POLL: Should Pittsburgh Borrow $80 Million for Capital Projects? (purchase, move)

[SteelCityRising]

Over the course of Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's six years in office his administration has succeeded in paying down $243,000,000 in debt while financing capital projects with money on-hand. As the city's once-dire financial straits have brightened the mayor wants to borrow $80,000,000 to be spent on capital improvement projects within the city over the next two years. This would be in addition to an amount up to $64,000,000 the city would acquire through Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for capital project spending, giving the city up to $72,000,000 to spend on capital projects for each of the next two years.

Next year the mayor would spend $12,000,000 of this borrowed cash to pave streets, nearly $4,000,000 to demolish vacant/derelict propertiers, $7,500,000 on new vehicle purchases, and nearly $11,000,000 on redevelopment projects through the Urban Redevelopment Authority.

More information can be found in this Post-Gazette article:

Mayor wants to borrow $80 million for capital projects

If I was on city council I'd be leery of any new borrowing until the mayor SPECIFIED what, exactly, the money would be spent on. What URA-related projects would be funded? What streets would be paved? What new vehicles would be purchased? What buildings would be torn down? The mayor already having spent the money in his head indicates to me that he obviously has a methodology behind that breakdown, but he has yet to share that with city council.

What do you all think? Should the city loosen its pursestrings and invest in itself by borrowing $80,000,000 to be spent on new capital projects over the next two years? Should the city continue to hold the line on any new spending and borrowing and pay down more debt?

I would personally oppose the mayor's request. Let's reduce our debt as much as we can first before assuming any new obligations just in case our city, which was largely spared the brutal brunt of the recession, hits a rough patch in the coming years. Most (if not all) of the buildings that would likely be torn down with the $4,000,000 will still be standing five years from now, and some may even be rehabbed by investors by then as our city's population has just now started to grow again. Most city vehicles I see are relatively new, and I don't think we should have many issues in keeping them a few more years. Yes, some streets are a bloody mess, but overall I find most city arteries to be very passable. I would just use a greater percentage of the typically-received CDBG funds to patch and pave streets in the Spring after what I've heard will likely be a very moist winter with a lot of freeze/thaw cycles.

[GeneW]

It's a hard question. On the one hand, I hate to see the city go more in debt but on the other, parts of Pittsburgh are literally falling down and need to be fixed fast. I wish that I trusted Luke a little more with the specifics.

[escilade18]

Had me until the "Demolish Properties", what we really need is urban prarie
Also, there is no need to purchase that many new vehicles, replace the ones that truly need replaced, and put the rest of the money toward more useful projects (such as funding the transit or expanding the busways)

[BrianTH]

Definitely. Municipal borrowing rates are ridiculously low right now.

[UKyank]

Money is cheap, but flesh out the specifics for a plan before committing to borrowing it. Going in the hole 80 million & then getting little for it is a bad move no matter how low interest rates are.

[Scott2187]

From the article:

[LEFT]Some council members complained that Mr. Ravenstahl hasn't yet provided details on individual projects, even though legislation passed last year requires such specificity.


Read more: Mayor wants to borrow $80 million for capital projects][/LEFT]

That tells me it can't be approved until he provides the details. I like the idea of paving more streets, but I don't see how $7.5 million needs to be spent on new vehicles. Maybe filter some of that into more street paving and pothole fixing?

[WINDCHIMES]

That money would go to the crooks not to the people...he'll no!

[Blackbeauty212]

Originally Posted by Scott2187

From the article:



That tells me it can't be approved until he provides the details. I like the idea of paving more streets, but I don't see how $7.5 million needs to be spent on new vehicles. Maybe filter some of that into more street paving and pothole fixing?

I don't look for City Council to work on anything with mayor, even if its in the best interest of the city...except for a few they have totally become Obstructionist to anything Mayor puts forth.

[SteelCityRising]

Instead of demolition I wish the money was eligible to be used to provide investors with grants to rehabilitate properties slated to meet a bulldozer. One of the things I love most about Pittsburgh is the abundant history we have in every one of our nooks and crannies, and I don't see how encouraging more urban prairie will help us to accomplish our vision for leaving the city a better place for successive generations.

[fleetiebelle]

Instead of demolition I wish the money was eligible to be used to provide investors with grants to rehabilitate properties slated to meet a bulldozer.

But if the property has been vacant for years, sometimes there's too much damage to be feasibly repaired into habitability.