Anyone in Pittsburgh familiar with Boston? (York, Duquesne: 2009, to rent, condos)

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by SewickleyPA

Huh? Downtown was never a vibrant area, it only recently has been making strides in that area.

.

Not sure how old you are, but it used to jump. Froggies', Happy Landing, just to name a few. I can't remember how many times I'd hang out at Tambellini's on Wood street after a few hours at the YMCA. It was always crowded. There were a ton of people that worked downtown, not so much now. I'd love to know the stats.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn

You are obviously under 40. There used to be three major department stores in downtown and many smaller stores. These used to be open at night and shopping downtown during the holidays was far more fun than going out to the Monroeville Mall which was sterile.

Originally Posted by Copanut

Not sure how old you are, but it used to jump. Froggies', Happy Landing, just to name a few. I can't remember how many times I'd hang out at Tambellini's on Wood street after a few hours at the YMCA. It was always crowded. There were a ton of people that worked downtown, not so much now. I'd love to know the stats.

I'll vouch for Downtown in the 70s and 80s. It was hopping compared to today.

I enjoyed the three department stores and all the little shops! I still miss Gimbles!

Remember Heaven was in the Renaissance Hotel building before it was renovated for a hotel?

Downtown was a great place for bar hopping on foot.

Originally Posted by Copanut

Not sure how old you are

I think Sewickley might be a transplant.

Originally Posted by Copanut

I go up to Boston about every two years to visit a friend in Beverly. He sold his Maronda style piece of crap house last year for 650K. You'd be lucky to get 275 for it in Cranberry.

He probably paid 600 for that piece of crap house. With the housing slump, he might have paid 700 or just broken even!

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by Hopes

He probably paid 600 for that piece of crap house. With the housing slump, he might have paid 700 or just broken even!

No, around 300K, and the mortgage was paid off. Said it was the biggest check he'd ever gotten in his life.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn

Sorry, but I disagree. Property taxes obviously weigh heavily on a consumer's decision to purchase a house, otherwise, they would be included in sale information. If I know that over the lifetime of my house, I have to budget a certain extra amount than I would living somewhere else, that goes into my calculation as to whether I can afford the house in the same way as does the interest rate on the mortgage.

I don't disagree that property taxes are one of the costs of owning a home. My point is that what ultimately matters is the amount you pay in property taxes for a comparable home, not the rate you are paying. Again, if you are paying higher property taxes but your rate is lower, all that is telling you is that in addition to a comparable home costing more in property taxes, it also costs more in other ways. I don't see how knowing your home is also costing you more in other ways offsets the fact that you are paying more in property taxes.

In addition, once Allegheny County is finally forced by a judge to implement a reassessment, I think a lot of people are gonna find out just how important is the tax rate. Due to all of the new construction since 2002, I would venture to say that most people, especially younger homeowners, are likely paying far less in taxes than they will be.

Following a reassessment property taxes paid for a comparable home are still going to be way lower in Allegheny County than in Suffolk County. And in fact it is important to note that PA's windfall law mandates that the effect of a reassessment will not be to increase the overall taxes paid, although there may be some redistribution of that tax burden between homeowners.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Copanut

I think Mr. Leaphorn is anything but a hater of Pittsburgh. He's merely comparing the two cities having lived in both.

The thing is that he consistently only compares Pittsburgh to larger and denser cities, and only focuses on the attributes that favors the larger and denser cities in such comparisons. He similarly likes to compare Pittsburgh to a prior era in which it was also a larger city, and then focus only on the negative aspects of the changes that have occurred.

I don't know if that makes him a "hater", but it certainly makes him someone who focuses almost exclusively on what he doesn't like about Pittsburgh today in comparison to other very different times or very different places. I don't see much point in doing that, but that is what he likes to do.

[greg42]

I'm not sure what having lived in other cities 25-30+ years ago (has to be at least that long for the vibrant downtown), cities that even then were larger and since then have not gone through such a one-industry exodus, really tells us about the status of living in Pittsburgh today. It's not surprising at all to me that reasons for staying here after 20-odd years are different than the reasons for moving here. Hell, when I moved here 18 years ago, I thought I'd be here maybe 2 years. Still here. Reasons for staying are different. My outlook is flipped, though. When I moved here in 1991, the appeal of Pittsburgh was not that great. Now it's significantly more appealing.

Anyone griping about the state of Pittsburgh now, after having lived here a long time, must have at it for a couple decades. ;-) I, too, gripe about various shortcomings that are in my mind, from time to time, but I don't find the shortcomings to be universally agreed upon. Obviously we've done some kind of calculation and found the benefits outweigh the drawbacks or we would leave. Doesn't make it perfect, but I prefer to make the best of it, most of the time.

[JoeLeaphorn]

Advice to you who think you know what other people are about: Don't quit your day jobs to be on "What's My Line".

I live in Pittsburgh but, because of work, I travel; between 30,000 and 50,000 miles per year. And that means many days/weeks spent in other cities; not 30 years ago, last week.

I don't think that it is unreasonable to look at what we could do better and what we have done wrong in addition to what we are doing right. Things may be better than they were in the 80s but they were better, still, before that.

There is a sense of complacency, here, that is both unjustified and dangerous. Believing that gambling is a solution to our tax problems is akin to eating the seed corn. One-time fixes such as leasing parking lots or selling the water authority do nothing for our long term financial prospects. Relying on non-profits as a key economic generator ignores the fact that they don't pay many of the taxes that the rest of us do. They may be responsible for employment but they are also shifting the tax burden to the rest of us including the many small businesses who are the true economic engines.

Being complacent means that we take comfort in electing mediocre politicians who lack the capacity to actually lead. There was a time when our local politicians sat across the table from the leaders of industry as co-equals. Now they spend their time chasing Sarah Jessica Parker for a photo op or bantering with Sienna Miller (like who cares) or gawking at Tiger Woods.

It could be better and might be better, but it likely won't be better.

[greg42]

Heh, seriously, 30-50k is not that much travel (or else you mean driving, either way, suggests fewer cities), and even staying weeks for business is not living there. I've spent many weeks in the South Shore suburbs of Boston over the last several years. I don't pretend to know what it's like to live there on an ongoing basis. I've spent many weeks in Columbus, Ohio and Washington, DC over the past decade and a half, and a few in St Louis and Salt Lake City. I know a bit about what it's like to work there; that doesn't equal knowing much about what it's like to live there. There are huge blocks of info important when you're living in a place that are totally unimportant when staying there on business. We only get part of the story that way. Period. No matter how much temporary time we spend in the place.

The reality is that the stuff you complain about isn't that huge a deal to you or you would move. You have the means, it sounds like, but not the desire, ultimately, after weighing everything. Nothing wrong with that.

Which, by the way, isn't to say that I disagree with all of your assessment. But I think some of it is clouded by the idealized views we get of those other places when staying there only temporarily and looking at what happens there from the outside. The grass is always greener, etc. Is there missed potential here? Absolutely. Is it agonizingly terrible here? No.

Also if you think this place wasn't complacent back in its heyday, I am at a loss to see how that could possibly be the case. Better then, when it relied solely on one industry? How much more complacent can you get?

[JoeLeaphorn]

Originally Posted by greg42

Heh, seriously, 30-50k is not that much travel

Um, compared to what? But you are right. I have also, twice, been awarded a million mile traveler status, back when flying was more convenient. Of course, that isn't much, either.

I disagree, though, about staying in other cities. I maintained an apartment in Boston for over a year and spent practically every other week, there (after moving here). I spent four years in Chicago and return, frequently, sometimes for long periods, and not much has changed. I agree that visiting a city does not give you the perspective that a resident has had, but you don't really know my background so, in my specific case, you can comment but you're not likely to be correct.

The reality is that the stuff you complain about isn't that huge a deal to you or you would move. You have the means, it sounds like, but not the desire, ultimately, after weighing everything. Nothing wrong with that.

No, the reality is, as I said, I have some investments in the area which would be difficult to transplant to another area. I haven't, yet, found the price point at which I'd be willing to give these up, especially since I don't have to live where I work (thanks to the Internet). The stuff that I complain about is a huge deal to me, but not a deal breaker, yet.

Which, by the way, isn't to say that I disagree with all of your assessment. But I think some of it is clouded by the idealized views we get of those other places when staying there only temporarily and looking at what happens there from the outside. The grass is always greener, etc. Is there missed potential here? Absolutely. Is it agonizingly terrible here? No.

I didn't say that it was. But my business pays $25,000/year for family health insurance which is far and away higher than it would pay in many other states. There are many other, business unfriendly, "features" of the region which could (and should) be improved. You are correct that I have not decided, yet, that these are unbearable, but to tell you the truth, we're getting close.

Also if you think this place wasn't complacent back in its heyday, I am at a loss to see how that could possibly be the case. Better then, when it relied solely on one industry? How much more complacent can you get?

It didn't rely on one industry, contrary to popular belief. Steel was a large economic generator, but there was transportation and manufacturing as well. The North Shore and the Point used to be large rail yards. Integrated steel production is alive and well in Toronto and mini-mills are doing pretty well in the South. There were a combination of factors which lead to the decline of steel production in the rust belt with labor being only one of them. Lack of modernization, pollution control, cheap oil, all contributed.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn

I don't think that it is unreasonable to look at what we could do better and what we have done wrong in addition to what we are doing right.

Absolutely. But comparing Pittsburgh unfavorably to cities that are much larger and denser isn't a particularly good starting point for such a discussion.

Things may be better than they were in the 80s but they were better, still, before that.

That is a matter of opinion. We are a relatively smaller city now, but that has both downsides and upsides for local residents. The economy has shifted in mix, which again can be good or bad depending on what part of the economy matters to you. We have become a lot greener. And so on.

There is a sense of complacency, here, that is both unjustified and dangerous.

You don't need to focus exclusively on the negative in order to avoid complacency, and indeed identifying the positive can be crucial to motivating more development along the same lines. Similarly, focusing on how we are not like much larger and denser cities is likely to breed a certain sort of complacency of its own (in a more pessimistic form), since those cities can't serve as a model for Pittsburgh.

One-time fixes such as leasing parking lots or selling the water authority do nothing for our long term financial prospects.

But we happen to have a one-time financial problem, which is dealing with the overhang of the pensions from a prior era, and such a problem can in fact be addressed in part with one-time solutions.

Relying on non-profits as a key economic generator ignores the fact that they don't pay many of the taxes that the rest of us do. They may be responsible for employment but they are also shifting the tax burden to the rest of us including the many small businesses who are the true economic engines.

We don't just rely on non-profits.

It could be better and might be better, but it likely won't be better.

As I noted, dwelling purely on the negative does in fact lead to a more pessimistic form of complacency.