Pittsburgh's land-banking idea requires better vetting
The Peduto administration and Pittsburgh City Council supporters tout the promise of their proposed city land bank. But serious concerns remain that must be resolved, thoroughly and publicly.
The land bank would duplicate much of what the Urban Redevelopment Authority already can do to get vacant, abandoned and tax-delinquent properties into new hands, redeveloped and back on the tax rolls, albeit with expedited title and bidding processes. Developer Aaron Chaney of Murrysville questions the need for “this extra layer of bureaucracy” and is concerned about the land bank's seven-member board playing favorites. He urges there be clear criteria and limited time for such property sales.
Two of the board's four mayoral and three council appointees would be from housing or community development groups. Bonnie Young Laing of the Hill District Consensus Group wants even more board seats for them.
Councilman Ricky Burgess perhaps went overboard in calling the land bank a city “land grab.” Time will tell. But his call for council oversight highlights another concern: the land bank's accountability to taxpayers — especially with an unelected board.
As we've previously editorialized, the land bank sounds good on its face. But the aforementioned issues must weigh heavily in any final decisions. Hopefully, City Council's public hearing this week (Thursday at 6 p.m.) will properly address them.
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.
- The Thursday wrap
- The Corbett administration gives itself a headache with selective transparency
- The flood of illegals: Misplaced blame
- An ObamaCare ‘re-do’?
- The Moody’s downgrade: Inaction’s price
- The federal budget: Here we go again
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Saturday essay: Ants with tool belts
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances