Controller Lamb's criticism of process for City's sales of vacant land and buildings (Pittsburgh: apartment, rental)

[28CarsLater]

Originally Posted by eschaton

So, I went back and read through the original article in detail. Lamb is in particular noting as damaging that the URA basically has veto power over any sale between the City and an individual. They use this power heavily in economically distressed, historically black neighborhoods, blocking almost all land sales. They usually give no reason for doing so.

There may be more than one URA, but according to this its a city agency:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_..._of_Pittsburgh

One would think being City Controller, Mr. Lamb would be able to get a handle on this or go to the mayor if necessary.

[gg]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Neighborhoods can and do turn around though. I mean most people in 2000 would think about Lawrenceville, Polish Hill, and Bloomfield and think "who would want to live in all this crap housing?" That "crap housing" is now going for $300,000+ in many cases and $500,000+ in some cases. People are paying those prices to live in Pine Township or Cranberry Township, too. Are those all "crap houses" up there?

Keep in mind, real estate in general around all cities is getting more expensive. $300k is nothing these days. Homes in any better area are $400k and higher here. Super cheap is over. Even in bad parts of Pittsburgh it isn’t pennies in hopes of gentrification. Sadly Pittsburgh doesn’t embrace free market and true progression. The Libs like a dead market and drag thief feet. Wish they would think about Pittsburgh’s future instead of catering to the poor non working and noncontributing. We need to be competitive with other cities. Move the poorer out a bit so progress can take place. Just think, less crime and clean streets. That would be great.

[28CarsLater]

Originally Posted by gg

Move the poorer out a bit so progress can take place.

Out to where?

Originally Posted by gg

Keep in mind, real estate in general around all cities is getting more expensive.

Is it, or is it simply a function of a declining currency?

[gg]

Originally Posted by 28CarsLater

Out to where?



Is it, or is it simply a function of a declining currency?

Ambridge could use some huge section 8. Then it could rebuild by grass roots by the people.

Real estate is booming in this great economy. It’s great.

[pittsburghaccuweather]

Originally Posted by 28CarsLater

As you so eloquently pointed out in another thread, those neighborhoods benefit from easy walking distances for owners for shopping, restaurants, bars, probably work in some cases while Cranberry/Seven Fields are not designed as such. Excluding the walking layout, IMO pound for pound Cranberry spanks those legacy neighborhoods in nearly every metric likely including taxes per sq-ft. I realize not all careers have remote work ability, but in my chosen career I could work from any location with wifi and power. I think as time goes on remote work will become more commonplace and this could lead to a shift in real estate trends.

This is happening now. My company closed its office in Pittsburgh and opened a new one in Grand Rapids, MI. Most workers are allowed to be remote. I don’t see jobs of the future in high rise buildings in downtowns like Pittsburgh. I actually see large urban downtowns on the decline for office jobs.

The places that have good housing, maintained housing and new housing will benefit. People don’t want these old homes in Pittsburgh that are vacant or need 200K in updates. Especially if they are not in a historic district like the Mexican war streets.

I think more work remote options will help the exurbs and small towns with their own Main Street. I see it now. Go to any growing city and you will find small satellite suburbs with their own business districts and places like cranberry. Most folks in these areas stay put because their is enough going on in their own burg rather than drive into the city. Pittsburgh needs to get with the program and neuter the URA and other agencies that are roadblocks to development. Especially new housing.

I say that, but I’m not sure the culture can handle it. Maybe it is better off staying a declining city with lots of neighborhoods that have crappy housing. When change really comes people here don’t really want it. That goes for old angry yinzers as well as progressives that think and feel with decision making rather than using logic, reasoning and being realistic.

Originally Posted by 28CarsLater

There may be more than one URA, but according to this its a city agency:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_..._of_Pittsburgh

One would think being City Controller, Mr. Lamb would be able to get a handle on this or go to the mayor if necessary.

The URA is a good old cog in the wheel. They will sell you land and promote development, but they don’t really want to.

[bradjl2009]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

A Squirrel Hill man has owned the vacant rowhouse next to me since 2007. Over the past 12 years he shows up about once a week, on average, to "tinker" with the building, which continues to sit and decay. This rowhouse has historic interest and would create a garish "gap tooth" in the urban fabric of the neighborhood if it had to be torn down, which I can already foresee happening someday.

There are a TON of properties like this all over the city where people are just sort of "sitting on" blighted/vacant-yet-salvageable older homes in prime locations waiting for the right time to "cash in". What if by the time they foresee that time arriving those buildings can no longer be saved? I don't want to live in a neighborhood of "historic rowhouse, ugly modern box, historic rowhouse, ugly modern box, empty lot, historic rowhouse, historic rowhouse, empty lot, ugly modern box, historic rowhouse, empty lot...)

This city needs to do better at "nudging" these speculative property owners to shape up or ship out. What benefit to the neighborhood do we receive from a home being vacant and neglected for 12 years?

Yep, there's a row house in Lawrenceville near my parents this guy just mows the lawn a few times a year and that's it while the house continues to slowly decay away. I find it to be a sin it's sitting empty at a time of all time high real estate prices in the area.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

A Squirrel Hill man has owned the vacant rowhouse next to me since 2007. Over the past 12 years he shows up about once a week, on average, to "tinker" with the building, which continues to sit and decay. This rowhouse has historic interest and would create a garish "gap tooth" in the urban fabric of the neighborhood if it had to be torn down, which I can already foresee happening someday.

There are a TON of properties like this all over the city where people are just sort of "sitting on" blighted/vacant-yet-salvageable older homes in prime locations waiting for the right time to "cash in". What if by the time they foresee that time arriving those buildings can no longer be saved? I don't want to live in a neighborhood of "historic rowhouse, ugly modern box, historic rowhouse, ugly modern box, empty lot, historic rowhouse, historic rowhouse, empty lot, ugly modern box, historic rowhouse, empty lot...)

This city needs to do better at "nudging" these speculative property owners to shape up or ship out. What benefit to the neighborhood do we receive from a home being vacant and neglected for 12 years?

Perhaps it’s a hobby of his and enjoys tinkering with it.

There’s always the option to move to an area that doesn’t have these homes you’re describing.

As long as he pays his real estate tax and no rules are being broken, there’s zero reason to nudge anyone to sell a property they own.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by bradjl2009

Yep, there's a row house in Lawrenceville near my parents this guy just mows the lawn a few times a year and that's it while the house continues to slowly decay away. I find it to be a sin it's sitting empty at a time of all time high real estate prices in the area.

Perhaps it has some sentimental value to him or maybe he wants more than what it’s worth right now.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by erieguy

Perhaps it’s a hobby of his and enjoys tinkering with it.

There’s always the option to move to an area that doesn’t have these homes you’re describing.

As long as he pays his real estate tax and no rules are being broken, there’s zero reason to nudge anyone to sell a property they own.

Right. So much better to just let the house sit and decay to the point where it will have to be torn down after he dies, causing a blighted empty lot or "modern box house" to appear in its place.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Right. So much better to just let the house sit and decay to the point where it will have to be torn down after he dies, causing a blighted empty lot or "modern box house" to appear in its place.

So you think local government should be able to tell someone what to do with their own property?

Why not buy a house that’s for sale and save it instead of renting?