in pursuit of private profit but seldom, if ever, does.
“And what happens when costs spiral out of control?” Haulk asks. “Or sales and rentals fail to meet projections?
“Or when the city demands a large share be set aside for low-income housing?”
It’s the “typical scam,” Haulk proffers. “If this were a profitable endeavor, the contractors would already be hard at it.”
Back to the developer:
“Let’s heed the wisdom of prioritization and make the most significant difference where it is currently needed most,” he says.
By all means, go ahead. Knock yourself out. But let’s stop this nonsense of forcing taxpayers to be your venture capitalists. Let’s heed the wisdom of the marketplace for once.
As author Arthur Goddard once wrote:
“The public has been despoiled of a great part of its wealth and has been induced to give up more and more of its freedom of choice because it is unable to detect the error in the delusive sophisms by which protectionist demagogues, national socialists, and proponents of government planning exploit its gullibility and its ignorance of economics.”
It’s past time for the public to stop being so gullible and ignorant. For government and its taxpayer-backed developers will exploit the public every chance it gets.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
