What if Pittsburgh Annexed All Adjacent Suburbs? (Penn Hills, Mount Lebanon: flat fee, real estate)

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by PghYinzer

Not sure if you are on it, but spend 20 seconds on Twitter. There is one guy from California who habitually comments on his hatred for the mayor and the direction he wants to take the city. There was a woman the other day from Norwin, aptly named Karen, who was complaining the mayor of Pittsburgh wasn’t out in Beaver County to see the president at the Shell plant. How dare the Mayor of Pittsburgh not go to an event in another county. Heck was he even invited? Probably not. The complaints about the mayor and how the city are run are usually lodged by those who don’t live in the city. The city residents, his consitutents, continue to vote for him and are overall supportive on most things.

I have a Twitter account but I don't use it. I wouldn't worry what someone from California thinks. I don't know if the mayor was invited to the cracker plant, but you can be sure if Obama was the president he would have gone. Nothing these people are saying is likely to influence the mayor; they're just blathering. Take it FWIW.

ETA: Here is a prime example of why not to take Twitter seriously:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donal...Z5MMFvh8SELB10
"New Yorker Satire That Denmark Wants To Buy The U.S. Has Twitter Wits Swooning"

[szug-bot]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

Could you give an example of this happening?

oh it happens. i volunteered for the Murphy campaign years ago and was actually shocked that there were no african americans, first of all, and that HALF the annoying people in the room were not city residents! none were lower middle class.


Ravenstahl partied in teh suburbs, and was good friends with a restaurant owner i actually know, in Ross - Luke ate there often.

people do rub shoulders with non-city residents who have interests in what goes on in the city.

enough about the bikes! i use my bike - destroys calories (which i need anymore) and gets me around the city at times with minimal stress for various reasons. that is one car off the road. isnt that what you car people want? the bike lanes do not increase your drive time by THAT much - so you have to slow down now and then, to just 10 mph over the limit, as opposed to your usual 20.

[prnlvsxy]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

I have a Twitter account but I don't use it. I wouldn't worry what someone from California thinks. I don't know if the mayor was invited to the cracker plant, but you can be sure if Obama was the president he would have gone. Nothing these people are saying is likely to influence the mayor; they're just blathering. Take it FWIW.

ETA: Here is a prime example of why not to take Twitter seriously:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donal...Z5MMFvh8SELB10
"New Yorker Satire That Denmark Wants To Buy The U.S. Has Twitter Wits Swooning"

But you just asked for an example, and one was given.

[norcider]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

oh it happens. i volunteered for the Murphy campaign years ago and was actually shocked that there were no african americans, first of all, and that HALF the annoying people in the room were not city residents! none were lower middle class.

This is weird because Murphy is known to be from the areas he represents, his house is still on lower Perrysville where most people on here would lock their doors driving through. I remember black parents from our school ( went to school with his kids) volunteering with the campaigns prior to his election. I was at his election party on W. North Ave and there crowd was diverse from my recollection.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by gg

I wish Pittsburgh and Wilkinsburg would come to an agreement. Both would benefit greatly within 5 years. Would be great if Wilkinsburg could be saved. There is some nice old buildings waiting for someone to save them from destruction.

Wilkinsburg and Mt. Oliver are the no-brainers in terms of municipalities which should merge with the City of Pittsburgh.

Originally Posted by zalewskimm

I agree on that. Though I'm in support of these million little municipalities because it makes this area unique.

I don't get the separate Greentree Boro/Greentree City thing. Same with Mount Oliver...

Although it's on a few road signs "Greentree City" is not an official city neighborhood.

As for Mt. Oliver, it historically made more sense. Knoxville, Carrick, and Overbrook were annexed relatively late in Pittsburgh's history, making Mt. Oliver an enclave only by the 1920s. The city neighborhood of Mt. Oliver was originally named St. Clair (after the now defunct Lower Saint Clair Township) but the association of the name with the St. Clair Village housing project led people to want to rename/rebrand the neighborhood, and so it became Mt. Oliver. If I were them, I would change the name back now personally.

Originally Posted by pittsburghaccuweather

What would be the benefits to merging with the city? Other than padding population numbers.

There was a study by the OECD a few years back which determined that municipal fragmentation was a big impediment to metropolitan economic growth, not only in the U.S., but worldwide. That it was found worldwide is a big deal, because if it was only a U.S. study, one could make the claim that since less-fragmented metro areas tend to be in the south/west, other aspects, like regulation or higher population growth, were the cause.

It should be noted though that less municipal fragmentation may indeed have a lot to do with why growth is so strong in the south/west. When greenfield land is mostly unincorporated before being annexed by a city, there's really no NIMBY factor which can restrict the type of housing - or the density of housing - which is built. It's not like the result is an urbanists dream, but you can see dense subdivisions and even townhouses pop up right on farmland, whereas in the Northeast the local residents would be concerned about "preserving rural character" and institute snob zoning (minimum acreage, etc) in order to keep density lower. The result of this is - all things considered - more expensive housing in new-build areas, which provides greater incentive for people to move elsewhere.

[KoNgFooCj]

I wish Philly could do this with just half of its contiguous municipalities. Or Wilkes-Barre. There's a freakin municipality that borders Wilkes-Barre called Wilkes-Barre Township for christ sake.

For Philly it sucks because in 1854 it consolidated the county and became the physically largest city in the US ,but has never annexed anything since, while its peer cities of New York and Chicago gobbled up territory like turkeys and achieved populations of over 3 million.

[pittsburghaccuweather]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Wilkinsburg and Mt. Oliver are the no-brainers in terms of municipalities which should merge with the City of Pittsburgh.



Although it's on a few road signs "Greentree City" is not an official city neighborhood.

As for Mt. Oliver, it historically made more sense. Knoxville, Carrick, and Overbrook were annexed relatively late in Pittsburgh's history, making Mt. Oliver an enclave only by the 1920s. The city neighborhood of Mt. Oliver was originally named St. Clair (after the now defunct Lower Saint Clair Township) but the association of the name with the St. Clair Village housing project led people to want to rename/rebrand the neighborhood, and so it became Mt. Oliver. If I were them, I would change the name back now personally.



There was a study by the OECD a few years back which determined that municipal fragmentation was a big impediment to metropolitan economic growth, not only in the U.S., but worldwide. That it was found worldwide is a big deal, because if it was only a U.S. study, one could make the claim that since less-fragmented metro areas tend to be in the south/west, other aspects, like regulation or higher population growth, were the cause.

It should be noted though that less municipal fragmentation may indeed have a lot to do with why growth is so strong in the south/west. When greenfield land is mostly unincorporated before being annexed by a city, there's really no NIMBY factor which can restrict the type of housing - or the density of housing - which is built. It's not like the result is an urbanists dream, but you can see dense subdivisions and even townhouses pop up right on farmland, whereas in the Northeast the local residents would be concerned about "preserving rural character" and institute snob zoning (minimum acreage, etc) in order to keep density lower. The result of this is - all things considered - more expensive housing in new-build areas, which provides greater incentive for people to move elsewhere.

I actually think streamlining and mergers are a good thing. In other parts of the country it has seemed to work. In Ohio it has worked pretty well in the Columbus area.

Pittsburgh’s problem is that it botched the merger with the North Side over 100 years ago. It took a growing alffluent city and turned it upside down. On top of being a forced merger the residents did not want. Had Pittsburgh realized the gem it had instead of just wanting the money and population numbers padded look what happened. People just don’t trust the city of Pittsburgh and to be honest I don’t blame them. Look how the city is treating its own neighborhoods. So many left behind and neglected. A government that caters to one small narrow focus group that cannot carry the city on their own. A water authority fined for lead lines, years or neglect and nepotism for hiring family members instead of qualified people. In areas where mergers work this isn’t the case. Pittsburgh has always been a city looking at everything in a silo instead of the big picture. That’s why nobody wants to merge with it and people living outside of the city don’t trust it.

If the north side merger ended up differently and benefitted the north side we would probably not have 130 Municipalities today. The city would be bigger and maybe the whole county.

I get what you are saying about mergers. A lot of places do them well Pittsburgh did not when given the chance. And other landlocked cities like Cleveland as well in the same boat as Pittsburgh.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by prnlvsxy

But you just asked for an example, and one was given.

Fair enough. I don't think the examples are particularly concerning, though.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Wilkinsburg and Mt. Oliver are the no-brainers in terms of municipalities which should merge with the City of Pittsburgh.



Although it's on a few road signs "Greentree City" is not an official city neighborhood.

As for Mt. Oliver, it historically made more sense. Knoxville, Carrick, and Overbrook were annexed relatively late in Pittsburgh's history, making Mt. Oliver an enclave only by the 1920s. The city neighborhood of Mt. Oliver was originally named St. Clair (after the now defunct Lower Saint Clair Township) but the association of the name with the St. Clair Village housing project led people to want to rename/rebrand the neighborhood, and so it became Mt. Oliver. If I were them, I would change the name back now personally.



There was a study by the OECD a few years back which determined that municipal fragmentation was a big impediment to metropolitan economic growth, not only in the U.S., but worldwide. That it was found worldwide is a big deal, because if it was only a U.S. study, one could make the claim that since less-fragmented metro areas tend to be in the south/west, other aspects, like regulation or higher population growth, were the cause.

It should be noted though that less municipal fragmentation may indeed have a lot to do with why growth is so strong in the south/west. When greenfield land is mostly unincorporated before being annexed by a city, there's really no NIMBY factor which can restrict the type of housing - or the density of housing - which is built. It's not like the result is an urbanists dream, but you can see dense subdivisions and even townhouses pop up right on farmland, whereas in the Northeast the local residents would be concerned about "preserving rural character" and institute snob zoning (minimum acreage, etc) in order to keep density lower. The result of this is - all things considered - more expensive housing in new-build areas, which provides greater incentive for people to move elsewhere.

Just where are you talking about? I will repeat what I have said many times over-the Colorado constitution prevents Denver from doing what you're talking about. What do you mean unincorporated? Here in CO, all land is in some county. To annex to Denver, the entire annexing county has to vote in favor of the annexation, as well as the entire city of Denver.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

Just where are you talking about? I will repeat what I have said many times over-the Colorado constitution prevents Denver from doing what you're talking about. What do you mean unincorporated? Here in CO, all land is in some county. To annex to Denver, the entire annexing county has to vote in favor of the annexation, as well as the entire city of Denver.

Denver is in a somewhat unique circumstance, being a consolidated city-county. The city can't expand unless the county expands. A better example would be the growth of a suburban city like Aurora due to repeated municipal annexations. Aurora was planning one such annexation of 51 square miles of Arapahoe County earlier this decade.

My general impression is in states where unincorporated county land exists (basically, when there is land within a county not part of any city, town, civil township, or borough) it is relatively easy for municipalities to annex unincorporated county land provided the property owner okays it. This typically means land will be annexed prior to development, because a property owner wants to have coverage by things such as city water and trash pickup, which will help make the new subdivision/office park/industrial park (or whatever) more marketable. Of course the details of this vary considerably from state to state however.