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.
Affordable housing is a problem, but why are all the articles about white college educated people who just don't want to work or move? Wasn't there another one recently from Polish Hill? Using examples that don't actually represent the problem just makes the whole issue easier for people to dismiss.
I wasn't one of the tenants featured in the City Paper article, but I know others who have been displaced from my neighborhood due to gentrification. I'm not moving out of Polish Hill to make way for an UBER or Apple employee to be able to walk to work until someone can tell me why people in East Liberty shouldn't be expected to move out to make way for a Google employee to be able to walk to work. Nobody on this sub-forum has been able to tell me why I should be expected to move out of my trendy neighborhood, but they shouldn't be expected to move out of their trendy neighborhood.
Otherwise if we can all come to an understanding that NOBODY has a "right" to stay in a trendy neighborhood if they can no longer afford it, then I will gladly move to Beltzhoover and have a slightly longer walk to my office while working to bring more amenities within walking distance of my new cheaper apartment. In the interim I'm not shutting my yap until someone can explain to me why our mayor stopped the Whole Foods project but won't stop projects in other trendy neighborhoods.
I wasn't one of the tenants featured in the City Paper article, but I know others who have been displaced from my neighborhood due to gentrification. I'm not moving out of Polish Hill to make way for an UBER or Apple employee to be able to walk to work until someone can tell me why people in East Liberty shouldn't be expected to move out to make way for a Google employee to be able to walk to work. Nobody on this sub-forum has been able to tell me why I should be expected to move out of my trendy neighborhood, but they shouldn't be expected to move out of their trendy neighborhood.
Otherwise if we can all come to an understanding that NOBODY has a "right" to stay in a trendy neighborhood if they can no longer afford it, then I will gladly move to Beltzhoover and have a slightly longer walk to my office while working to bring more amenities within walking distance of my new cheaper apartment. In the interim I'm not shutting my yap until someone can explain to me why our mayor stopped the Whole Foods project but won't stop projects in other trendy neighborhoods.
Nobody has told you why because nobody cares if you move or not. If you can afford to stay you can certainly stay as long as your landlord permits it.
SCR, if you reread the thread you'll see there's a bunch of people ridiculing the idea that anybody's got a birthright to live in Penn Plaza, especially if they can't trouble themselves to work a full time job. On the Polish Hill thread, gladhands expressed concern and support. People aren't being inconsistent wrt race. You are not being persecuted. MountainDewGuy has been consistently adamant that nobody has a birthright to a rented apartment.
And basically the poor whites in this situation need to figure out if this yuppie invasion bothers them more than some blacks (and whites, in Penn Plaza) keeping their homes. If so, you need to organize and build a coalition. If not, keep protesting on the internet; it hasn't worked so far, but it might later. I'm starting to feel like erieguy.
Article includes the new Penn Mathilda apartments in Bloomfield. I am familiar with this building through my daughters art group's use of the retail level flex space on Penn Ave.
As I read more and more about how these projects are funded...basically by gov awarding winners and by the same token, selecting losers and countless hours of administration involved in sale of awarded tax credits through more administrators/middlemen (NEF, for example) to banks, financial institutions interested in equity and guess what, further tax credits, etc...I can't think but how screwed up this "system" really is and how there must be a better way. Seems like so much waste in a process like this and the benefactors are the groups lucky enough to be represented by organizations and developers who know how to work the system. (in this case, the benefactors are veterans and ACTION works the system). Seems as ridiculous and disorganized as healthcare in this country.
Otherwise if we can all come to an understanding that NOBODY has a "right" to stay in a trendy neighborhood if they can no longer afford it, then I will gladly move to Beltzhoover and have a slightly longer walk to my office while working to bring more amenities within walking distance of my new cheaper apartment. In the interim I'm not shutting my yap until someone can explain to me why our mayor stopped the Whole Foods project but won't stop projects in other trendy neighborhoods.
Because they needed zoning and planning approval to develop this site. Also, they want to take away part of the city owned park land.
It is much more complicated than turning a dilapidated 3 unit apartment building into something more expensive. It is acres of land that is changing use and zoning - which by law requires zoning and planning approval. Has nothing to do with it being a trendy neighborhood. Sit in on a planning commission meeting or a zoning board meeting sometime and you'll understand. I've been at a number of these. Won a few. Lost one. Opposed others and won. Attended just for informational sake and learned a bit.
I wasn't one of the tenants featured in the City Paper article, but I know others who have been displaced from my neighborhood due to gentrification. I'm not moving out of Polish Hill to make way for an UBER or Apple employee to be able to walk to work until someone can tell me why people in East Liberty shouldn't be expected to move out to make way for a Google employee to be able to walk to work. Nobody on this sub-forum has been able to tell me why I should be expected to move out of my trendy neighborhood, but they shouldn't be expected to move out of their trendy neighborhood.
Otherwise if we can all come to an understanding that NOBODY has a "right" to stay in a trendy neighborhood if they can no longer afford it, then I will gladly move to Beltzhoover and have a slightly longer walk to my office while working to bring more amenities within walking distance of my new cheaper apartment. In the interim I'm not shutting my yap until someone can explain to me why our mayor stopped the Whole Foods project but won't stop projects in other trendy neighborhoods.
I am guessing most agree that people don't have a right to live in a trendy neighborhood so you are free to move whenever. but as most on here realize by now you would rather complain about it than get out ahead of the problem. i'm not denying that it won't be easy but this is the world we live in.
I wasn't one of the tenants featured in the City Paper article, but I know others who have been displaced from my neighborhood due to gentrification. I'm not moving out of Polish Hill to make way for an UBER or Apple employee to be able to walk to work until someone can tell me why people in East Liberty shouldn't be expected to move out to make way for a Google employee to be able to walk to work. Nobody on this sub-forum has been able to tell me why I should be expected to move out of my trendy neighborhood, but they shouldn't be expected to move out of their trendy neighborhood.
Otherwise if we can all come to an understanding that NOBODY has a "right" to stay in a trendy neighborhood if they can no longer afford it, then I will gladly move to Beltzhoover and have a slightly longer walk to my office while working to bring more amenities within walking distance of my new cheaper apartment. In the interim I'm not shutting my yap until someone can explain to me why our mayor stopped the Whole Foods project but won't stop projects in other trendy neighborhoods.
The emphasis of my post was the college-educated but unwilling to work bit, which makes for a ridiculous "victim". The gist (that missed the mark) of the articles I mentioned wasn't that hard-working people were being displaced (and, I think pretty much everyone at least feels bad when this happens, regardless of whether or not they think it is just or unjust), it was that people that didn't even work were being displaced.
But yes, I agree with you. Nobody has a right to stay in a trendy neighborhood. Generally speaking, if someone can't afford rent in a developing neighborhood, they should move. It pays to be a homeowner.
And, why on earth would you complain about projects in trendy neighborhoods? Don't you think rent is too high for the Pittsburgh cost of living? More development projects = more units, which should equal lower rent.
Needing safe affordable housing is not playing the victim. These "victims" voices are not heard. Instead we hear from activist that support the voiceless among us. A family dependent on the PPS Promise scholarship program will be greatly impacted if they cannot find housing within the city. That is 40k in scholarship money per child. Not to mention the lack of public transportation to get to and from job centers. The housing is not there.
Again, there are plenty of affordable homes in the city near public transportation. Why should average taxpayers in the city be asked to foot the bill for more"affordable housing" locations?
We would probably be better off just giving people the down payment on an inexpensive and affordable home with that cost rolled into the mortgage and returned back to the city.
Again, there are plenty of affordable homes in the city near public transportation. Why should average taxpayers in the city be asked to foot the bill for more"affordable housing" locations?
We would probably be better off just giving people the down payment on an inexpensive and affordable home with that cost rolled into the mortgage and returned back to the city.
Please show me where there is a sizable number of rentable 3 bedroom family homes near public transportation. If there were homes available they would have been rented by those in need. There are a lot of vacant homes and these homes along with others would not pass inspection.
Again, there are plenty of affordable homes in the city near public transportation. Why should average taxpayers in the city be asked to foot the bill for more"affordable housing" locations?
We would probably be better off just giving people the down payment on an inexpensive and affordable home with that cost rolled into the mortgage and returned back to the city.
I think one of the arguments for the "average taxpayer" footing the bill is that the city is handing out "average taxpayer" money to all of the developments geared toward the high end of the rent spectrum. Almost all of the major developments in the East End have been built with some sort of local tax relief or direct assistance funded by taxpayers. While I wholeheartedly agree that "affordable housing" should not be paid for by increasing the real estate transfer tax, which is clearly a burden on working and middle class homeowners and purchasers, it does make some sense to require taxpayer funds be allocated effectively where they are most needed.
Here is an example of what I am talking about (courtesy of your local "conservative" news outlet):
Quote:
Residents at the Bakery Living complexes enjoy amenities that include a pool, gym, lounge, free coffee and bike paths. They're less than a mile from Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, Target and dozens of other shops, restaurants and bars in Pittsburgh's Shadyside and East Liberty neighborhoods.
Monthly rents range from $1,300 for a 500-square-foot studio to more than $4,000 for a 1,500-square-foot, two-bedroom apartment.
Shadyside-based Walnut Capital, the developer and owner, will pay less than half the property taxes due on the complexes for up to 10 years.
Tax breaks like this one, meant to encourage revitalization of blighted areas, in recent years largely have been awarded to private developers for new, upscale apartments and hotels in some of Pittsburgh's hottest neighborhoods, with little to no local scrutiny, a Tribune-Review investigation found.
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.
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.
