Loading ...
Everybody’s doing it. Why can’t we?
by Mountain Girl ~ July 10th, 2008. Filed under: Blight, Development, Infrastructure, MWCDC.How would you feel if Mt. Washington was not included in future planning for the City of Pittsburgh? What if our community was wiped off the map because it did not have the potential for growth over the next 20 to 30 years? That’s what nearby Youngstown, Ohio has started doing in different neighborhoods based on the notion that a shrinking city is not necessarily a city in decline. What some see as giving up on certain areas of the city is simply right-sizing in the minds of others. There is an interesting article about this initiative that’s worth a read for the mere fact that Youngstown is also a former steel town trying to make its way in a post-industrial era.
I can’t imagine who would determine which neighborhoods had the most potential for growth and what the metrics would be for deciding. Would these decisions be driven by political motivations and strong-arming city planners and government officials? Although I often get frustrated at the slow pace of growth and change in Pittsburgh, I don’t know that building a 25-year strategic plan based on the most pessimistic view of growth and development is the best idea.
Two alternate approaches being taken in Rochester, NY and Flint, MI respectfully are:
- Public-private partnership - a community-based organization buys single-family homes and then rehabs them. The catch is that they can only be bought by a first-time home buyer that is required to live in the house.
- Land banking - a community-based organization that doubles as a redevelopment authority is now the biggest landowner in Flint. Speculators no longer own all of the valuable property. The land bank organization is even selling vacant lots for one dollar plus a year’s worth of taxes to neighbors who want to extend their yards or build a garage.
While the URA does provide a lot of incentive programs for current and prospective homeowners, they cannot maintain a consistent focus on Mt. Washington. The MWCDC can though. It would be interesting to know what properties the CDC owns and what future plans there are for development of these properties.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
It would be wonderful to have a complete list of the property owned by the CDC and what is going on with that property.
Two parcels that I am certain they own; one is the Park/Walkway located on the corner of Grandview Ave and Shiloh. And the second is on the corner of Grandview Ave and Merrimac where the Gazebo is located.
Certainly they bought these properties to keep the tree huggers happy. The CDC feels people move to Mt Washington because of the parks and the trees. Most people that I’ve talked with moved up here because of the view of the city and the easy commute to downtown. Most people who like trees move to Ligonier.
So who can provide 15211.org with a list of the properties owned by the CDC and the use ( or lack of use) on that property?
July 12th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Jamie Lynn,
The MWCDC does not own the two parcels you mentioned. The city does. The MWCDC maintains it.
July 14th, 2008 at 8:44 am
not sure if this is helpful, but I know there was an initiative with the CDC to work with the residents on grace street to aquire some of the distressed/problem properties over there…I believe the city owned them (i think for tax reasons) and the CDC had the ability to get them a discount.
There is also a property on Boggs that the CDC owns.
PS - this isnt a secret society here folks… the CDC is 100% transparant and if you want to know what property they own you could stop by the office and talk to someone … or even get involved with the housing committee and help direct new initiatives.
I, for one, am 100% infavor of the CDC acting as a conduit for aquiring properties like this, and then transferring them over to private parties for redevopment. That way we can address problem property and also add sustainable value to our community.
July 14th, 2008 at 8:55 am
to add to my last post … if the CDC were to buy properties and re sell them to private parties for redevelopment, they would be able to:
1) play an active role in how those properties were re-developed (ie deed restrictions, direct relationship with the developer)
2) raise additional funds to keep the process moving by selling the properties at a low price IN EXCHANGE for a like-kind donation from the developer who will use the property. that donation would essentially be the profit from the transaction that would allow even more of these types of exchanges to happen
August 8th, 2008 at 12:51 am
pretty much what CDC’s do - oh - that’s right - our CDC hasn’t figured out how to be one yet. finally might be able to get on track since it finally hired an a staff member who knows what a CDC is SUPPOSED to do….duh….