Proceed with caution
Getting about 26,000 dilapidated Pittsburgh properties redeveloped and back on the tax rolls is a worthy goal. But before the Peduto administration and City Council supporters plunge ahead with a new land bank as that vehicle, potential problems must be considered.
The city and its Urban Redevelopment Authority own about half of these properties. Advocates say the land bank could consolidate them, clear their titles, remove liens that keep tax-delinquent parcels unsold at sheriff's sales and help developers acquire them. But the Allegheny Institute's Jake Haulk says the URA could work toward similar ends with the taxing bodies involved. He questions the necessity of this new, quasi-public land bank, saying there are “enough authorities around already.”
The land bank could borrow money, issue bonds and hire or contract for staff. But its unelected board — four mayoral and three council appointees — would be less than fully accountable to taxpayers.
Favoring the politically connected, land banks in St. Louis and elsewhere have bred corruption, says the Commonwealth Foundation's Elizabeth Stelle. And she and Mr. Haulk agree that land banks bring top-down, winner-picking governmental meddling to endeavors best left to the private sector.
The Pittsburgh land bank idea sounds good at first blush. But its fate must rest on whether it still seems to be so once the pratfalls are weighted.
Show commenting policy
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 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.