O'Hara man hoping to buy former Eagles club building in Sharpsburg
An O'Hara man has his eyes on the former Eagles building on North Canal Street in Sharpsburg but wants support to fight its assessed value.
Rush Howe told Sharpsburg officials he has a $50,000 contract to buy the building but the assessed value from Allegheny County is $793,000. He said that value is unreasonable.
“It is essentially uninhabitable,” Howe said.
While Howe would like a show of support from the borough in getting the value reassessed, officials told him that was unlikely. Council President Renee Procopio said Howe needed to take his chances with the appeal process.
“We certainly welcome you to come in and buy the property and get it on the tax rolls and get everything going the way everything should,” Procoppio said.
Officials did not want to set a precedent by openly supporting an assessment appeal in this situation, she said.
“If we did that for you, we'd have to do that for everyone who purchased property here,” Procoppio said.
Howe said the property needs $300,000 to $400,000 worth of work to be inhabitable. With the taxes that would come with the current assessed value, a sale would be difficult.
“I can't afford to buy it and pay taxes,” Howe said.
Councilman Matthew Rudzki said the borough was unlikely to attend the hearing and wanted Howe to buy the property but reiterated that official help with the case wasn't possible.
Without a reassessment, Howe said, it was possible the property could continue to get worse.
“If it remains that high, nobody is going to be able to do anything with the building,” Howe said. “It will just get further and further behind.”
Tom McGee is an associate editor for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 1513 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.