Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-05-2012, 01:17 PM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,942,390 times
Reputation: 2910

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
In the short run, Pittsburgh would lose, as the tax money Wilkinsburg brought in would not in any way make up for the increased servicing costs.
I don't think that is at all obvious. Wilkinsburg has been able to save money on the trash and fire deals because Pittsburgh can provide those services at a much lower incremental cost than Wilkinsburg doing them for itself, and they are talking about doing police as well for the same reasons. Pittsburgh SD pays more per student than Wilkinsburg SD, but I don't think the incremental costs of adding Wilkinsburg students would have to meet the Pittsburgh average.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-05-2012, 01:43 PM
gg
 
Location: Pittsburgh
26,137 posts, read 25,872,238 times
Reputation: 17378
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
I actually think a PGH-Wilkinsburg merger could be win-win (and in fact individual deals along those lines have already been struck).
In that case, I agree. I can't think of another area that fits the bill as you stated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2012, 01:49 PM
 
Location: O'Hara Twp.
4,359 posts, read 7,506,011 times
Reputation: 1611
The obvious answer would be doing away with whatever Mt. Oliver is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2012, 01:51 PM
gg
 
Location: Pittsburgh
26,137 posts, read 25,872,238 times
Reputation: 17378
I haven't checked recently, but in 2009, the Pittsburgh median income was $35,732, and Sharpsburg was $31,953. Pittsburgh would lose from such a merger, with the average resident worth around $233 less in taxes annually than the per-capita average in Pittsburgh. So it's rather the reverse, with Pittsburgh not wanting to deal with Sharpsburg poverty.

Those incomes are too close to worry about. It is a total wash. Still I guarantee you Sharpsburg would fight it.

And Edgewood would have sky-high property taxes, as it would be inefficient to run their own school district with such a small population. You already see the issues with this in a place like Brentwood, which still has a standalone school district, and has a taxation rate essentially equal to Pittsburgh. Brentwood has around three times the population of Edgewood, so the problem would be even worse for the latter. Realistically speaking, Edgewood would have probably voted to merge into Pittsburgh's school district on its own in the last few decades, with the understanding they'd keep their elementary school, and feed into Alderdice

They already have sky high property taxes. At least their kids would walk to school and get a great education. Now what do they get. Bussed kids to a crap school. Do you know how much private school costs? I think they would gladly pay higher taxes for a real school district.



It's a horribly inefficient way to do government. I think I've seen Chris Briem estimate that once you consider all municipalities, school districts, and special taxing regions (fire, police, etc), there are over 1,000 local governments in Allegheny County. There's no way to argue this level of atomization is good in terms of delivery of services, as any local responsiveness is outweighed by the limited scope of responsibility, and the lack of coordination.

Just because something is cheaper doesn't make it better. My streets are paved, no potholes, winter snow removal is perfect and I put my garbage out next to my garage door, so I don't have to see everyone's garbage on garbage day. We have leaf removal, fall and winter clean up and lots of very nice parks to enjoy. I think I will keep what we have to enjoy and not water it down with the city problems thanks.

In addition, I don't think it can be ignored that the most successful and dynamic cities in the country have had either the legal ability to annex their suburbs, massive international immigration, or both. AFAIK Portland is the only major city which has broken this mold, and this is because there is a regional government which limits sprawl. Pittsburgh can't do much to attract many more immigrants in the shorter run, but we could develop a more efficient structure for local government.

What cities are doing better? Good luck finding one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2012, 01:56 PM
 
Location: O'Hara Twp.
4,359 posts, read 7,506,011 times
Reputation: 1611
Quote:
Originally Posted by h_curtis View Post
I haven't checked recently, but in 2009, the Pittsburgh median income was $35,732, and Sharpsburg was $31,953. Pittsburgh would lose from such a merger, with the average resident worth around $233 less in taxes annually than the per-capita average in Pittsburgh. So it's rather the reverse, with Pittsburgh not wanting to deal with Sharpsburg poverty.

Those incomes are too close to worry about. It is a total wash. Still I guarantee you Sharpsburg would fight it.

And Edgewood would have sky-high property taxes, as it would be inefficient to run their own school district with such a small population. You already see the issues with this in a place like Brentwood, which still has a standalone school district, and has a taxation rate essentially equal to Pittsburgh. Brentwood has around three times the population of Edgewood, so the problem would be even worse for the latter. Realistically speaking, Edgewood would have probably voted to merge into Pittsburgh's school district on its own in the last few decades, with the understanding they'd keep their elementary school, and feed into Alderdice

They already have sky high property taxes. At least their kids would walk to school and get a great education. Now what do they get. Bussed kids to a crap school. Do you know how much private school costs? I think they would gladly pay higher taxes for a real school district.



It's a horribly inefficient way to do government. I think I've seen Chris Briem estimate that once you consider all municipalities, school districts, and special taxing regions (fire, police, etc), there are over 1,000 local governments in Allegheny County. There's no way to argue this level of atomization is good in terms of delivery of services, as any local responsiveness is outweighed by the limited scope of responsibility, and the lack of coordination.

Just because something is cheaper doesn't make it better. My streets are paved, no potholes, winter snow removal is perfect and I put my garbage out next to my garage door, so I don't have to see everyone's garbage on garbage day. We have leaf removal, fall and winter clean up and lots of very nice parks to enjoy. I think I will keep what we have to enjoy and not water it down with the city problems thanks.

In addition, I don't think it can be ignored that the most successful and dynamic cities in the country have had either the legal ability to annex their suburbs, massive international immigration, or both. AFAIK Portland is the only major city which has broken this mold, and this is because there is a regional government which limits sprawl. Pittsburgh can't do much to attract many more immigrants in the shorter run, but we could develop a more efficient structure for local government.

What cities are doing better? Good luck finding one.

I thought Fox Chapel just got rid of leaf pick up because it wasn't green.

Also, I think some people in Woodland Hills would prefer the city schools because of the availablity of magnets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2012, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
14,362 posts, read 16,946,112 times
Reputation: 12400
Quote:
Originally Posted by h_curtis View Post
Just because something is cheaper doesn't make it better. My streets are paved, no potholes, winter snow removal is perfect and I put my garbage out next to my garage door, so I don't have to see everyone's garbage on garbage day. We have leaf removal, fall and winter clean up and lots of very nice parks to enjoy. I think I will keep what we have to enjoy and not water it down with the city problems thanks.
How would you feel if a wealthier part of Fox Chapel seceded from your area, taking its tax revenue with it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by h_curtis View Post
What cities are doing better? Good luck finding one.
Depends upon what you mean by better. In in terms of bang for the buck, and we're great. We're also an amazingly safe urban area. And our economic fortunes during the recession were dramatically different from most of the country. That doesn't mean we have absolutely nothing to learn from anyone else. I think we're as successful as a city which has been in decline for 60 years (with a possible revival now) can be, but I think cities like New York and Boston, which found a way to transition back to growth following the nadir of cities in the 1970s, are more successful. In different ways, I'd say we have lessens to learn from Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Austin - a number of different places. Hell, Salt Lake City has put light rail in now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2012, 02:13 PM
 
6,600 posts, read 8,946,790 times
Reputation: 4683
Why focus just on mergers involving the City of Pittsburgh? Would Turtle Creek and Wilkins Township benefit from a merger? What about all of the municipalities of "Wexford" and "Glenshaw" actually combining to form a single town of that name? McKees Rocks and Stowe Township? Reserve Township and Millvale? Aspinwall and Fox Chapel? Braddock and Rankin? Duquesne and McKeesport?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2012, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
14,362 posts, read 16,946,112 times
Reputation: 12400
Quote:
Originally Posted by robrobrob View Post
Also, I think some people in Woodland Hills would prefer the city schools because of the availablity of magnets.
Yeah. I have a friend who lives in Edgewood, and he's pretty sure if it came down to a vote there would be a 50/50 split on merging with the city.

The main reason he says it would still be in doubt is there's comparably few families with kids who live in Edgewood. Each year, the local paper/newsletter lists all high school graduates in the burough. There's usually around a dozen (most of whom actually go to public school).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2012, 02:25 PM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,113 posts, read 60,214,676 times
Reputation: 60714
Are you guys talking merging services like Police and Planning or a total merge to create a new Boro/Town/City?

Spangler and Barnesboro merged several years ago to become Northern Cambria and it still isn't working.

Most, if not all, small towns have a distinct personality that really doesn't mesh well with others (school districts in PA have that, too).

My Town down here abuts another one and every few years some newcomer brings up the idea of a merger. Neither Town wants it because the personalities of the towns are so different. They used to be similar but the other one has become upscale (at least they think so) while mine has remained true to its working class roots. We do share some services like sewer and a Sheriff's detachment based here, though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2012, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
14,362 posts, read 16,946,112 times
Reputation: 12400
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferrarisnowday View Post
Why focus just on mergers involving the City of Pittsburgh? Would Turtle Creek and Wilkins Township benefit from a merger? What about all of the municipalities of "Wexford" and "Glenshaw" actually combining to form a single town of that name? McKees Rocks and Stowe Township? Reserve Township and Millvale? Aspinwall and Fox Chapel? Braddock and Rankin? Duquesne and McKeesport?
This was actually my original point, which got lost along the way.

I've heard there's been proposals to merge Wall and Wilmerding into "Wallmerding."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:31 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top