Jump to content

Brian O'Neill does it again, consolidate now!


PghUSA

Recommended Posts

Mercury, you are correct it would improve some political standing within the city but again (as you have probably read here before) the 55 sq. miles that is Pittsburgh is no where near the sunbelt cities that you are used to . . . cities like LA and Phoenix etc. are 10X or larger with taxbases to prove it. One chief reason for the trouble in Pittsburgh is that the city is extremely rich in culture, academia, medical and religious assetts only one problem with that--they are all off the tax rolls--so what we end up having under your proposal is not only a city that can't feed itself but now no county to help out with 911 or purchasing or SWAT or police helicopters with the rich suburban tax rolls. Add to this the fact that Pittsburgh has some of the best hospitals, cultural amenities and universities in the world that are EXPANDING. Bad enough they are all off the tax rolls but they are now buying skyscrapers and prime real estate that once were on the tax rolls.

Also one point of clarification the city of Philadelphia never exempted itself from it's larger county like you are proposing, Philadelphia merged all cities and towns in it's county into a city/county govt. similar to where Miami is going and to what Indianapolis, Louisville, Jacksonville, and others have already done. Philadelphia doesn't compare apples to apples with those just because it's county tends to be somewhat smaller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think this idea is how I think it could work as well. Create Pittsburgh-Allegheny County as one city-county entity. However, there will be some smaller gov, identity and representation... On a bigger scale, you have NYC, but the 5 Boroughs. When you send a letter to the Bronx, it is still NYC, but a section of it.

I don't think that we should slice up the current city limits anymore, but maybe expand a little. The key though, is the boroughs... all making up one city of 1.2 million and change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mj, technically NYC is very unique, after annexing all of New York County (Manhattan) New York City in the early 1900's (or was it late 1890's) still felt the need to expand . . . only problem though was that it had already swallowed up the whole county . . . the solution they came up with was to take over the municipalities of the 4 surrounding counties Richmond (Staten Island), Kings (Brooklyn), Queens, and the Bronx. That is why today everything from the Bronx to Queens to Coney Island in Brooklyn to Staten Island is as NYC as Wall Street or Times Square BUT if you took your neighbor to court you would go to the borough building in downtown Brooklyn or downtown Staten Island, to think of it, every local governmental function is almost inverted, instead of Pittsburgh and McKeesRocks and Penn Hills all seperating themselves in the detail work (municipality level) all the detail work is ONE (NYPD, FDNY, garbage collection, transit, code enforcement) where the County level broad services (Sherrif, Jail, courts, stadium authorities, enviromental) are assessed on a micro-local level and much different in each part of the city.

When a New Yorker talks about the 5 boroughs they are really just using the Dutch word for Counties . . . similar to the French "Parishes" in Louisana. Many not accustomed to NYC's unique style of govt. view them as neighborhoods, when in actuallity to overlay them here would have Bob O'Connor sitting ABOVE Onorato and the exec's from Westmoreland, Beaver, Butler and Washington Co's.

Not saying that something like NYC's system would work here (even if we applied it solely to Allegheny County's current borders where Sewickley, Monroeville, Mt. Lebo, etc. would county-off or borough off and Pittsburgh would be up one level. Just interesting to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying that the situation is the same, just that there are similarities and that some hybrid is the way to go. Regardless, there is no need to bring any other county into this. Allegheny is big enough and would be a miracle to consolidate as it is. Additionally the metro's urban density is to fragmented outside of Allegheny county. If the city and county merge, then there is one executive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mj, technically NYC is very unique,

Actually, NYC is more in line with so-called "federal cities" throughout the world such as London. London is also comprised of boroughs which have a degree of self-governance. They are unified under the "Greater London Council" which was temporarily abolished under Thatcher (at that point, London had no unity at all and was erally just a collection of boroughs that called themselves "London"). Now they re-established the council and have a mayor. The actual "City of London" itself is 1 sq. mil and does include the Houses of Parliament which is actually in the "City of Westminster" - so technically the capital of the UK is Westminster.

Other cities, particularly those of the former British empire, follow a similar structure. Toronto also tried to follow a similar structure (various cities including Toronto, Scarborough, North York, etc. unified under the Municipality of Greater Toronto) but eventually unified into one city.

Montreal also tried a similar merger. Like Toronto, it has the "Community of Metropolitan Montreal" that incldues Montreal island (on which the City of Montreal resides), and various other municipalities. In 2002, all the communities on Montreal island merged into the city of Montreal but on Jan. 1, 2006, various of those de-merged because of the lack of popularity of the merger.

after annexing all of New York County (Manhattan) New York City in the early 1900's (or was it late 1890's) still felt the need to expand . . . only problem though was that it had already swallowed up the whole county . . . the solution they came up with was to take over the municipalities of the 4 surrounding counties Richmond (Staten Island), Kings (Brooklyn), Queens, and the Bronx.
ACtaully, the Bronx had previously been part of New York County. It was the first peice of land merged into NYC. Origianlly it was part of Westchester County and then NYC anenxed it and put it into New York County. Then, after the 1898 great merger (taking in Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island), the Bronx was split off as its own county. Queens, by the way, was previously part of the much larger Queens County (which included Nassau County). After annexation, the eastern 2/3 of Queens County were split off into Nassau county and the remaining 1/3 got merged into NYC.

As origianlly set up, the boroughs of NYC were to be largely self-governing. It was over time that more and more power went to the city government.

When a New Yorker talks about the 5 boroughs they are really just using the Dutch word for Counties . . . similar to the French "Parishes" in Louisana.

Hmm, I didn't know that. So what is the origin of "borough" in PA and "boro" in NJ? I know that "borough" in PA likely derives from the English version of the word (whcih gave rise to "Pittsborough") but why did they decide to have boroughs in addition to cities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also one point of clarification the city of Philadelphia never exempted itself from it's larger county like you are proposing, Philadelphia merged all cities and towns in it's county into a city/county govt. similar to where Miami is going and to what Indianapolis, Louisville, Jacksonville, and others have already done. Philadelphia doesn't compare apples to apples with those just because it's county tends to be somewhat smaller.

Actually Philadelphia did exempt itself from its larger county. Originally, Philadelphia County included Montgomery County. The City of Philadelphia was a small portion of Philadelphia County (comprising all of 2 square miles). Then, in the mid-1800's or so, it was decided to merge all the urban and suburban areas within Philadelphia County into the City of Philadelphia. Then, as an added bonus (or so it was thought at the time), it was decided that this new city would be independent of the remainder of the county which was rural so it effectively split itself off from the remainder of the county. The remainder of the county became Montgomery County. I guess you can't call it secession - more like exclusion. St. Louis did the same thing.

Interestingly enough, Philadelphia was *not* (as most history books would have it) the largest *city* in America until NYC took over. Because Philadelphia was constrained within 2 square miles (what is now Center City Philadelphia), other cities of greater land area were larger - Boston, Baltimore, and, I believe, even Charleston, SC. Philadelphia was, however, the largest "metro" (if that term was even used then).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Urban,

Really? That is something new, I was always under the impression that like any "new" state we started with 5 counties (or so) and then started cutting them up, I had always thought the chicken came before the egg with Philadelphia's metro govt. (the county split and split and split and then the city consolidated rather then the last split being a result of the consolidation).

I appreciate the clarification urban, the larger point (as you mention) is unchanged though, in all county consolidations the city GREW in size by factors of 5 or 10 or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Urban,

Really? That is something new, I was always under the impression that like any "new" state we started with 5 counties (or so) and then started cutting them up, I had always thought the chicken came before the egg with Philadelphia's metro govt. (the county split and split and split and then the city consolidated rather then the last split being a result of the consolidation).

You might be right. I had read somewhere that the urban/suburban portions of Philadelphia County merged into the City of Philadelphia, took the name of Philadelphia County, and sloughed off the rest of the county as Montgomery County. However, Wikipedia seems to say differently (I'd look in a print encyclopedia but no one uses those anymore!). It still seems odd, though, given how small Philadelphia County is and how irregularly shaped it is. It certainly seems like a county that was formed by taking all the urban/suburban townships/boroughs/districts (Districts were another entity back then) and then merging them together. Montgomery County formed in 1784. So if the intent of splitting off Montgomery was for the rural areas to have thier own county (which I assume was the intent), then it would have included more areas since the urbanized areas of Philadelphia back then didn't extend much outside of the city's then 2 sq. mile boundaries. Perhaps what happened was that Montgomery formed in 1784 but included less land and then when the city of Philadelphia consolidated in 1854, the townships that were not consolidated joined Montgomery rather than be stuck as little brothers in a county domianted by what was then a mega-city.

In any event, the original 6 counties of Pennsylvania were Bucks, Philadelphia, Chester, New Castle, Kent, and Sussex. The last three split off to form the colony of Delaware in 1704.

Speaking of counties, what was the genesis of the name "Westmoreland"? Was it named after someone of that name or was it named to designate that there was More Land in the West? I know the latter might sound less plausible but Westmoreland was once a mega-county that included almost all (if not all) of western PA, including Pittsburgh

Of course, Southwestern PA was also considered part of Augusta County, Virginia which included all of what was once Virginia west of the Appalachians (now its a small county in VA). So perhaps Pittsburgh was one of the few cities in the country that was part of 2 counties AND 2 states at the same time.

The district of Western Augusta was later split off of Augusta County and then the area that is now SW PA was split into Ohio, Monongalia, and Yohogania Counties (what is it about VA and how they mis-spell the name of the rivers?). Then PA won its claim and VA backed off and Yohogania and parts of Ohio and Monongalia Counties were deemed part of Westmoreland County, PA (later to be split into the present counties). Monongalia and Ohio Counties, of course, still exist in West Virginia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Urban, don't know much about the east and how all that came to be outside of metro Philly (primarily to compare/contrast metro govts.), it is always curious to me that Westmoreland and Hannastown were the center of the W. Pennsylvania universe (at least with local govt.), and not the forks and the Ft.

I don't believe any county was spun off from Allegheny, which is very strange since for a city with as much early history as Pittsburgh you usually have 3, 5 or more counties split off from them over the early settlement decades.

Oh and Westmoreland if my memory serves was named for the county by the same name in England, after all it was established during British rule, one of the last U.S. counties to be set up under the redcoats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Urban, don't know much about the east and how all that came to be outside of metro Philly (primarily to compare/contrast metro govts.), it is always curious to me that Westmoreland and Hannastown were the center of the W. Pennsylvania universe (at least with local govt.), and not the forks and the Ft.

Hmmm, I never thought about that, but its true. Why Hannastown??????? Then again, when Virginia also laid claim to the area as part of Augusta County, VA, the county seat was in Staunton, VA (still a smallish "city" where I-81 and I-64 come together). However, when Yohogania, Ohio, and Monongalia Counties split off of Augusta County, they were jointly adminsitered by VA as the District of Western August. The county seat (or seats for the three counties, as the case was) was Fort Dunmore, aka Pittsburgh. So basically, Pittsburgh was VA's chosen county seat whereas Hannastown was PA's. The dispute between the two colonies actually lead to VA invading and capturing Hannastown in 1774.

By the way, I find it interesting how some of VA's former counties spawned into states. All of Kentucky was once part of Kentucky County, VA. Also, all of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio, as well as part of Wisconsin were part of Illinois County, VA. Going further back, all of this was part of the mega county of Augusta which, based on VA's original claim, extended from the Appalachians all the way west to the Pacific (though, at the time, this would have run afoul of French, British, and Spanish claims). A pretty cool website that allows you to play the evolution of the VA counties is here.

http://www.myvirginiagenealogy.com/va_maps/va_cf.htm

I don't believe any county was spun off from Allegheny, which is very strange since for a city with as much early history as Pittsburgh you usually have 3, 5 or more counties split off from them over the early settlement decades.

Butler County was spun off of Allegheny. So was part of Beaver (the rest came from Washington County). I wonder why they chose the name "Allegheny" for the county, as if the seat was supposed to be Allegheny City (which it never was). Perhaps it was to differentiate it from Virginia's Ohio and Monongalia Counties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^this is a very interesting discussion :)

Allegheny County preceded the formation of Allegheny City although you're correct the power brokers of the area seemed to live there (when Pgh annexed they all moved in protest to what would one day become Sewickley, Sewickley Hills and Sewickley Heights, to give you an idea of how the Northside was once the brain and talent center of the region).

I think the reason Hannastown was chosen by Pennsylvania was that the valleys were already well worn by Virginians (G. Washington coming in as early as the 1740's and 50's), the "base" for Pennsylvania in the area would have to be on the outside of that.

One thing that surprises me is that Indiana, Illinois etc. were Virginia counties?! Weren't all those claimed by Ct. and other New England colonies? In some instances they were even French and English before the Northwest Territories Act (in which Pittsburgher Arthur St. Clair was appointed the first Governor . . . how strange that Ohio's origins, along with the others, were by a Pittsburgher!). The whole "Western Reserve" phenom in Cleveland originates from that region being the "Western Reserve" of CT.

Kentucky I can believe as far as a Va. County since even today Kentucky claims ALL the Ohio River and even makes claims to the old river bounds including land that one would think would be in Illiniois or Indiana or Ohio, all of this based on the fact that Virginia was the first real colony in the area and had claimed "all areas south of the north shore of the Ohio River and it's tributaries mouths" or something to that affect. Kentucky actually took Indiana to the supreme court recently (last few decades) on a Riverboat casino permantely docked at Evansville, citing the fact that Indiana had no jurisdiction on KENTUCKY WATERS, there have also been squables in some river communities in the three northern states with both West Virginia and Kentucky claiming their riverfront areas or even 10 blocks in as part of WV or Ken, since the Ohio River channel was historically at that point. Some of the more outrageous claims have been ruled that it is only the "current" river flow in most applications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Virginia originally claimed all the land on the continent between its then borders as extended in a straight-line west. This effectively gave it a triangular domain with the straight E-W line being the southern border of VA and the diagonal being the line which would follow if you took the border of VA around Harper's Ferry and extended it straight out NW-ward. The only exception to that was the MD panhandle which was claimed by MD and which VA apparently didn't dispute.

In practical effect, VA's claim was only for the land east of the Mississippi (land west thereof being Spanish, then French) and south of Canada (which Britain administered separately).

Of course this ran afoul of claims by PA, NY, CT, and Mass. Each of these colonies had sea-to-sea claims along their boundaries as extended westward as well. For whatever reason, PA was content with disputing its claim only as far as the current western border. NY, CT, and Mass, however, maintained their claims which led to disputes with VA. VA administered all its western lands as part of Augusta County. PA adminstered them under the name of Westmoreland County. CT adminsitered them also under the name of Westmoreland County (which is why I thought Westmoreland might have been a generic term for anything in the west). I'm not sure about Mass and NY. VA later split the lands and formed Kentucky County (which became Kentucky), Illinois County (which became the NW Territory), Ohio County (now part of WV and PA), Monongalia County (now part of WV and PA), and Yohogany County (now part of PA).

Because of the disputed claims, the federal government deemed all the land north of the Ohio (including land solely claimed by VA) to be part of the NW territory. This included the Erie triangle (now part of Erie County, PA) which was claimed by PA, NY, and CT (I'm not sure how PA could lay a claim to Erie since it falls within NY and CT's sea-to-sea claims). The federal government later sold Erie to PA (the Erie Purchase ;) ).

Interestingly, NE PA, which was claimed also by CT, was settled mostly by CT people. PA tried to expel them many times but unsuccessfully. After the federal government intervened in 1782 (after independence), the land became officially part of PA but only under condition that PA recognize the CT peoples' titles in their land. PA, however, did not live up to its side of the bargain and deemed the CT people as "squatters". This lead to them seceding from PA and forming the state of Westmoreland. In these days under the Articles of Confereation, both PA and CT pretty much acted as countries and PA was gearing up to invade "Westmoreland". CT, however, refused to support Westmoreland (kind of like Texas breaking off of Mexico and wanting to join the US but the US not supporting it) and PA managed to subdue the revolt.

Anyway, that part of PA is known as the Wyoming Valley and people from that area migrated westward to what is now the state of Wyoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its also intersting to note that Virginia also had is western reserve (called the "Virginia Military District") in Ohio just like Connecticut. As part of the deal that established the NW Territory, the states with western claims renounced thier claims in exchange for forgiveness by the Federal Government of their Revolutionary War debt. Naturally states with more invested in thier western lands - namely Virginia and Connecticut - were not willing to let go so easily. Thus, they worked into the deal that land in the NW Territory would be set aside for thier own use. CT got the NE section of Ohio (which fell into thier old claim) and VA got SW Ohio (which had been claimed exclusively by VA). CT used its territory (called the "Western Reserve") to resettle people who had thier homes burned by the British during the war. VA used its territory to reward its veterans.

The vestiges of that period are that, while most of Ohio is divided into townships that more or less match the 36 sq. mile "survey townships" perscribed by the NW Ordinance, the NE quadrant of Ohio (run by CT) has 25 sq. mile townships sicne that was the measurement CT used for its western townships. As for SW Ohio, the townships there are irregularly shaped (much like they are in PA) because VA did not use survey townships at all.

Interestingly enough, VA does not currently use townships. The smallest form of official local government in VA is the county/city (cities being separate from counties). So the fact that they set up townships in Ohio makes me wonder whether VA used to ahve townships and then later abolished them. This would make some sense because some other Southern and Western states (NC, CA, etc.) also had townships. In fact, NC still does but, from what I could tell, the "townships" there are just there for garnishment and don't seem to have any real power. It probably makes sense for those states to abolish the township form of government since they inherited that form from England but that form didn't translate well in the South and West where the population was more sparse. In the more densly populated Northeast, however, it made more sense and that's why PA has its crazy-quilt of townships/boroughs/cities (and town) - none more so crazy that Allegheny County which seems to have more municipalities onto itself than all of the Philadelphia metro area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you urbanophile for touching on the most important part of my idea. The various level of governments in Allegheny county is what is making government ineffective. That is why I feel my proposal for a City of Pittsburgh within a county of Pittsburgh makes so much sense. Then if other municipalities vote to join in we have one cohesive government entity, that could lower taxes and keep people within its borders, as well as attract new residents. If we just lowered the income tax to 1 %, capped the property taxes, and went to a more consumption oriented tax, we would become highly competitive with other metro areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mercury,

The crux of the problem would still exist though, the taking over of Cityline tower's tremendous tax base by the non-profit Duquesne University, the rapid expansion of UPMC, AGH, the Pittsburgh Technology Center, CMU, Pitt, RMU, PPU, Carlow, Chatham, AI, Pitt, need I go on? Within the 55 sq. miles that is Pittsburgh City proper we have lost hundreds of millions of taxable property to the largest employer in the state (UPMC), a half dozen highly successful and expansive Universities, two other hospital systems, a burgeoning Tech/biotech center, etc. The city is drowning in responsibilities when its day-time population swells by almost 100% but alas most are non-taxable (certainly not for schools). Making 55 sq. miles a county will only compound this problem at least our current issues can be soothed with county pressure on the suburbs, divorcing ourselves from suburban Allegheny County and its taxing power (and ability to catch the SWAT team functions, 911 functions, jail & court functions from the 55 sq. miles) would double our pain in my view. The answer to me is not to make the county fit into 55 sq. miles but the city to fit into the 800 sq. miles of the county!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PghUSA,

I totally understand your point. This assumes that no other municipalities would vote to annex into the new city/county. Also don't you agree that if we could make our tax structure more competitive it would entice new residents and businesses into Pittsburgh? I think our future is in reclaiming and renovation of current structures, as well as building up. There are plenty of old housing and buildings that are of no historical value that could and should be demolished to free up land for new projects. That way we get a nice blend of the new and the old. Much like Paris that you referred to earlier.

I like your idea also, but I think it will be a hard fight to get all of the other municipalities in Allegheny county to become one. So perhaps we could remain in the county, but offer annexation to those municipalites who want a more cohesive government and a higher standing in the nation and the world. Only by taking a recognized name like Pittsburgh will they be able to do that. I don't think that Ross Township will stir much interest nationally.

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merc,

from a pragmatist perspective you are correct, although the younger generation is changing the knee-jerk "no consolidation" statements by long-time politicos around here. If we did break off though, I don't think the state assembly who already doesn't like Pgh (taxes, tax levies, consolidation power, commuter tax power, etc.) would allow us to break off from AC and then redraw the county lines every time a muni like Wilkinsburg or others decided to join the city/county of Pittsburgh. Plus Wilkinsburg and other borderline munis would I think rather hook their wagon to the county with the Fox Chapels and Upper Saint Clairs then a 55 sq. mile beached whale that just cut off any suburban support from a suburban county.

Although Merc, I must say that some of these shortsighted politicos might actually bring about AC/CoP consolidation if Pittsburgh "threatened" to break off. Kind of like the Reagan Star Wars ploy where everyone in the know realized it was impossible for us to build it but the bluff itself was enough to scare the Soviets into capitulation (so Gorbachev says).

Allegheny County, though many of its munis aren't crazy about the city, forcing them to go their own way might send a scare to them, they would be 189 fiefdoms fighting over a county seat, courthouse, etc.

I think the idea in practice would be a long-term disaster for the city, but the burbs in the shortterm would be chaos in many ways. Might force their hand to finally realize they need Pittsburgh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PGH,

I would consider myself part of the younger generation at 31, and yes I think those of us who are active in politic seem to have a broader scope of vision when it comes to our cities future. PUMP is a wonderful group of young professionals that harbors a great vision for Pittsburgh. Someone told me a morbid joke about progress in Pittsburgh when I first moved here from LA. That it happens one funeral at a time. I certainly hope not.

http://www.pump.org/home.jsp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PUMP has done some great things, I just wish they'd force the issue of a 21st century city bounds to succeed in the 21st century, it is time we expand the 55 sq. miles put down in the 1800's, much like Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas and even your native LA all have (imagine a city like Phoenix succeeding in its city bounds of 1901!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be careful about tax reform.

Sales taxes tend to be very regressive and would have a similar effect as raising property taxes on low income households. Plus, it's inefficient, creates deadspace that wastes surplus. Plus it chases buyers out of the region for major purchases. It hurts retailers and it can even depress wages or shut down manufacturers of highly elastic products, so it might keep certain businesses from ever growing up and selling in the local area. Finally, e-commerce is growing at such a rapid pace and it's creating a lot of uncertainty and structural problems for the sales tax.

There is a large contingent of business property owners who are all too happy to abandon the property tax for less-than legitimate reasons. We have TIF and other property tax incentive tools whose very basis is to induce economic activity that will increase the tax base later. If we just abandon or cap property taxes now, it means that decades of public investment will never be recouperated from businesses who will escape ever having to pay their fair share.

Aside from the fact that nonprofits aren't taxed, which suggests raising the income tax to compensate, property taxes are among the fairest form of taxation in existance. It is all too easy to hide streams of income and shuffle transactions from tax shelter to tax shelter, or to have regressive taxes that hurt the poor. Land is the one form of capital that cannot be moved or hidden. Pittsburgh has to, and the state should force it to, finally grow the political courage to go out and re-asses the fair values of properties on a regular basis.

I think there are other things we can do, too. Maybe we could pay off the city's non-bonded debt by offering a limited property tax incentive that splits part of the savings on interest payments to owners who elect to pay part of their property tax a year in advance. It's probably not plausible in this basic form but the underlying idea is pretty good, I think. To have some sort of a mutually beneficial tax-based investment vehicle that lowers effective property taxes and lowers city debt.

We should be also looking more and more towards tourism. Pittsburgh has so much potential there. Take the Art Festival. It's about time that it takes on a more national and international focus. We have a thriving cultural district and awesome museums that feature local art, it's a dead-end to keep the region focused on itself, it's time to focus the region on the world and vice versa. That's just an example... all over the city there are lots of little developments, such as the new construction at the conservatory, a boutique hotel on 17th and Carson, slot machines, marinas... that scream for taxes aimed at tourists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be careful about tax reform. Consolidation is well and good, but I don't like a lot of what I'm hearing about taxes. I also don't think that certain aspects of city government should ever be mixed with a suburban mindset, but I really want to put in my 2 cents about taxes.

Sales taxes tend to be very regressive and would have a similar effect as raising property taxes on low income households. Plus, it's inefficient, creates deadspace that wastes surplus. Plus it chases buyers out of the region for major purchases. It hurts retailers and it can even depress wages or shut down manufacturers of highly elastic goods, so it might keep certain businesses from ever growing up and selling in the local area (such as local artists selling their wares). Finally, e-commerce is growing at such a rapid pace and it's creating a lot of uncertainty and structural problems for the sales tax.

There is a large contingent of business property owners who are all too happy to abandon the property tax for less-than legitimate reasons. We have TIF and other property tax incentive tools whose very basis is to induce economic activity that will increase the tax base later. If we just abandon or cap property taxes now, it means that decades of public investment will never be recouperated from businesses who will escape ever having to pay their fair share.

Aside from the fact that nonprofits aren't taxed, which suggests raising the income tax to compensate, property taxes are among the fairest form of taxation in existance. It is all too easy to hide streams of income and shuffle transactions from tax shelter to tax shelter, or to have regressive taxes that hurt the poor. Land is the one form of capital that cannot be moved or hidden. Pittsburgh has to, and the state should force it to, finally grow the political courage to go out and re-asses the fair values of properties on a regular basis.

I think there are other things we can do, too. Maybe we could pay off the city's non-bonded debt (if it exists) by offering a limited property tax incentive that splits part of the savings on interest payments to owners who elect to pay part of their property tax a year in advance. It might be unworkable the way I envision it but the underlying idea is pretty good, I think. To have some sort of a mutually beneficial tax-based investment that lowers effective property taxes and lowers city debt. With savings ts and CDs paying as low as they are right now, maybe it's not such a bad idea.

We should also be looking more and more towards tourism. Pittsburgh has so much potential there. Take the Art Festival. It's about time that it takes on a more national and international focus. We have a thriving cultural district and awesome galleries and museums that feature local art so it's a dead-end to keep the region focused on itself year in and year out. It's time to focus the region on the world and vice versa. That's just an example... all over the city there are lots of little new things such as the new construction at the conservatory, a boutique hotel on 17th and Carson, slot machines, marinas... that scream for taxes aimed at tourists as a growing source of revenue.

I know that fundamentally there is a problem with 55 sq miles as both a property tax and consolidation issue, but I think I am very pesimistic about anything happening on a fundamental level that benefits Pittsburgh anytime soon. But I think there are creative solutions out there, even if mine aren't the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree about the property taxes. As someone who does not own property, I am angered and worried by the idea of raising sales tax or income tax in order to lower property taxes. Why on earth should I shell out MORE money so that people who probably already earn more than me can pay less?

What I envision as a good move would be this: Everyone in the state pays the same amount of income tax, and it gets put into one big pot. The state redistributes it according to population (taking into account the population surges experienced by urban centers during work-days). That would be a big help to struggling urban centers like Pittsburgh, Philly and Erie. It isn't an answer to the property tax issue, nor to the consolidation issue, but I think it would be an big step in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said Blueblack . . .

two observations though, although property might be the most fair it unfairly burdens the weakest among us, retired empty nesters that are on fixed incomes (especially with the repressive school taxes, which retirees don't recieve the benefits from), though that is not a primary concern and they should pay taxes like the rest of us, it is not perfectly fair.

If property is the best way to generate revenues then you're entire post Blue could be a ringing endorsement why the city HAS to recieve the property taxes from Fox Chapel and Upper Saint Clair if the city is to serve those residents from 9am to 5pm every day! (I know you are not anti-consolidation, but do you see how it is almost inescapable as THE solution?)

Finally, although in theory sales taxes are worse (though Steve Forbes might strongly disagree with that premise), they are the most politically expedient, it allows politicos to tax things like rental cars, hotel rooms, etc. to hit the tourist or business traveler and avoid making angry one of their voters, though at first glance it might seem we are chasing away business travelers and tourists the taxes--as long as they are moderate--usually are just paid by more then willing visitors. Also what we have seen lately is the perversion of tax policies with the burbs not willing to "share" with the metro like Ohio metros do, and the city jacking up prices on suburbanites instead of having a fair tax structure for everyone. Much easier to raise taxes on the non-voter then the voter.

I do like some of your suggestions though Blue, have you also looked at what other "township" states like Ohio have done with tax sharing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think it is interesting that in the South, Counties tend to have more power over the region than the cities. Perhaps this would be an alternative to consolidation. You hear of dade County, Fulton County etc. as a ruling power over their regions. Allegheny County should gain more power over the region. The municipalities would be more like neighborhoods of the county instead of competing, much like neighborhoods of the city, they would begin to have a common goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned a sales tax is regressive and not the way to go. Consolidation would put Fox Chapel and Upper St. Clair and Sewickley into the tax base. A broader tax base eases teh burden. And I don't mean to single out those communities as the benefit is having those and doxens of others into the mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.