Colin McNickle: Reversing Greater Pittsburgh’s population decline |
Featured Commentary

Colin McNickle: Reversing Greater Pittsburgh’s population decline

Colin McNickle

As the population continues to decline in Greater Pittsburgh’s seven-county region, sound public policies that could help to remedy the losses go unimplemented, remind scholars at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy.

Based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s estimates as of July 1, 2018, the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) had 2,324,743 people. That’s down by 5,540 people, or 0.2%, from July 2017.

Allegheny County, which is home to more than half of the Pittsburgh metro’s population — at 1,218,452, roughly what it was between 1920 and 1930 and a shadow of its 1960 peak population of 1,628,587 — lost 2,204 people between 2017 and 2018, Census estimates show. That accounted for just over a third of the metro’s losses.

Sadly, past proved to be prologue — in those declines and the failure to implement policies to reverse them.

“An Allegheny Institute 2007 report on Allegheny County’s population losses argued that the availability of quality, good-paying jobs and the quality and cost of living were key factors in an area’s attractiveness,” recount Eric Montarti, director of research at the institute, and Jake Haulk, president-emeritus and senior advisor.

“That is just as true today. Economic factors, specifically jobs and the business climate that produce the job gains, remain the keys to luring new residents and encouraging existing ones to stay,” they say.

Possible remedies, many of which must originate with the Pennsylvania General Assembly, are ending public school teacher and mass transit strikes; prevailing wage reform; ending economic development subsidies and voter approval for all local tax increases.

“Instead there is even more emphasis locally on government-driven development,” Montarti and Haulk say, citing, as one example, a Westmoreland County proposal to build an amphitheater to help stem population loses.

As for property taxes, those in Allegheny County were much higher in 2007 than those in neighboring counties. These days, citing another example, the combined millage rate (county, municipal and school) in Upper St. Clair (in Allegheny County) is twice that of Peters (in Washington County), communities that border one another.

“Someone considering a property that is assessed at $150,000 in one of the two municipalities would see a difference in total taxes of just over $2,500 more in Allegheny County, with $1,800 of that resulting from differences in school taxes,” Montarti and Haulk note.

“(A)t current millage rates, a property with an assessed value of $295,000 could be purchased in Peters with the same total tax bill of a $150,000 assessed property in Upper St. Clair.”

Back to those Census numbers.

Greater Pittsburgh’s MSA population was 2,356,285 in 2010, 31,542 higher than the latest head count. Allegheny County’s population was 1,223,348, or 4,896 higher, with the years of increases or negligible losses lasting until about 2013.

Since then the population in the MSA and Allegheny County has fallen each year, which has serious implications for the labor force, tax base and political representation as the 2020 Census approaches.

“While there are areas of modest strength in the MSA, there can be no gainsaying the fact that, overall, the county and region are losing ground relative to the country and many comparably sized metro areas,” the researchers say.

“This, despite the region’s great good fortune of being a major beneficiary of having natural gas deposits.”

Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy and can be reached via email.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.