Loading ...
Mt. Washington…Home of the Whopper?!
by Mountain Girl ~ January 24th, 2008. Filed under: Development, Infrastructure, MWCDC.
Part II of Bill Toland’s piece on the years-long development struggles in Mt. Washington ran in today’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Perhaps more than his article yesterday, it illuminates the issues that layer on top of one another to make this debate so complex. It’s the haves versus the have nots, the neighborhood elders versus newer residents, the homeowners versus the renters, and so on and so on. We’re so busy drawing battle lines and staking a claim to our little corners of Mt. Washington, that we don’t step back to see the bigger development picture.
Responsible, sustainable development is necessary if Mt. Washington is to have any sort of viable future. Haulting development completely is not an option and most of us can agree on that point. The problem lies in defining what responsible, sustainable development is and who should guide it. As Michele Cunko is quick to point out in the Post-Gazette article when asked about a developer on Virginia Avenue, “if he wants to live across the street from a Burger King, that’s fine…But I don’t.” I don’t remember anyone saying anything about a Burger King in recent Mt. Washington Community Development Corporation (CDC) meetings. Therein lies the problem. Development is not either a Burger King or nothing or a Walmart or nothing. Good development for Mt. Washington is maintaining that delicate balance between preserving the community and opening ourselves up to exchanges that bring profit to our neighborhood. That is what CDCs were conceived to do. The Mt. Washington CDC board has chosen not to make this a priority, but that doesn’t mean development cannot happen.
By their nature, CDCs are supposed to distinguish themselves from other community-based organizations by never losing sight of the fact that a vibrant community requires a growing economy. While there are some wonderful projects being planned and executed in different places in our community, it seems that small groups of residents and private investors are driving them. Perhaps it’s fitting then that our community development corporation’s board is not the focus of an article on community development. After all, they’re focusing on anything but.
Image courtesy of Getty Images
January 24th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
but it seems to me that the most vocal anti development people are not board members.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Livin’OnDaMount:
You are right. And to piggyback on that thought, not all board members are anti-development. I hope I didn’t infer that with my last post.
Which leads me to wonder again why the seemingly small anti-development group has been so successful.
MG
January 24th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Seems to me that they are using scare tactics and lies again! They obviously have no substantial arguments other than personal reasons why they don’t want to see Mt.Washington grow and prosper.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
I think it’s hilarious that she thinks that the good people of 15211 would want or need a Burger King. It’s now even more obviously some people just don’t get it… and they never will.
if you have 4 minutes… and like to laugh watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1IrUAmq4bE
January 25th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
15211 Advocate,
That youtube piece is screaming funny. On the subject though, the anti-development people prove (every time they open their mouths) they do not understand the basics of development or what it takes, much less what a good development would be. Even the pro development people do not want top see a Burger King.
With a comment like Michele Cunko’s it is clear she has no idea what companies really want to be on the Mountain. She lives next to a 14,000 square foot Rite Aid, if that is not enough to make her move then how is a coffee shop or bookstore on the corner going to make it worse.
January 25th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Mt. Dog:
In regards to Ms. Cunko living near the Rite-Aid, I think that’s the point. I can’t speak for her, but I believe she and others opposed the Rite-Aid and lost that battle.
I wonder if the people that opposed it actually shop there.
MG
January 25th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I shop there all the time. I like the fact that it is right down the street and I can stop there on my way home if I need something. It is much better than driving down 79 to Greentree.
We need more businesses within walking distance!
January 25th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
That was my comment, they lost and still whine about it. We live in a free country if you do not like it move. Many of us up here shop at the Rite Aid. It is one of the only new or updated places in the Mt. We need more businesses to help keep the community vibrant. I personally do not want to see a slew of big box stores or chains but the Rite Aid has been a benefit. If not for that store when the Eckerd left we would have no pharmacy (sorry to the med shoppe)of any size for the large elderly population of the mount, as well as the rest of us who need a drug store.
January 26th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
yeah, i couldn’t beleive it when i read that BK quote in the paper!! clearly some of the antidevelopment folks don’t quite get it. no one is asking foer a slew of chains to open up here on Mt. Wash. all I’ve heard from teh pro-development contingency is that we need independent businesses up here such as bookstores, coffee shops, cafes, restaurants, and stores that cater to the tourists. having a thriving main street doesn’t mean that we actively recruit national chains to take over the business district.
and for what its worth, i shop at the Rite-Aid more than any other store up on Mt. Washington simply bc they sell the everyday stuff that i actualy need…
January 28th, 2008 at 12:08 am
I shop at Rite-Aid and am glad they are there. I think the landscaping is very nice. On one spring day when the trees surrounding the parking lot were bare except for the bright red berries they were completely filled with birds. It was a sight to behold. It looked like a bird tree!
However, I believe it is just fair to say what most people say. “Not in my backyard”. I can understand another’s point of view. Perhaps the problem is the line between business and residential not being well defined. People need to see that their opinions are valued and not regarded as insolent and surly simply for speaking out.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:29 am
circusvue:
You’re right. Everyone is absolutely entitled to their opinion. As we’ve said several times on this site, conflict and consensus is necessary when making decisions on behalf of an entire community.
I think the best way to go about affecting improvement and change may be to think outside the bounds of local government. Nothing pervades us as residents from promoting the neighborhood to private developers and investors.
MG
January 28th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I know it is not popular opinion…. and everyone wants to see nifty specialty shops…but I wouldn’t mind a burger king tha much - i like their fries
But more to the point - I am really confused by the “we already have a failing biz district, why create another” line of argument that I have heard from anti development people.
I guess the reasoning there is - if people want to make a biz on the mount- they should fill one of our vacant shops. Well that’s not really how it works… you cant force people to be successful where you want them to be, sorry.
I have always thought of Virginia Ave as THE main Biz District (what with the mulitple commercial properties and the wide street and central location - but hey, maybe that’s just me) and that it worked together with shiloh street as a larger combined district.
My line of thinking is - if there are new thriving businesses on Virgina (after houses are torn down and new development built) other investors will see that something is happeneing, and other people will come looking,….and who knows - maybe one of THOSE people will want to fill one of the vacant stores on Shiloh - who knows, maybe people wil see a DEMAND not being met, and try to fill it - like economics’nat
January 29th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
LODM:
All salient points. They add another component to the pro vs. anti-development debate though, don’t they?
One school of thought seems to be that first we determine IF we want development, then we must decide WHERE we want it. Or as you pointed out, we can embrace a development mindset and let it happen organically. I tend to lean toward the latter.
MG
January 30th, 2008 at 8:30 am
however - I’m not saying that we should just let whatever happens happens and be happy about it….But I’m open to ANY ideas especially if the developer/landowner wants to include the community’s input…
January 30th, 2008 at 9:36 am
I agree, we should be open to any ideas, but we should also let the developer who is coming in aware of the past problems so they will understand how to react when faced with the opposition. They need to know they have people on their side that want the business. They need to know the “pro” development people outnumber the “anti” folks 5 to 1 up here.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I beleive the term to describe the anti development group is : Vocal Minority
February 1st, 2008 at 10:09 pm
A friend of mine toldme that the planning and zoneing commision of the CDC is having a meeting Feburary 17 @ 5:30pm(aren’t they supposed to be announced. I think that all of the members of the CDC nthat contribute to this web site should be in attendence to show how most of us feel
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Thanks mtw citizen. We’ll add this to the event calendar. Additionally, if there are any other upcoming meetings you would like us to post, please let us know.
MG
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
The unannounced Meeting of the MWCDC Planning and Zoning Committee (aka: the Vocal Minority Committee) is scheduled for February 12 (not the 17th) at 5:30 PM in the Senior Center. Assumedly, they intend to game plan, discuss and vote upon their Virginia Avenue zoning recommendations to the Board without opposing views and perceived interference from pro-development supporters.
Talk about “stacking the deck” and “tilting the table” through political manuvering! Such shenanigans are ethically unacceptable and not to be tolerated. The purpose of the Committe should be to represent the majority consensus in an unbiased manner.
The future of Mt. Washington development should not be determined in secret meetings by a Committee of known personal and minority bias with a predetermined and self-serving agenda.
Therefore, I strongly urge all pro-devolpment supporters to not only attend, but also to recruit more attendees (as was done for the December Meeting), in a show of strength, to demand fair representation and strict adherence to majority consensus and to compel the Committee to vote that way.
Remember, there are only six Committee members, so it only takes seven attendees to control the Meeting and the Vote.
February 5th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Not sure where Doc Grandview is getting this information from but it is obvious by the inflamatory tone that this person is using that they are merely trying to stir up trouble. All meetings of the CDC are open to the public and the P& Z meeting on the 12th is no exception. Also, this is NOT the second MAP Pittsburgh meeting to be held at the Senior center like the one in December. That meeting will be advertised by a mailing done by City Planning as well as be published in the major newspapers. This meeting will most likely occur in early March. ANyone in attendance at the the last CDC membership meeting would have heard this.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Villager:
You’re right to point out that all of the CDC committee meetings are open to the public. This isn’t about that though. What I think is happening is a move from apathy on the part of most of the population of Mt. Washington to increasing interest from people that were previously not involved.
The small contingent of people that has attended every CDC meeting for a long time are a bit prickly at the thought of a new influx of people having an equal voice. It’s a precarious situation isn’t it?
MG
February 6th, 2008 at 11:21 am
To correct you Villager, the cdc meetings are open to public, but the p & z committee meetings have’nt been posted to the public in quite ome time.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Speaking of meetings that are open to the public, isn’t there a CDC Board Mtg. tonight?
February 7th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Yes I heard there is. Oh by the way another bar coming soon on Shiloh. This is our business district? I don’t think so!
February 7th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Good question. Hard to believe I was that dependent on the ViewPoint to keep me informed on the CDC meetings. I don’t even get an email on Friday’s anymore to keep us updated. Since this is the first Thursday of the month, I would have to say YES there probably is a meeting tonight.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Hey everybody, won’t be able to attend tonights meeting at cdc.
Prior commitment. All of you that are able to attend please keep those of us who are not informed. I will be able to attend monday & tuesday meetings. Thank you
May 9th, 2008 at 11:24 am
[…] ordinance was passed that required all buildings to be mixed-use in a very specific way. The first floor occupant could only be one of three things: a restaurant, a gallery or a retail […]