what happens when you're last name isn't Piatt? (Pittsburgh, Green Tree: leases, neighborhoods)

[greg42]

Originally Posted by Joe Magarac

Do you know this for a fact? Or are you just telling us how you think it is?

I personally am telling you what I think the OP meant, and I appeared to be correct on that account.

Originally Posted by Joe Magarac

If someone has PROOF, as opposed to speculation, that the city really does look the other way when it comes to giving the Piatts and other large developers permits, I'd gladly change my tune. But this thread seems to consist of a mild conspiracy theory in which the OP and others are just assuming, without evidence, that the big guys get an easier time of things.

I think you exaggerated the claim a bit. I don't believe anyone was suggesting that a large developer manages to get permits issued when they actually aren't meeting code. But I can damn well believe that they are able to pull the right strings to make sure they are always top priority with the inspectors, meaning others get pushed aside until they get around to it.

In other words, one might argue that the city should provide the same level of service regardless of who is applying for the permit, or even that they should help along smaller developers who are doing this for the first time and investing their hard-earned money in the redevelopment of the city. Wouldn't that make sense? It does to me anyway.

[pman]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

It's not that you "need" a compliance officer. It's just that it makes things more streamlined if you have one on standby. It's called being pro-active instead of reactive. This is why companies hire people known as "certified ethical hackers" to breach their security firewalls and let them know where their weaknesses are PRIOR to actually being targeted by a REAL hacker. It's why companies hire CPAs and pay them an $80,000 salary to guide them on how to best AVOID (not evade, which is illegal) taxes throughout the year in order to save multiple times that salary in the long-run. It's called spending a little bit upfront to save a lot of hassle in the end.

Philadelphia employed the use of expediters because the permit process was too slow, in fact, it was one of these expediters that approved the demolition plans for the building that collapsed killing 6 people. I don't think you understand the issue properly IMO. you shouldn't need compliance officers to handle your fire alarm permit. the fact that you accept this is troublesome. the point of the permit is to ensure safety. this is something that can be done intelligently...meaning in a way that is simple, easy to understand, and doesn't involve extensive delays. sure, Archer Daniels Midland has teams of corporate tax lawyers mining legal information to take advantage of various grant programs, farmer jim does not. that doesn't make it right or desirable as you imply. while streamlining permitting won't make the pittsburgh job market into houston, it can certainly help.

Originally Posted by greg42

...
In other words, one might argue that the city should provide the same level of service regardless of who is applying for the permit, or even that they should help along smaller developers who are doing this for the first time and investing their hard-earned money in the redevelopment of the city. Wouldn't that make sense? It does to me anyway.

yep. and it's not just developers, these things affect all manner of business owners. more resources should be devoted to helping these people along and fewer to getting sweetheart deals for the continental holdings of the world

[greg42]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

It's not that you "need" a compliance officer. It's just that it makes things more streamlined if you have one on standby. It's called being pro-active instead of reactive. This is why companies hire people known as "certified ethical hackers" to breach their security firewalls and let them know where their weaknesses are PRIOR to actually being targeted by a REAL hacker. It's why companies hire CPAs and pay them an $80,000 salary to guide them on how to best AVOID (not evade, which is illegal) taxes throughout the year in order to save multiple times that salary in the long-run. It's called spending a little bit upfront to save a lot of hassle in the end.

I don't think any of that is in question. The question is, possibly, why should the end result be that you have a harder time of things if you are an individual trying to make something that's going to benefit the city vs a company with the resources to hire a compliance officer? Not that things should be harder on the big company, but effort should be made to help the smaller individual who wants to renovate and build something. Perhaps some effort is made at times, I'm not saying it never is. But I could see how it seems like the little guy is getting the shaft.

[robrobrob]

I think if your read through their website it becomes apparent that, at least with regards to their fire alarm, that they didn't quite know what was needed. I took this from a statement that they needed multiple revision to their drawings.

[pman]

Originally Posted by robrobrob

I think if your read through their website it becomes apparent that, at least with regards to their fire alarm, that they didn't quite know what was needed. I took this from a statement that they needed multiple revision to their drawings.

it isn't quite clear whether they didn't know, the city didn't know/communicate, etc. the question is, why? one thing a city can do to be business friendly is to make sure the requirements are straightfoward. afterall, the inn owners aren't doing the work, they are hiring an engineering firm to do it. as long as the requirements are straightfoward, why should there be the need for revisions? being straight forward frmo the start can help avoid these problems which can be a killer as loans need to be renegotiated (among other things). anyway, just meant to stir discussion on this sort of thing.

And all of this work has been complete since mid-April while we have been in a holding pattern. The city has taken this long to approve our final fire alarm permit. We have been required to get formal engineering drawings for it, and these have so far required several sets of revisions. We still are waiting. The last set of revisions was because they also wanted battery capacitance drawings included, demonstrating how the system would function, and how long it would function, in the event that there was both a fire and a power outage at the same time

[pman]

Pittsburgh International Airport hotel sale hinging on taxes - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
why was dauphin county building hotels in western pa? the nnthey didn't make any payments, and not surprisingly, they spent too much building the thing

[zman63]

City of Cleveland :: Permit Requirements

Fire Alarm Permit

I put both Pittsburgh and Cleveland's fire alarm permit website up. It seems to obtain a permit in Cleveland the fire protection contractor must be certified by the State of Ohio Fire Marshal's office to install the system. Does Pittsburgh or PA have have this requirement? It seems as though as long as you have a pittsburgh electrical license you can pull a fire alarm permit in the city. There is no certification to be registered in pa as a fire protection contractor?

[zman63]

Originally Posted by pman

you don't pass go and you don't get to collect millions in state subsidies
The Allegheny Inn

Here is what happens when your last name is piatt. The lack of private investment is troubling. Corporate welfare at its finest. Welcome to the booming pittsburgh economy ..

Public money boosts plans to build Gardens at Market Square | TribLIVE Mobile

[pman]

Originally Posted by zman63

Here is what happens when your last name is piatt. The lack of private investment is troubling. Corporate welfare at its finest. Welcome to the booming pittsburgh economy ..

Public money boosts plans to build Gardens at Market Square | TribLIVE Mobile

theres plenty of private investment. whats troubling is the amount of public investment in this project despite clear evidence of a functional, non subsidized market downtown. they paid below market proce for land , gave up 8.1million on local tax revenue, and millions in statw grants. i dont share your excessive doom and gloom but deals like this bug me. worae they rarely yield good design

[zman63]

Originally Posted by pman

theres plenty of private investment. whats troubling is the amount of public investment in this project despite clear evidence of a functional, non subsidized market downtown. they paid below market proce for land , gave up 8.1million on local tax revenue, and millions in statw grants. i dont share your excessive doom and gloom but deals like this bug me. worae they rarely yield good design

Yep its the good old boys network that still exists. The Allegheny Inn will have its feet held to the fire while this project will probably get any item it challenges at the city board of appeals. It just does not appear to be an even playing field. No wonder why we got a D+ as a grade for being a business friendly city.