What are the city's shortcomings? How can we improve? (Philadelphia: appointed, houses)

[pman]

Originally Posted by Hopes

Not according to Mitt Romney.

What does Romney know about being a person?
Pretty annoying that people claim that since the whole point of corporations is they're not people.

I think the income tax is the least off pps problems...its quality.

[dissident]

Maybe the city could benefit from getting rid of underused infrastructure. Why not turn off the street lights in places that have no houses, or get rid of underused bridges? I would be surprised if all 400+ bridges carried enough traffic to justify their existence. I've noticed from Google Maps that some streets have absolutely no reason to exist (though I can't name any right now, but they're mostly steep hillside streets). Why not block them off and let nature take over? I'm sure it would spawn lawsuits, but perhaps an ordinance could be passed that designates certain terrain types as unsustainable, and the buildings/infrastructure types that exist on them as outside of the city's upkeep responsibility. If you bought the only house on some street just below an active landslide zone, then the city shouldn't be on the hook for it. Once a property on such a street changes hands, whether through sale or inheritance, it falls off the tax rolls and it becomes the new owner's responsibility to maintain the street that leads to it. Tax dollars could then be diverted to places where people actually live, (and places where RE values are actually rising) such as Lawrenceville, Bloomfield, Friendship etc etc,


The city was built for 700,000, but only 305,000 live here now. Something's got to give.

[BrianTH]

The City has fewer residents, but there are just as many jobs located in the City as ever. What that means is that while the transportation infrastructure needs of the City may have shifted somewhat, they really haven't gone down.

[eccotecc]

As has been mentioned in previous posts, the rivers are being under utilized as a means of moving people in and out of the city core. Pittsburgh is blessed with a natural resource that isn't being used. Remember, before the interstate and railroads, the rivers were the main highways for transporting people and goods. Pittsburgh has a history of using the rivers for these purposes so why not use them for the current needs of the city?

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The City has fewer residents, but there are just as many jobs located in the City as ever. What that means is that while the transportation infrastructure needs of the City may have shifted somewhat, they really haven't gone down.

Somehow I doubt the streets he's referring to play a critical role in today's city or region so you probably shouldn't write off his suggestion so quickly

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

Somehow I doubt the streets he's referring to play a critical role in today's city or region so you probably shouldn't write off his suggestion so quickly

I don't think that is what I was doing.

To the extent I was implying any particular policy, I think it would be something along the lines of making sure that our transition to a different infrastructure set in light of shifting needs did not just take the form of disinvestment where needs are less, but also increased investment where needs are more.

I'd further suggest we keep an eye on the future--we are likely entering a period of core area population growth, and given the long lead time to put in place new infrastructure, we should be cautious about abandoning infrastructure that could be maintained at a reasonable cost in anticipation of future use. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do any of that, but when making such determinations we should be looking ahead, not just at current conditions.

[eccotecc]

Brian,

You're a true wordsmith. I couldn't have said it any better myself.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I don't think that is what I was doing.

To the extent I was implying any particular policy, I think it would be something along the lines of making sure that our transition to a different infrastructure set in light of shifting needs did not just take the form of disinvestment where needs are less, but also increased investment where needs are more.

I'd further suggest we keep an eye on the future--we are likely entering a period of core area population growth, and given the long lead time to put in place new infrastructure, we should be cautious about abandoning infrastructure that could be maintained at a reasonable cost in anticipation of future use. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do any of that, but when making such determinations we should be looking ahead, not just at current conditions.

So...youre open to his ideas provided theyre well considered.

[szug-bot]

1) infrastructure - roads and stormwater sewers, in particular

2) a much improved school district - by that, i mean uniforms, a culture of discipline and high standards, and also stop letting the teachers union and parents of the worst students bully everyone. put emphasis on math and science, instead of feel-goodism and the social sciences. this would actually attract some middle class residents

(#2 is a fantasy, basically)

3) more police presence

4) improvements to entire neighborhood blocks, tied with incentives to rehab homes in neighborhoods not seeing influx - troy hill, homewood, the north siders, allentown, etc.

someone mentioned 'compromise' as some sort of prerequisite for assimilating to pittsburgh. that is ANY city. living in NYC is not quite the same as living in Reading, PA. DC has a lot of fans, but you think taxes HERE are high? try owning and keeping a car in Washington.....etc.

i have considered what someone suggested - about cutting off, basically, the little used streets. a few years ago, we did just that with Corfu Street in Elliot. the slope failed, and the several (three, i think?) homes were demolished and the area was graded. you can see it from the Point - above the south side of the Mon, a small plateau.

anyway, we have a lot of dead ender-type streets with a few houses, usually delapidated. the question is whether their paving is that much of a drain. i doubt that matters, but it might be worth a look.

[pman]

the best advice I've read szug is that no place is perfect, it's what you can live with.
the city has been very slow to address the sewer problem though I suspect, like lancaster, they'll be forced to follow Philly's lead and manage what goes in rather than what comes out (which costs far more)