Low income housing stock shrinking on North Side

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

Is square footage of building + lot size, adjusted for location a common method of valuing property in other places? Otherwise, any tax formula based on recent selling price/appraisal value would always penalize homes that look better as far as tax burden.

I dont know about other states, but California's property tax is 1% of your homes purchase price and a limit of 2% increase of assessed value each year. This works out much better in my opinion as you know exactly what your tax bill will be; there's no need for large reassessments; and your not penalized for fixing up a run down house (there are provisions for reassessing if you add additional footage onto an existing home). It also stops elderly/poorer people from being priced out of their homes just because they're area becomes a hotspot.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

Less than 20 years ago, there was a lot of low priced housing on East General Robinson St. as well as on Federal St. that was razed for urban development near the Warhol. Also, up in the Garden Theatre block, it was the same, a lot of rooming situations for low income individual that were close to town.

Where did all of these folks go to- and is it important to have low rent housing near the city core for some of the service workers and day laborers that the city needs.

Going back to the OP, I would say that every North Side neighborhood except for the North Shore itself and maybe Allegheny West still has affordable rents. Maybe not 1 person on minimum wage affordable, but certainly median-income affordable. From an urban planning point of view (i.e., having low skill workers with easy access to downtown jobs), I don't think it's functionally much different to have low skill workers living in say Marshall Shadeland, Perry South, and Fineview than in the Central Northside and Allegheny West. Bus service exists in all of these neighborhoods (for now).

So while it's true that home prices are generally increasing in the North Side, especially in the more desirable sections, I don't think it's a huge public policy problem. The biggest concern I have is that people who helped reinvigorate these neighborhoods may get priced out due to property taxes. Someone that bought a $50K house in the war streets in the 90s and became active in transforming the neighborhood may no longer be able to enjoy what they helped create if it suddenly gentrifies into the next Shadyside.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

For all of the things I tend to disagree with you on, this is not one of them in the least. I didn't fully appreciate what you were trying to say until you set forth this example. Yes, it takes very deep pockets to restore homes like these. I still don't know how you get people to do that, though unfortunately, it would likely mean getting many of the lower income folks out of the neighborhood, as money doesn't like to move into no money areas.

Some of the smaller row-homes are very affordable for someone of modest means. It doesn't take a great deal of money to restore an 800 square foot brick home.

[Clint.]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Why ride a bus from the Northside flats to the city? Best more of the undesirables move to Penn Hills and take the bus in. Then everyone is happy. Bus service is in demand, so there are more drivers and supply and demand dictates who can and can't live in what should be prime areas. The Northside has no business being anything less than prime. Keep government out and let the people fix homes and neighborhoods up. No subsidizes housing should be there. It is prime and needs to be taken over buy people that want to save those old beautiful homes.

This makes sense to me. I wouldn't 100% equate public transportation usage with the lowest income groups (and I don't think you necessarily were), because south hills busses and trolleys are always packed to capacity (at least from 7am-9am and 3pm-5pm).

To the point about North Side housing...low-income and subsidized housing is shrinking in many parts of the City. That's a significant reason why there is housing revival going on in some those previously depressed areas, and I think that's a good thing. For instance, a huge one was demolished to make way for the Target and E Liberty revitalization everyone seems to like so much, and they would similarly be in the way on the North Side.

[Garvdog]

Originally Posted by UKyank

I dont know about other states, but California's property tax is 1% of your homes purchase price and a limit of 2% increase of assessed value each year. This works out much better in my opinion as you know exactly what your tax bill will be; there's no need for large reassessments; and your not penalized for fixing up a run down house (there are provisions for reassessing if you add additional footage onto an existing home). It also stops elderly/poorer people from being priced out of their homes just because they're area becomes a hotspot.

Yes. I lived in and owned two houses in CA. Our property tax system punishes people for owning homes, theirs is well thought out and fair. For the first time in my life I have NO CLUE what I will owe in taxes next year. It's like something out of Idiocracy. I hope someday they implement at least a predictable system here like in CA or people will flee Allegheny county and the city of Pittsburgh.

[Garvdog]

I probably should mention that in California (at least L.A. area), if you fix up a rundown house you will probably have construction permits, which would cause the county to reassess the improvement value of your house, but the assumption is that since it was a fixer to begin with, you bought low and thus your initial tax assessment was low when you bought.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by Garvdog

I probably should mention that in California (at least L.A. area), if you fix up a rundown house you will probably have construction permits, which would cause the county to reassess the improvement value of your house, but the assumption is that since it was a fixer to begin with, you bought low and thus your initial tax assessment was low when you bought.

I know it varies by county as to the specifics, but you have to be making some significant structural changes before reassessment kicks in. Maybe LA is stricter then most on this.