Submitted by PublicCommenter t3_11x56x9 in pittsburgh
Comments
dlppgh t1_jd3t7sn wrote
WatkinsGlennDanzig is a next-level user handle
[deleted] t1_jd4gaqg wrote
Thanks 🙏
mmphoto412 t1_jd2mabe wrote
this comment is under rated
[deleted] t1_jd3gqsc wrote
Holy crap I hadn’t seen this version, thanks for that.
DreadSocialistOrwell t1_jd4tipw wrote
Dancing Monkey Boy Ballmer viral before there was youtube.
mmphoto412 t1_jd4tmdx wrote
Developer!!
Bolmac t1_jd2kpky wrote
The city claims it found it was losing money with the old fee schedule. Inflation is causing prices of everything to go up, and it sounds like they just needed to adjust their fee to account for this, otherwise taxpayers are subsidizing the reviews. This isn't about putting up roadblocks or sending messages, it's just the rising cost of doing business for developers. This article just happened to totally frame it from the whiny developer's perspective.
Ryanh412 t1_jd3w464 wrote
It’s Andy Sheehan of course he’s writing from the developers side. They actually have to pay a fair price instead of dirt cheap and they cry about it.
ImportantObjective45 t1_jd82166 wrote
I think a corp buying in sqhill ha spies finding infirm aged who sell at 1970 prices
igloojoe11 t1_jd2s09m wrote
Eh, if the prices they point out are remotely accurate, it's a pretty ridiculous raise. Inflation alone doesn't take something from 15k to 255k.
ktxhopem3276 t1_jd3081f wrote
The new rate is 0.3% of development cost.
How much they raised it by is irrelevant.
Throwing around random dollar amounts is annoying at best and being deceptive at worst. These buildings will stand for 50-100 years and should be reviewed thoroughly by the city.
Nimbys and astroturfing shills should be the focus of our outrage at reasonable developments being stymied
YIMBYYay t1_jd36g8u wrote
>These buildings will stand for 50-100 years and should be reviewed thoroughly by the city.
Absolutely, which is what PLI does for building permits. Building permit fees can easily be in the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousand because they are technical reviews for health and safety.
The zoning review process should be fairly straightforward and efficient. Unfortunately, the zoning code is so complicated and the review process so capricious that it takes the city many more months to complete than the building permit process.
So, of course, buildings should be reviewed, but the way Pittsburgh does it and the requirements within those reviews have serious negative impacts on housing affordability.
Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd37uq5 wrote
A more agile and visionary administration would be shoulder deep in reforming the zoning and review process by now. Gainey, however, would rather concern himself with speed bumps.
RepeatedFailure t1_jd3odvc wrote
The speed bumps slow traffic and make the city more livable. They are a ban-aid on decades of car centric design baked into the fabric of the city.
Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd3pz44 wrote
An ugly, sticky, itchy, obstructive, annoying, wasteful, and noisy band aid. Compared to alternative solutions, the speed bumps needlessly create more fossil fuel and other emissions, increase road noise, and don't increase safety more than other traffic calming measures.
They also increase wear on vehicles, obstruct emergency vehicles, and make suburbanites less likely to patronize city businesses.
Probably the worst "solution" possible IMO. Lane narrowing and chicanes does the same thing, but that is harder to implement. Gainey took the easy but shitty road here.
dfiler t1_jd3rvvl wrote
We shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good. Speed humps have been extremely beneficial in some parts of the city. Sure, a restructuring of our built environment would be a preferable solution. But that's extremely complicated and rarely succeeds. So while we continue pursuit of a better city structure, I am in favor of using speed humps.
Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd3y3yk wrote
Gainey isn't pursuing a better city structure though. He's simply taking the path of least resistance. Taking a bare minimum approach that gives no thought to the long term concerns shouldn't be good enough IMO.
Speed bumps are the very worst method of traffic calming. Literally anything else would be better.
S4ltyInt3ractions t1_jd9gyvg wrote
Social protest and just beep your horn over every bump they will be removed quickly
Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jda0n4x wrote
Lol. Tempting, along with hard 0-60 pulls followed by slamming on the brakes in between the bumps.
/s
burritoace t1_jd63oam wrote
We could marginally slow traffic on a single stretch of road with chicanes or we could marginally slow traffic on many stretches of road with speed bumps. I know which I'd pick! This overheated stuff about their alleged harms does you no favors.
E: I'm no fan of Gainey but this program started under Peduto. Just a very weird thing to get on Gainey's case about.
dlppgh t1_jd3ym4x wrote
...it doesn't work that way. For one, Zoning Administrators should and do have a fair amount of autonomy/distance from the Administration. Also - mayors have come into office with all sorts of promises about changing zoning law and reforming the process. What exactly have any of them achieved? Namely, what did Peduto achieve, after promising all sorts of stuff? At the end of the day, it was all about "tweet at Dan Gilman if you need something"...a Kushner-esque process that was similarly ineffective
Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd40kuy wrote
Zoning administrators are tasked with enforcing a Byzantine shithouse maize of restrictions contained within an enigma of a process. Gainey didn't promise much of anything before he was elected - his biggest asset in the primary was not being Peduto. It's no surprise he isn't delivering much when he never promised much in the first place.
Peduto was able to generate positive national attention for Pgh, and attract outside business interest and investment. So far, Gainey has done neither.
dlppgh t1_jd92v34 wrote
Like it or not, PGH had positive national press prior to Peduto's administration. Even while Ravenstahl's stature crumpled, the good press kept on going. I think it's fair to point out that this press cycle isn't tied directly to individual mayors in reality. Ravenstahl didn't come in and turn PGH around by himself, nor did Peduto...but both made contributions in that regard.
YIMBYYay t1_jd80qa1 wrote
Agree, but counterpoint. Peduto focused far too much on national and international issues, where he had zero impact, at the expense of effective governance in Pittsburgh. Almost all of the anti-development policies in the city were implemented under his watch and zoning staff and planning commission were all Peduto appointees.
Gainey inherited a mess and has let it get worse.
JustHereForTheSaul t1_jd3vb5e wrote
This is akin to saying "my mom needs to focus on getting rid of her cancer, but instead she makes herself lunch every day! Misplaced priorities!" The two things have nothing to do with each other, and the slow pace on the monumental task does not in any way affect the more manageable task.
It feels like "speed bumps" are becoming the new "bike lanes" ........ some random shit bitter yinzers bring up as a non sequitur whenever they're upset about something.
Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd3zlwl wrote
More like "My mom needs to focus on getting rid of her cancer, but she's concentrating on eating healthier instead of taking the chemo her doctor recommended." Misplaced priorities indeed. Gainey threw yinz a political bone with the speed bumps, and yinz chomped down on it without question. It does nothing to improve transit or decrease car dependancy.
I'm pro bike lane for the record, at least it makes it easier to not use a full size vehicle. The speed bumps make driving worse and actually slow public transit down instead of improving it.
JustHereForTheSaul t1_jd40d83 wrote
I highly doubt Gainey believes speed bumps help alleviate the zoning review issue. Again, they are obviously completely separate issues.
Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd412r6 wrote
Gainey is in over his head. He is looking for anything quick and easy that might give him political points. For him, political points are the issue. The speed bump binge is the quickest and easiest way he has found to score political points, which gives him breathing room on harder issues, such as zoning.
It's basic local politics.
JustHereForTheSaul t1_jd41qir wrote
So it sounds like you recognize that these are separate issues, which is why it's mystifying that you brought up speed bumps in the first place. [shrug]
JustHereForTheSaul t1_jd3v26g wrote
Yes, but the "article" is ridiculously thin on details, so we don't know if inflation has anything to do with it. I don't know anything about the process, but just looking at the way things have gone in other areas of the city (a major example being the water and sewage system), I'd put a little bit of money down saying that the zoning review office has kept its rates the same for decades because the old people ... dare I say, boomers ... who apply for reviews came to expect cheap zoning reviews as a birthright.
Now we look around and realize that the city is way behind where it should be on those fees, and we have to make a huge jump. Just like we looked around after the flood on Washington Blvd and said "oh crap, we're not charging anywhere NEAR enough to do necessary maintenance and we haven't been for decades, better raise rates 300% overnight." The mismanagement of the past is making today's administrators look bad in the case of PWSA. Again, I would bet something similar is happening with zoning reviews.
69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_jd2sdbf wrote
> Eh, if the prices they point out are remotely accurate,
This is basically an opinion piece and I don't believe the numbers that get thrown around on this shit any more than I believe the guy on WTAE a few months back who claimed that he saved $3000 dollars by driving to Ohio to fill his truck with thirty cent cheaper gas.
People lie, all the time, and journalists in this country abdicated their responsibility to do journalism a long time ago.
[deleted] t1_jd2xfg9 wrote
The city has the zoning fee calculator online if you’d care to look.
69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_jd2y0n7 wrote
The existing calculator won't show us what the fees used to be, and a $15K to $255K jump is an insane claim.
[deleted] t1_jd30wa6 wrote
[deleted]
YIMBYYay t1_jd2r2t8 wrote
The city adjusted the zoning fee schedule just a few years ago. No one is suggesting that the reviews should be fully subsidized. The problem is the city has spent the past decade making the code and reviews more complicated and time consuming all while complaining about being understaffed. Projects that used to take 3 months to review can now take over a year, and that’s before applying for a building permit.
The development review process in Pittsburgh is broken and is basically run by special interests and lefty activists. Architects, engineers developers and contractors do not have a seat at the table.
JustHereForTheSaul t1_jd3vo99 wrote
>Projects that used to take 3 months to review can now take over a year, and that’s before applying for a building permit.
I get the impression you know more about the process than I do, but as an outsider, can I suggest that maybe this is because they're woefully understaffed and underfunded?
Bolmac t1_jd2tgf6 wrote
I support the lefty activists and development oversight. Cities should be built in a rational manner.
Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd2z32u wrote
Most of the time, these activists have nothing resembling a workable plan, let alone funding. Their approach to "oversight" is to jam up the process so nothing new ever gets built unless they approve. Which they never do, because they're typical NIMBYs or tankies. People respond much better to complaints when the complainers present a workable solution to the problem they identify.
It blows my mind how resistant some people here are to development, even when Pgh has been badly lagging in this area since the 1980s. We have a declining population and some of the oldest housing stock in the country. Opposing development instead of compromising for smarter, more equitable development is a fool's errand.
ktxhopem3276 t1_jd31hxt wrote
Most of the anti development campaigns are just neighborhood nimbys and sometime worse, landlords astroturfing to reduce competition. Which developments have been blocked by actual housing equity activists?
Big-Naturals69 t1_jd32k5h wrote
Lol take a look at the post history of the dude you’re replying to, I think he has a modest proposal for the housing crisis
Icy_Photograph412 t1_jd3fyrj wrote
But what about the landlords in butler? Why wont you think of the unfortunate landlords
YIMBYYay t1_jd2u31j wrote
The problem is that it isn’t rational in Pittsburgh. And what exactly do you support? Less and more expensive housing? Because that’s what’s the city is serving up.
ktxhopem3276 t1_jd316gy wrote
Lefty activists aren’t against development in most cases in Pittsburgh. Most of the anti development campaigns are just neighborhood nimbys and sometime worse, landlords astroturfing to reduce competition.
YIMBYYay t1_jd34t1u wrote
It's a mixed bag, and many of the NIMBYs are in the DSA/activist circles. Even those not outright anti-development advocate for policies and requirements that make building more time-consuming and expensive without considering the negative impacts. Take a look at the zoning code sometimes; there are some wildly impractical requirements that you can tell no architect or engineer, or even attorney, had any hand in writing.
ktxhopem3276 t1_jd382td wrote
Yeah I agree. With so many people in the room, the end product ends up as a strained compromise that looks nothing like what anybody wants. It’s just so hard to trust the developers to do the right thing. Look at how the news segment uses the old renderings for walnut capitals Oakland crossing project. The current project looks nothing like the pictures they showed originally and people are going to shit a brick when they see that thing built. They got an exception to build a 400 foot long building when they were showing two separate buildings for a long time. I though it was very important urban design principle to not build monolithic super-blocks like this building. The zoning only slows 250 feet which is the average block size in the area. Walnut capital gets whatever they want from the city and I can’t think of a zoning variance they didn’t get so it’s just obnoxious of them and shows how entitled they have become to getting their own way. I can just never tell what is reasonable to bring down costs of housing and what is a profit grab
https://nextpittsburgh.com/city-design/how-one-pittsburgh-developer-wants-to-fix-oaklands-dead-zone/
burritoace t1_jd77sgh wrote
If there aren't specific rent caps associated with a project then it's a profit grab
ktxhopem3276 t1_jd849aj wrote
Everything is a profit grab in a capitalist economy. I think putting up barriers to constructing new housing serves to benefit existing landlords. I disagree with anything that makes it harder or more expensive to build more housing. More supply will lower prices. There is localized gentrification when developers build new expensive housing. I worry about low wage workers being pushed further away from employment and good transit. Requiring developers to provide a percentage of housing for low wage workers is possibly a good solution but it may lead to a little less housing being built overall.
Moogottrrgr t1_jd2zdpv wrote
You think trickle-down economics improved the world too, huh?
YIMBYYay t1_jd2zr36 wrote
No. I believe that you can’t address the housing crisis by making it more time consuming and expensive to build and constraining the supply of housing.
Moogottrrgr t1_jd31gw7 wrote
By allowing rich developers to replace affordable houses with giant unaffordable apartments in the hopes that someday they will become slums?
YIMBYYay t1_jd32i15 wrote
Where in Pittsburgh have affordable houses been knocked down to make way for new apartments?
Moogottrrgr t1_jd337rm wrote
Oh, you must have never been to East Liberty. Sorry.
dlppgh t1_jd3uc2w wrote
https://www.wesa.fm/podcast/land-power
^ highly recommended
But...nary a word about "affordability covenants", which I think it's important to understand when you're talking about affordable housing.
LostEnroute t1_jd4fdm2 wrote
The stories about the buildings coming down are a lot louder than the ones about new affordable housing being built.
Every unit that was demolished in for Whole Foods has been replaced with new builds basically across the street. Did you know that?
Moogottrrgr t1_jd6169j wrote
And where did the people from all the projects go? What about the people living down the street in those cheap apartments on Negley? How many years of negotiations and regulations did it take to get those places replaced, or did the developers do that out of the goodness of their hearts?
Are you honestly trying to tell me that if we just let developers do whatever the hell they wanted, those houses would exist?
LostEnroute t1_jd7n2ff wrote
>Are you honestly trying to tell me that if we just let developers do whatever the hell they wanted, those houses would exist?
Of course they wouldn't exist. I never said that and I agree with holding developers accountable! I just don't think the public realizes how much that actually happens. East Liberty is full of affordable housing and luxury housing. It's a success story.
Moogottrrgr t1_jd7y1tp wrote
This whole thread is full of people insisting that holding developers accountable is going to hinder the growth of affordable housing. I also know a LOT of people who don't consider East Liberty a success story. There's an entire documentary series (East of Liberty) about it.
LostEnroute t1_jd85b38 wrote
Neighborhoods go through transition and I think East Liberty's latest is balanced, considering.
I know the bitter documentary, if it was ever finally pieced together into one. I'm just glad there are less murders and street prostitutes near my home.
Walking the .75 miles from downtown East Liberty to my home was absolutely not a good idea 20 years ago.
Moogottrrgr t1_jd891zj wrote
East Liberty has been a huge success for a middle-aged white lady like me. I agree. I just do not feel good about it.
burritoace t1_jd77ukm wrote
It doesn't seem like that's what they are trying to tell you
YIMBYYay t1_jd33yxv wrote
East Liberty has more below-market housing units now than when the abysmal towers were there. No housing was torn down to make way for the "luxury" apartments.
Moogottrrgr t1_jd34nog wrote
Please have the lobbyist who pays you to make these posts provide you with actual data from an impartial source you can share.
[deleted] t1_jd314ia wrote
[deleted]
lasershurt t1_jd2kncs wrote
The law allows for the fees to cover the reasonable and actual costs of the work required. The city said $15k was too low, and raised it.
All that really matters is if they can prove the actual use of the funds in court. What are the typical lifetime costs associated with the Zoning variances for this sort of work? They mentioned trying to make this work faster, which implies to me they're looking to use this funding to offset more staff.
It sounds huge, but for huge multi-million dollar projects being done for long-term profit I am not going to shed a lot of tears as long as it's provably justified.
pittlawyer t1_jd3p3ju wrote
I represent developers in the City. I know bring, the hate. There is absolutely no way they will be able to justify the increase in court. The zoning and development review is on top of the 0.7% fee charge for the technical review of building permits by PLI. That review fee is justified because it involves engineering review of technical construction documents. For a 10 million dollar project, that's 70k in building permit fees alone.
The zoning and development fee is essentially just staff and planning commission review for compliance with the zoning code. That involves verifying setbacks, lot area, open space, and some traffic/planning studies. There is no way on earth that costs the City another 30kish in review time for the same project. That single project review would pay half the annual salary of a City Planner, of which there are only 5 or 6.
The best way to ensure that the actually cost is recouped legally (and which is how almost all other municipalities handle land development review) is to require that an escrow amount be posted by the developer and have the review staff bill their actual time and costs to that account. That way, the City is reimbursed for actual review costs, which is all they're permitted to recoup by law.
If its challenged, the City's new structure will be struck down pretty quickly. It's pretty apparent that the percentage was arbitrarily chosen to generate revenue. According to my contacts in the City, this was never run past the City law department for their opinion, which is not at all surprising.
JustHereForTheSaul t1_jd3wbel wrote
[not a loaded question, just a request for information] Is the city breaking some law with this rate increase? Or is this a more subtle use of courts to manage public policy that I'm not familiar with? I was kinda surprised to see developers calling this "illegal". In my naivete, I'd have thought it was subject only to the laws of economics, not the laws of the city or state.
pittlawyer t1_jd3yark wrote
There isn't a city or state statute or regulation that specifically prohibits municipalities from raising revenue using review fees. However, there is a long line of appellate cases that have created that principle in common law. That precedent essentially has the same effect as if it was codified into law. A developer can sue the City, cite those cases, and have the same likelihood of success as if it were in a statute.
MaybeADumbass t1_jd4vtuo wrote
> According to my contacts in the City, this was never run past the City law department for their opinion, which is not at all surprising.
We should ask City law to get right on that! We should have their opinion sometime in mid-2027, provided we stay on top of it and keep reminding them.
burritoace t1_jd64i45 wrote
Big developments are subject to more scrutiny than just basic compliance with the zoning code, and 5 or 6 planets for a city with numerous projects of this scale (and many smaller ones) is too few.
pittlawyer t1_jd66m6u wrote
I agree. They should have 4 times as many planners so it doesn’t take 6 weeks to get the first round of review comments. But, just follow the law and charge for the review they actually perform. Don’t just pick an arbitrary number that will get struck down immediately and have to be repaid with interest and attorneys fees. And to be clear, they don’t do much more than code compliance review and making design “suggestions” that aren’t enforceable.
burritoace t1_jd77hi3 wrote
The process needs to be expedited and simplified but it is still important, and the developers don't deserve the benefit of the doubt here. I think it also makes sense for them to be a large funding source for the department. This fee may well be too high but I think the proper number is closer to the new fee than the old. And the fact that the city is again going to be subject to onerous legal proceedings over something like this is bullshit - another case of developers overpowering the city through sheer wealth. If it's so onerous the city should feel those effects in declining development, not bullshit legal wrangling. That's an additional cost for everyone, but the developers don't give a shit about that!
The review is also more complex than that, often requiring ZBA and CDAP review/approval outside of the normal staff review (which also includes cross-referencing with existing city plans, not just reviewing the zoning code).
YIMBYYay t1_jd82o5u wrote
It’s a self created problem for city planning. They have made such a complicated, convoluted, and often arbitrary review process that they need double the staff time to review projects than previously required. What did they expect when nearly every project had to go to ZBA, design review, planning commission, multiple community meetings, reviews by non governmental entities like GBA and Riverlife (how is that even legal?)…
Goodness forbid they streamline the process and lighten their work load.
[deleted] t1_jd41zrb wrote
[deleted]
pittlawyer t1_jd45n1p wrote
The bureaucratic red tap in Pittsburgh is truly absurd. I already have clients that are reticent to develop in the City because of development review reputation, and its only going to get worse. None of the City departments effectively communicate with each other, and they all have their own little fiefdoms. I can't really complain, because it keeps me employed, but its definitely going to hurt investment in the City in the long run.
Willow-girl t1_jd1lz0e wrote
>$400,000 for a zoning review
Sounds like a shakedown.
[deleted] t1_jd1ot83 wrote
[deleted]
HayesPGH t1_jd2jp43 wrote
That lane is getting turned into a bike lane this summer anyway so it was just getting you prepared for that’s next
RepeatedFailure t1_jd3ozp4 wrote
Hells yeah, more places to ride without getting murdered by cars.
mmphoto412 t1_jd2jjnb wrote
Yea wtf is up with that
[deleted] t1_jd2wi7r wrote
The city requires a temporary lane closure permit, which isn’t free.
[deleted] t1_jd37a93 wrote
[deleted]
LostEnroute t1_jd33bqs wrote
Didn't the developer actually add a sidewalk to a part of Liberty that didn't have one while they built this building with a lane temporarily closed? It's still two lanes until the bike and turning lane project.
[deleted] t1_jd36xuz wrote
[deleted]
LostEnroute t1_jd3vuht wrote
Hmm I didn't notice that. They must have built towards whatever the specs for the new travel and bike lane reconfiguration will be.
DennisG47 t1_jd1jwut wrote
If they think an increase from $15K to $255K is 600% it is probably better if they gracefully withdraw. I would say that is an increase of 1600%.
Aggravating_Foot_528 t1_jd2jgiq wrote
80 percent of statistics are made up.
And it's actually a typo on the website
> $15,000 to $255,00
Should be $25.5k
CrazyOkie t1_jd2p98b wrote
The article is so poorly written, I'd be embarrassed if I was the writer.
dlppgh t1_jd3vdh3 wrote
the objective for this media org is to get hits and sell ads based on those numbers. Whether we like it or not, there are no other considerations or standards on the table.
revolutionoverdue t1_jd2m9yh wrote
Wait, is this true? If so that’s a huge typo. Changes the framework of the whole argument.
YIMBYYay t1_jd356w5 wrote
It's not a typo. The city used to have a site plan review fee that rarely surpassed $30,000, even for big projects. The new fee is based on a project value of $3 per $1000 of construction costs. That's a huge increase.
Willow-girl t1_jd2njta wrote
So the $400K fee was only supposed to be $40K as well?
YIMBYYay t1_jd2ozr0 wrote
It’s not a typo. The city website says the fee for commercial projects is $3 per $1000 of project value.
DennisG47 t1_jd2tkcp wrote
As Tommy Bolt might say, "Bullshit, it's a plain 255,000."
ISoNoU t1_jd1gsce wrote
Time for land value taxation so we can degrade the power of landlords. They are 100% scum.
username-1787 t1_jd2lcve wrote
uglybushes t1_jd1joxu wrote
We do tax land
[deleted] t1_jd2x5hf wrote
We half-ass tax land at a severely undervalued rate, but then also tax improvements as well as land transfers.
ISoNoU t1_jd1k2c6 wrote
But we also tax improvements which discourages investment. Land tax would get rid of all income tax as well.
uglybushes t1_jd1kae1 wrote
So people who don’t own land wouldn’t pay income tax?
ISoNoU t1_jd1kub2 wrote
Yup, look it up. It's an interesting proposal. Even ghouls like Friedman like it.
Willow-girl t1_jd2n9ls wrote
You will own nothing and be happy!
uglybushes t1_jd2qf9k wrote
Does anywhere do this?
ISoNoU t1_jd3a0js wrote
Lots of places. Vancouver was a shining example until the landlords fought back.
LostEnroute t1_jd43vyy wrote
>Millcraft Development says it will be paying in excess of $400,000 for a zoning review of its proposed Esplanade North Shore redevelopment project.
$400k sounds like an absolute steal for the amount of land and scale of the Chateau Esplanade project. It's like 10 city blocks and half of a City neighborhood.
The reality is that these huge projects need to be reviewed and that costs money to get right. Developers don't want to pay? No one should be surprised.
buksrevenge t1_jd30k2f wrote
From the article:
"Walnut to get a zoning review from the city has jumped from $15,000 to $255,00, an increase of nearly 600 percent. And that's just one of more than a half-dozen other city reviews it will need."
Wut? lol.
Who wrote this garbage? Who edited it?
dlppgh t1_jd3v5w1 wrote
Editors...wait, what? The Market fixes all, right?
AirtimeAficionado t1_jd3d3vr wrote
DCP has been chronically understaffed and has been in the red for a long time in this city. I believe this has had a concretely negative impact on city master plans (like the Oakland Plan), as well as on review for major projects. It has been a triage situation for too long. These projects being discussed are more than $100 million in total cost. The fact that review by the city was ever as low as ~$15,000 for something of this magnitude is ridiculous. The developers can and should pay, they just do not want to because they benefit from the DCP process being as bare-bones as possible.
revolutionoverdue t1_jd2mogd wrote
I really did give Gainey a chance. And, I think his heart is in the right place. But, at this point I think he’s in over his head. I think a change from peduto was necessary, but we need someone who deeply understands policy, from development to homelessness, to take charge.
James19991 t1_jd2tw0l wrote
I will never understand why this sub was so in love with Gainey two years ago when there was never any evidence he would be better than average at best.
TheLittleParis t1_jd2yo6k wrote
Yeah, I had concerns about Gainey from the beginning since he didn't seem to have much in the way of legislative accomplishments or a detailed policy platform compared to Peduto. I tried to keep an open mind in the first year, but it seems clear now that he just doesn't have an interest in policy or the day-to-day management of city services.
James19991 t1_jd39ycx wrote
I totally agree. He never seemed to particularly excel in Harrisburg or do much above the bare minimum there, so I was always skeptical about him as mayor.
PsuedoRandom90412 t1_jd4167m wrote
I get the feeling the issue is that Gainey spent all his time in Harrisburg as a legislator in the minority party who never really had to "get anything done." Anything he was going to sponsor, talk up, or vote for was at the end of the day either a statement for statements' sake or so totally non-controversial that it would pass the PA legislature with broad bipartisan support. He's great for a soundbite on just about any topic, but...that...doesn't translate at all to "head of an administration that wields actual power and has responsibilities to accomplish things." I think some of that is evident not just in his own actions, but in the folks he has in high positions. (Also great activists who don't have much experience actually being able to execute.)
ktxhopem3276 t1_jd32rzu wrote
Peduto was constantly criticized. He knew the city inside and out and could pull levers to get things done but that always manages to piss off some group of vocal people. It’s a lose lose situation running a city. The best we can hope for is a dialogue and constant refining and improving. We especially shouldn’t jump to conclusions from a poorly written obviously misleading local news story. The fees are still a small percentage of total development cost. We could to study how other cities do this and the news should be giving us comparisons of what the going rate is for these sort of things
dlppgh t1_jd3xjd3 wrote
Um...
- all city mayors are criticized constantly
- Peduto didn't have any particular inside knowledge of the city or of City processes...no more or less than Gainey or Ravenstahl. He retweeted knowledgeable planners and urbanists, but he did so without absorbing much of the content in relation to governing PGH.
- Developers complained bitterly about Peduto, just like all other mayors.
- What levers could/did Peduto pull? Just curious if there are any examples.
ktxhopem3276 t1_jd41q0q wrote
> all city mayors are criticized constantly
that was my point I was attempting to make
Peduto was a city council member for 12 years. He was hands on in the technology departments at the city and worked on updating systems. His downfall was embracing technology when he supported Uber and other automated driving tech. He also wasn’t as tough on UPMC as activists wanted. In retrospect he wasn’t good at keeping bridges in good shaped.
Gainey spent some time in random jobs at the city level and was a state level politician for ten years. I feel like the local news was critical of gainey from the start and hasn’t given him a chance
Ravenstahl was a joke. He grew up in cranberry, went to college in Washington, and was elected to city council less than a year after moving to the city.
dlppgh t1_jd91yr2 wrote
>He was hands on in the technology departments at the city and worked on updating systems.
Um - I worked in that department at the time, I know pretty well what he did and didn't do. I don't think "hands-on" is an accurate description. Among the things he did was express that tech wasn't his forte. What systems are you claiming that he updated? I'll be interested to hear about these.
>Gainey spent some time in random jobs at the city level
Gainey was Ravenstahl's Economic Development Manager.
>Ravenstahl was a joke.
We could have a discussion on Ravenstahl's merits and demerits, there were many of each. I'd like for that discussion to be informed, though...so I'll hold off on that for now.
ktxhopem3276 t1_jd93hap wrote
dlppgh t1_jd946re wrote
So you're referencing a puff piece from 2016 as an example of something Peduto did while he was a Councilman? Maybe not...but I wonder if any of the folks in this thread who have interacted with the inspection and permitting process might have a different take on what has been achieved there?
ktxhopem3276 t1_jd96mdr wrote
What are you even trying to argue about? Here are some more news articles but it’s hard to get go as far back as when he was city council because there are so many more news articles form when he was mayor.
https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2017/06/19/peduto-administration-overhauling-city-s.html
https://pittnews.com/article/22908/archives/councilman-bill-peduto-marches-to-his-own-drumbeat/amp/
https://bikepgh.org/2006/11/28/thank-you-councilman-peduto/
https://www.heinz.cmu.edu/faculty-research/profiles/peduto-william/
dlppgh t1_jd9cqk3 wrote
Oh, cool, a Google Search dump. Does any of that help you add substance to:
>Peduto was a city council member for 12 years. He was hands on in the technology departments at the city and worked on updating systems.
ktxhopem3276 t1_jd9hhwc wrote
dlppgh t1_jdcw86k wrote
LOL! This discussion isn't a personal attack. Just trying to help you understand a bit more.
I worked on both iBurgh and Snow Tracker implementation while in city employ.
iBurgh was a mess - a disaster that Peduto brought to us and demanded we implement. The developers of the app were friends of his. The app wasn't anywhere close to being production ready...and it ultimately was abandoned because the developer just couldn't or wouldn't fix the many issues. Afterwards Peduto blamed the failure on Luke Ravenstahl - which was comical and entirely false.
The Snow Tracker was/is a disaster also. Really, a book should be written to describe that whole fiasco. Among the highlights - corrupt procurement, opacity of DPW, failure of leadership to understand or provide requirements, CYA nonsense, and on and on.
iBurgh happened while he was a councilman. He had no tech role. He did throw a bunch of fits as the project kinda bombed. His main interest was that we beat Boston to the punch in announcing it, he didn't give a rip about whether it worked or what he was demanding in terms of department time/resources to deal with it.
Snow Tracker started the minute he became mayor - fueled by his fear that a snow storm would generate criticism of him, and he should know about that - he usually led the charge against the prior admin when snowflakes fell. He knew exactly how unfair or how difficult that would be to deal with, because he himself had lobbed unfair/difficult criticism over the years. The Snow Tracker was literally all he wanted to talk about in the first few weeks of his administration, and that took a toll on getting a good start with so many other things. He was petulant, childish, difficult. And...the thing still is a mess.
dlppgh t1_jdcylmz wrote
A little more about iBurgh - in this city, to get some tech idea off the ground, all you have to do is find some way to get the letters CMU into the mix, and people are ready to get out of your way reverently. That's a big problem...and no one was a bigger purveyor of this approach than Bill Peduto. In that case, the company "developing" it was a person who had some non-tech affiliation with CMU (a friend/acquaintance of Bill's) and a student who was trying to run an access database on a PC he had literally in his dorm room.
That's not how you build good software, even in the context of how city people want to "pull levers" to do it. Silly...and it's a shame these things are remembered (or Google search-curated) somehow by you and others as successes.
ktxhopem3276 t1_jdd3sk6 wrote
> In that case, the company "developing" it was a person who had some non-tech affiliation with CMU (a friend/acquaintance of Bill's)
No. Priya Narasimhan is a professor with a PhD in computer science
https://www.ece.cmu.edu/directory/bios/narasimhan-priya.html
> and a student who was trying to run an access database on a PC he had literally in his dorm room.
No. We had an office with a rack full of Dell servers and we used Microsoft sql server MySQL. I can’t remember which we used on iBurgh. The memory that sticks in my mind vividly is the city used an old version of the database software and wouldn’t let us use a newer version.
You have some misunderstandings about the that project and exhibit the same condescending attitude I remember the city employees had at the time.
I don’t think CMU deserves the bad reputation some people have about them. I think politicians use the school to get publicity. The panther hollow project was goofy and I don’t think the school even wanted it as much as Bill did. But I also think the outrage against that project was simple NIMBYs and opportunistic activists riding on the hate toward Upmc which is a much bigger problem with abusing their nonprofit status, low pay and poor working conditions
dlppgh t1_jdd7tk0 wrote
OK, thanks for correcting on Priya. However, I don't say that a prof in CS necessarily knows a thing about application development just because they hold a CS credential, and in this case, that really proved out. You're saying that she didn't do well managing the project because it was difficult and "not worth the trouble"...boy, I don't think that's a shining endorsement, and I think it's an admission of why the thing failed, really.
My characterization of a student with an access DB in his dorm room - truthfully, literally - was how Priya described your side of things when things didn't move along as they should have. So, thanks for correcting, but...
I think you probably had some difficulty working through networking and firewall stuff. I can back you up there - the city at the time was embarrassingly deficient in Network Admins, but...I'm not even sure why they had the role they did in the plan. There was no reason for user-submitted data to even enter the city firewall, I remember making that point. At very least, on your side you could have stood up a prototype that proved out your concept and feature development. Getting hung up on networking...not something that should have happened.
Maybe you know better now - building software can be difficult, and when you face issues, you have to take ownership, stay focused, keep pressing and finding creative solutions. What you can't do is just recede, talk crap about your own team behind their backs, shift blame to others. But, maybe not...
ktxhopem3276 t1_jdd8koj wrote
You are arrogant and have no self awareness of how condescending you come across
dlppgh t1_jddaj5s wrote
Thanks for the evaluation, I'll file it away...and I'll keep my evaluation of you to myself. But I'm not seeing any substantive responses to the points I've made...telling...
dlppgh t1_jdd99l5 wrote
>I don’t think CMU deserves the bad reputation some people have about them.
My point is that this "reputation" gets thrown around when someone wants to lend power to their amateurish software projects, and in many cases, that works for them. Without question, CMU has some of the best people in the world doing things...and they have others. Nothing monolithic - either good or bad - should be assumed when the CMU letters get tossed in, but that mistake is often made. I hope you understand that point better.
ktxhopem3276 t1_jdd9jcx wrote
> Nothing monolithic - either good or bad
That’s just a basic fact about any org
>I hope you understand that point better.
condescending
dlppgh t1_jddcr6e wrote
...you're kinda thin-skinned, aren't you? Not difficult to see why you'd have some trouble guiding a software project to completion.
ktxhopem3276 t1_jddhktf wrote
Bill asked us to do a favor to give back to the city while we had plenty of paying customers we could have been working on instead. Priya runs software for many major league sports teams and does well at it.
>Just trying to help you understand it
> i hope you understand that point better
Your just assuming you know best and have to explain it to me like I’m a child … buzz off
dlppgh t1_jddr91u wrote
Here's the problem. At that point, Bill Peduto was a City Councilman. He came at the CIS department not from a position of authority - in fact he did his best NOT to work with the administration chain of command. A "favor" to Bill - and him berating our Director - was outside of our workflow.
To emphasize - a "favor" to Bill Peduto involving a department and a team of employees that don't report to him isn't a valid workflow. We ALSO had important projects that our actual bosses tasked us with.
A software project done as a "favor" - that's typical of Peduto's leadership shortcomings. He was lucky that our Director even gave him the time of day, but he did...and that sort of thing didn't go over well in his chain of command.
I wonder how far "favor" software projects flung over by councilpeople got when Bill became mayor. Probably not far. Sadly, his leadership shortcomings only became more pronounced.
If Priya had paying customers that got back-burnered for this "favor"...yeesh, what a debacle. What an operational miasma. Those customers must have wondered what they were paying for. Maybe after paying the company, they also needed to ask Peduto for a favor, eh?
Silly nonsense.
dlppgh t1_jddc9u9 wrote
>I also think the outrage against that project was simple NIMBYs and opportunistic activists riding on the hate toward Upmc
Dude, they were residents of the Run...people who lived there. You're eager to call other people "condescending", but wow, dismissing their concerns in this way is just insulting and thick-headed.
ktxhopem3276 t1_jddg5nl wrote
> Dude, they were residents of the Run...people who lived there.
The people living there wanted the money to go to their problems instead. Their houses are built on a drainage channel and will never stop flooding. It didn’t seem to me like they made any compelling arguments about how the MOC would negatively affect them besides spend the money on bailing out their basements instead. There are two sides to every project and also a lot of shill involved so everyone has to think for themselves about who is telling the truth and who isn’t. There was a pile on affect of every activist in the city jumping in to hate on upmc and cmu and they took advantage of the local residents to get their chance in the limelight. The project was probably a waste of money and I don’t think cmu or anyone with influence really cared about it anyway. But I think it was more about using the schools as a punching bag than it was about actually helping the run. Now that the project is canceled, the activists have moved on to other nonprofit bashing efforts while the run is still in the same shit condition and always will be because saline street should be a stream instead of a street
dlppgh t1_jddrsmc wrote
>It didn’t seem to me like they made any compelling arguments about how the MOC would negatively affect them besides spend the money on bailing out their basements instead.
I'm not touching this mess, other than to say that you've done an awful job understanding their concerns. I'm certainly happy to note that your conception of the concerns wasn't relevant in how that whole thing went down.
ktxhopem3276 t1_jddux2a wrote
The residents of the run have been insufferable and have shit on anything and everything as PWSA attempts to improve drainage in their neighborhood. It’s been clear for a while now that they expect special treatment and a bailout because they chose to live in a drainage ditch
> “It doesn’t do enough given the severity and the frequency of flooding,” he said, referencing PWSA’s presentation that showed projected reductions in 10-year floods. “[Flooding is] going to increase with climate change and out of control development.”
> The project’s manager Tony Igwe said there will be reductions at other levels, too, but that no city in the country has built infrastructure to withstand 75-year flood levels. He added that PWSA is constrained by what the agency’s ratepayers can afford.
> “Whatever we provide for Four Mile Run we have to provide for the rest of the system,” he said, adding that part of their approach in planning is to create infrastructure that can adjust to future realities. “But we have to pick something that people can actually afford.”
dlppgh t1_jde7ydt wrote
You've got it backwards. No one in The Run objects to necessary storm infrastructure improvements. They object to them being paired with a silly, inadequate, poorly planned and extremely unpopular autonomous project.
ktxhopem3276 t1_jdelufu wrote
They only care about themselves. They are mad that PWSA won’t spend more money on them. $36 million is $500,000 per house in the run. They think PWSA has some sort of obligation to make up for the fact that their houses are in the worst possible location for flooding. Blocking the MOC was simply because they wanted every last cent to go toward them.
As I said before, the MOC project was mediocre. My point is the conspiracy around cmu being a power broker trying to screw over people is exaggerated. Cmu has put a lot of effort into storm water management on campus with green roofs rain gardens and underground cisterns. If you are looking for an evil non profit go look at upmc.
Peduto was never shy about proposing audacious projects and some were good and some were bad but at least he had is heart in it and I got no impression he was just doing it for special interest groups. But activists couldn’t stand that he wasn’t a flame thrower directed at every for profit and non profit business in the city.
Meanwhile, during snowmageddon, ravenstahl was hiding out in seven springs and spent days refusing to tell the public where he was bc he was staying in the condo of one of the largest real estate developers in the county. somebody in hazlewood died because an ambulance couldn’t get through the unplowed streets. I met ravenstahl once while he was at a penguins game in the box suite of the law firm representing burns and scalo. Ravenstahl never saw a corporate handout he couldn’t refuse like the $9000 sponsorship from upmc for a golf tournament.
I don’t know if gainey will be a better mayor but it’s not like peduto was unpopular. He lost to gainey 26,000 to 22,000 in a city of 300,000 people. Which is impressive that peduto managed to last as long as he did. He wasn’t afraid to take risks like when he pushed for removing parking from schenly plaza and added bike lanes and round abouts. These sort of changes drive reactionary people crazy even though they were the right way to go. He lasted 20 years in city politics so in my mind he deserves a pat on the back. Gainey is quickly finding out how hard and intense the criticism is when you are mayor versus just a state legislator.
dlppgh t1_jdepghy wrote
>somebody in hazlewood died because an ambulance couldn’t get through the unplowed streets.
I was in the City County Building that day. Ravenstahl was heavily affected by that and he had a meeting with Public Safety officials in which he was losing it - loudly screaming. It's not fair or accurate to say that this wasn't on Luke's radar. You don't have to tell me or anyone else who worked for the city at that time about it.
I spent about a month's work of work focused specifically on Snowmageddon. I can tell you more about how it affected the city organization than you probably want to hear.
That much snow would have paralyzed the city no matter who the mayor was. Yes, Luke was in Seven Springs, but that's irrelevant. Snow removal operations are/were the specific task of a specific manager in DPW. And guess what - that manager during snowmageddon was the same manager tasked with the same responsibility until he retired during the Peduto admin.
Any changes that took place after snowmageddon started taking place immediately in 2010. They weren't appreciably improved under Peduto. The snow tracker was NOTHING except a costly CYA move that did absolutely nothing to improve snow response times or efficiency.
I have a few things I credit Peduto for...but he also earned my disrespect. He worked hard at it and he finally broke me.
I am going to politely tell you that Googling up a few stories in 2023 isn't an adequate replacement for knowing what you're talking about.
ktxhopem3276 t1_jdeqjjb wrote
> Yes, Luke was in Seven Springs, but that's irrelevant.
You don’t leave town to have a birthday party with a wealthy developer at his ski condo while the city is facing the worst snow storm in decades.
> I have a few things I credit Peduto for...but he also earned my disrespect. He worked hard at it and he finally broke me. I am going to politely tell you that Googling up a few stories in 2023 isn't an adequate replacement for knowing what you're talking about.
You are so special and have earned the privilege to talk down to everyone that isn’t a government employee.
dlppgh t1_jdje390 wrote
You can weep about my tone all you want, but I don't see you addressing substance even for a moment.
For the record - seeing you lambaste residents of The Run for daring to care about their community, and then trading in silly childish whining about my condescension...is uniquely goofy.
If someone actually condescends in their tone to you, you'll have earned it many times over.
ktxhopem3276 t1_jdjip4q wrote
You’ve been attacking me for days because I said something positive about peduto. Most people have some pent up emotions about their boss. You might need therapy if hearing something positive about your former boss is so upsetting.
They are entitled to care about their community and voice their concerns. But it’s fair to be on the lookout for selfish nimby opposition to a project. The neighborhood people were being ignored and only got attention when people saw the opportunity to dunk on a large nonprofit and the mayor.
dlppgh t1_jdds0oy wrote
>Now that the project is canceled, the activists have moved on to other nonprofit bashing efforts while the run is still in the same shit condition and always will be because saline street should be a stream instead of a street
just...wow...
I wish you a good day, and lotsa luck.
ktxhopem3276 t1_jdcysc5 wrote
Could have fooled me with your condescending attitude. I wrote the iburgh software while a student at cmu. The city tech department obviously had no interest in the project being a success. The outdated software stack they insisted on us interfacing with was a major issue. The professor at cmu in charge of the project had no experience working with government contracting and was in over her head but what she learned was government contracting is just not worth the trouble in most cases. She focused more on the sports apps for the penguins at the time bc the team was just more interested in trying new things. Clearly you just don’t like Peduto bc he dared to try to push the city to change its outdated ways. This is the problem every mayor faces when they get into office. Every department is a fiefdom and resist any change.
dlppgh t1_jdd16bk wrote
Wow, ok. I have to say, the software stack you introduced left a lot to be desired. The team you briefly interacted with at the city definitely wanted to work with you and did so when given that opportunity. But the person on your side who need to manage the project just didn't do anything except shift blame around - blaming you a good portion of the time, you should know.
Yes, there are a fair amount of obstacles for things like networking and firewalls when it comes to working with the city, but even setting those things aside, you guys had considerable difficulty fixing your bugs or collecting feature requests or just with implementation in general. Blaming that on the city is goofy. You guys weren't the right team to be doing that project, which is why it sunk.
As for me "not liking" Peduto because he was progressive and spoke about fixing problems and reform...also silly. I liked him for exactly those reasons, and I supported these ideas until it was clear that he really had no ability to take any of it past talk. I only "disliked" him when he started handing out blame and making excuses and retreating from the stuff he said he'd work on. I worked for 7 years trying to "push the city to change its outdated ways", I didn't just yap about it.
higmy6 t1_jd2xse1 wrote
I mean I just didn’t want Moreno or whatever his name was
James19991 t1_jd3a57x wrote
Yeah Moreno would have been way worse than Gainey, but Gainey still wasn't an upgrade from Peduto either.
revolutionoverdue t1_jd2v3t8 wrote
Same reason I’m hopeful that the Bucs can compete each year in spring training.
ktxhopem3276 t1_jd326x2 wrote
City mayors are put into a circular firing squad on day one. Few people want that job. We have to try to work with what we have instead of constantly whining about every little issue stoked by local news
revolutionoverdue t1_jd33blo wrote
I agree to an extent. I’ve actually had face to face meetings with Mayor Gainey about issues effecting my neighborhood. Something I could never get with mayor peduto. Like I said, I do think his heart is in the right place. And, if nothing else he has breathed some fresh air into the city county building. But, I don’t know if his trusted advisors have a strong grip on policy.
I get it, it’s easy for me to complain from the sidelines. And, you’re never going to please all of the people. I just had higher hopes.
My city council person is light years ahead of their predecessor. So, we’ve got that going for us.
YIMBYYay t1_jd2nncz wrote
The Planning Department is staffed by holdovers from the Peduto Administration. They have been implementing bad NIMBY, anti-development and anti housing policies for years. This is just getting press because it’s the most egregious.
I work as a designer in a firm with multiple offices and really got interested in the YIMBY movement after experiencing how awful and damaging zoning is in Pittsburgh compared to other cities where I was working.
revolutionoverdue t1_jd2pdey wrote
I agree. I’m a small local neighborhood developer and it’s really hard for small time developers without lawyers and project managers on staff to navigate and afford the process. In my opinion it pushes local developers away. Building or renovating a 4 unit mixed use project in milvale or dormont or etna is soooo much easier than city of PGH.
Dancing_Hitchhiker t1_jd2ru5c wrote
I’ve heard the same, basically makes it so time consuming it makes people give up on projects
RepeatedFailure t1_jd3pc2o wrote
It probably causes a regulatory capture that favors larger developers who cut their teeth on suburban projects, and then bring their strip mall design process to the city. Sucks man.
Hoppiness83 t1_jd3nt0s wrote
You're 100% correct.
Swanhollow t1_jd3ppm9 wrote
Not a pro here, but I think the biggest issue at hand isn't the ratio of the zoning review cost to the overall project cost, but rather the fact that developers (in this case) could invest $250k to get a zoning review, have it denied, get nothing in return, and be out $250k.
Even as an investor/developer with deep pockets, $250k is a lot of money to put forward if one of the outcomes is that you will a.) get denied and b.) lose your $250k.
I think it's safe to say not many people would make that investment.
Now, the reality is, there is a chance it'll get accepted and Walnut Capital (a company with deep pockets) will have an opportunity to build a big, money making development. However, I think you can see how the exorbitant fees, in the future, will limit other, smaller developers from submitting plans. This will then reduce competition, slow down development in Pittsburgh, and only allow the big boys developers to have a seat at the development table.
burritoace t1_jd78360 wrote
If the developers get so far down the road on a project of this size without reviewing it for general compliance with the zoning code then they are incompetent and deserve to lose that money. The city is not going to block projects that are generally compliant, they want the development to occur too. The reviews are about making changes at the margins, ensuring compliance with all city requirements, etc.
QuirrelsTurban t1_jd5xevw wrote
I will not feel bad for Walnut.
[deleted] t1_jd2l6sy wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_jd2rhqu wrote
[deleted]
askmeaboutmysciatica t1_jd2e1uc wrote
Makes me glad I voted for him lol
Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd2g0av wrote
So you’re glad the zoning review fee has gone up 1600%, ensuring less new housing gets built, which keeps the housing stock shittier and more expensive?
If only there were a more tactful way to encourage more equitable development instead of punishing and discouraging all development with extortive fees. /s
What a short sighted take. Keep Pittsburgh shitty!
ktxhopem3276 t1_jd3529u wrote
Your using a statistic about how much the fee went up to get sympathy for developers. What is percentage of the development cost? Is the fee really the impediment to development or is restrictive zoning, excessive litigation and lengthy revisions the real issue? Can these developers discuss logistical issues to speed up reviews instead of just being money grubbing cry babies anytime they have to part with a believed dollar. A lot of the mega developments that pay the most fees get huge tax grants anyway. I’m looking at you walnut capital and piatt esplanade.
Willow-girl t1_jd2nw94 wrote
> extortive fees
Reminds me of the way Detroit used to charge (IIRC) $9,000 for a permit to tear down a derelict house.(And thus it became a tradition to set them on fire on Devil's Night. Would you look at that? It burned to the ground ...)
AirtimeAficionado t1_jd3dd5c wrote
These projects are, in all cases, more than $100 million, if not $200 million in cost. This has no impact whatsoever on any project moving forward.
Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd3idfl wrote
Just because the numbers are large does not mean the money is unlimited. Fees and regulatory process have a huge impact on whether projects not only move forward, but also whether they are proposed in the first place. Especially when the fees are levied in percentages and non-refundable.
Demand and prices in Pgh (or even much more expensive cities) aren't nearly high enough for developers to build with no regard for costs.
Your impression of the business likely comes from memes, TV, and a certain orange tinted ex-president.
Also, higher fees affect smaller and mid sized developers the most. Want to make sure only big developers can build? Jack the fees up and make the review process an unpredictable quagmire without a reasonable time frame.
AirtimeAficionado t1_jd3q6kg wrote
- The primary factor here is the yield projects command, which influences the financing a project can gather and the rates with which that financing matures. These fees have no impact on a project moving forward, period. There is still considerable demand that allows for prime yields (10%+), even with an increase in this fee.
2)These new fees are not fixed, they are variable based upon project costs, which means they will not have an outsized impact on smaller developers.
I do not need to be condescended to on this issue. I am telling you the reality of the situation. There are plenty of things that are insanely expensive and non-refundable in this process, this is a drop in the bucket. It’s only a concern for developers because it will help the city adequately staff DCP and hold proposed designs more accountable than we are today— which is ultimately a good thing.
Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd3x6fg wrote
Raising fees while interest rates are skyrocketing effectively kicks the projected yield rate while it's down. Use all the buzzwords you want, it won't change the fact that this fundamentally discourages development because it decreases the yield rate. Developers who have already submitted proposals might be more likely to move forward, because of their sunk costs. Developers who haven't already committed could decide to build elsewhere.
Even though they are assessed at a percentage rate, the fees still affect smaller developers more because the fees are a larger percentage of their net worth than they are for bigger developers. It's the same principle that renders a percentage based flat tax unfair. Even though it's the same percentage, it affects the little guys way more.
More staff to enforce the shitty zoning we have isn't a good thing unless we reform the zoning first. Other existing expensive non-refundable costs aren't a valid excuse to impose new ones.
AirtimeAficionado t1_jd48ui4 wrote
I’m not sure what you’re on about, this is written like an AI language model would write something after being asked to integrate a new term it isn’t really familiar with— in this case “yield.”
The yield is assessed versus the entire construction cost of the project— why I mentioned that in the first place— which is why these sums do not really matter. It’s equivalent in cost to something like four days of a tower crane rental, and does not have a substantive impact on developable yield. Period.
And these developers— Millcraft, Walnut Capital, etc— are not building elsewhere. Development is a field highly dependent on local knowledge, and these firms exist with portfolios exclusively in this area for this reason. The city-especially areas like Oakland— remain extremely compelling for development by anyone, but are particularly important to these local development firms because they have a strategy and portfolio hinging on almost exclusive development here. It would be far more costly and risky for them to go elsewhere. They are not.
Increasing interest rates and inflation matter, but are happening regardless of this policy. These are much larger costs, and the real thing holding development right now. Developers could still build in areas like Oakland in this climate, but are waiting on doing so because they foresee lowering interest rates in the future which will reduce ultimate project cost.
I’m not sure what you’re saying about the “little guys,” but the percentages outlined here should be the same or lower for them— before it was a flat rate of $15,000, now it is variable on project cost.
And I agree the zoning needs to be improved, I am arguing it will improve as a result of better staffing from better funding. I do not know anyone at DCP that is happy with the way things are going, but they are currently underwater and are struggling to keep things moving. This should help, not harm, zoning efforts.
askmeaboutmysciatica t1_jd2glcz wrote
Found the developer
waddersandwich t1_jd38ilw wrote
Not all developers are bad. Pittsburgh just makes you think they are because it's only the huge, mega-corporation, conglomerate developers that have the resources and cash to get anything done. And those developers suck soooo much. Pittsburgh zoning all but eliminates small-time developers who really do want to improve their communities. Compared to other cities, it's absolutely insane. Cities need development and when the only ones who can afford it are the plain Jane corporations that only care about dollars in their spreadsheet, you get a shitty, boring city.
Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd3jd0s wrote
Exactly what burdensome fees, abysmal zoning, unpredictable government response, and a regulatory quagmire of a review process tends to do.
Pittsburgh's relatively low housing prices also limit potential profit, so along with the fees and unpredictable review process, the only way to reliably profit is to go very large scale and exploit local political connections.
Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd2hl5t wrote
Gainey has been in over his head since he took office, and the foundering hasn’t improved over time. Classic one term and done mayor.
Ever take an economics class?
tbst t1_jd2ibd1 wrote
Bill Gatti, how did you choose this username?
Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd2j6p9 wrote
Skiing in a little town called Assspen.
69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_jd2sjf2 wrote
> Ever take an economics class?
Ah, economics, the "science" that assumes everyone is a perfectly rational actor that does exactly what is best for themselves every single time.
Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd2xftw wrote
Behavioral economics makes very different assumptions than the rational choice theory you're describing. Also, many if not most seemingly irrational decisions can be explained by incomplete access to information or people valuing money differently.
Yours is a common and, to some extent, valid criticism of classical and neoclassical economics. That said, don't throw the baby out with the bath water here.
69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_jd2xw51 wrote
Economics exists as a "science" to backfill an explanation for what the capital-holding classes want to do anyway. You know that and I know that.
My favorite economics story is from the book Princes of the Yen, wherein Japan sent their youngest and brightest minds to Chicago to learn economics, and they took what they learned there and trashed the Japanese economy for over three decades and counting. Good stuff.
Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd31k2r wrote
>capital-holding classes
lol, that's a loaded phrase if I ever saw one. I've been called worse.
I'd chalk Japan's lost decades up to too much micromanaging by the Bank of Japan, a liquidity trap, and bad demographics (birthrate too low).
69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_jd31ujj wrote
> I'd chalk Japan's lost decades up to too much micromanaging by the Bank of Japan,
Read the book, the entire issue started when the Chicago School guys came back and said BoJ meddled too much that they had to move to a "free market" solution since those were the only thing that worked. Whoops!
https://www.amazon.com/Princes-Yen-Central-Bankers-Transformation/dp/0765610493
Prior to the 1980s Japan had basically a command economy pointed towards producing consumer goods.
uglybushes t1_jd2i8u7 wrote
Less development is a good thing?!
Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd2j4nv wrote
NIMBYs and the poorly educated certainly think so.
imagine looking at the average Pgh house and thinking “this is perfect, ban all new development and we’ll end up like Prague or the Gothic Quarter in Barcelona.” Lol.
[deleted] t1_jd2to49 wrote
[deleted]
Willow-girl t1_jd2nghk wrote
>But what the city also needs to do is ensure we have the capacity and the staff
Translation: "My brother-in-law needs a job."
burritoace t1_jd65e3a wrote
This is some boomer shit
[deleted] t1_jd2iax9 wrote
Developers! Developers! Developers!