Pittsburgh Money Woes?
So Pittsburgh is once again embroiled in efforts to figure a way out of its budget crunch. If there is one consistent concern among inhabitants of America's Most Livable City, it is the state of its finances. New mayor Luke Ravenstahl claims that we will have a $57 million dollar surplus for the 2007 fiscal year, but many believe he is just blowing smoke. The truth is that the city has been in a state of financial distress since the American steel empire declined, and no one is going to be able to escape that legacy without providing irrefutable proof that we have resolved our money problems.
It's only been a few years since city fathers pronounced our city bankrupt. We were awarded junk-bond status in 2003. Cutting civil service positions seemed to be the answer back then. Our city employed more policemen per capita than any city of similar size. Trash collection was inefficient. Suggested solutions to save money included privatizing the EMS, or merging them with the fire bureau. Much of the blame for the budget deficit was laid at the feet of the unions that represented workers in the public sector. But at the same time a study found that 17 of the largest corporate employers and 30% of all city property had tax-exempt status. Instead of directing their attentions toward these inequities, city managers decided to increase the tax on alcohol purchased in the city. Consolidation of services and new taxes went some way toward alleviating the situation.
But we are still not totally in the clear. So what steps can be taken to put us in a better financial position? Some are calling for tax revenues from the huge non-profit organizations that seem to grow without limits. They pay neither property, nor payroll, nor business privilege taxes. Yet they seem to be almost omnipotent. The universities and the healthcare organizations are certainly thriving in the 'Burgh. But at the same time, they create many thousands of jobs. There are observers who believe that we could stifle job growth in the non-profit sector by increasing its tax burden. That's a major obstacle, because the shortfall of quality jobs probably outweighs budget woes in the minds of many city residents. In the past, non-profits have been asked to voluntarily contribute millions of dollars to city coffers. Ravenstahl has actually worked such speculative donations into future budgets. This may explain how he arrives at the unlikely conclusion that we will have a surplus in the coming year.
Meanwhile, many who have made the commitment to live within the city would like to see commuter or higher parking taxes. Unfortunately the city is run by politicians that seem more concerned with how the suburbanites view them than the city residents who elected them to their positions. Luke Ravenstahl's bid for power included appeals to reduce the parking tax. He is a friend of sprawl and white flight. But this is part of a larger trend throughout our nation. People move out of the city to avoid paying taxes- yet they still depend on the city infrastructure and benefit from the many amenities that they no longer support. It's a travesty, but this segment of the population has a lot of political influence, so little ever changes.
One such suburbanite/pundit (AM talk radio hack Fred Honsberger) suggests instituting a 25% tax on pornography. He posits the theory that the area can generate millions of dollars through such a measure. This sounds a lot like the previous tax on alcohol that was also supposed to be "the answer" to city debt. It's an idea that may sound good in the cloistered channels of conservative talk, but I don't foresee it making much of a real difference. Bus routes are being curtailed. Citypark pools remain unfilled during the summer. Our streets are plagued with potholes. At the same time the Pittsburgh Public Schools are underfunded. And people complain about relatively high inner city property taxes. But instead of coming up with some substantial plan, Ravenstahl talks of "donations" and Honsberger speaks of "porn". What we really need is a leader who is going to put the interests of city residents above that of corporations, suburbanites, and outsiders.
It's only been a few years since city fathers pronounced our city bankrupt. We were awarded junk-bond status in 2003. Cutting civil service positions seemed to be the answer back then. Our city employed more policemen per capita than any city of similar size. Trash collection was inefficient. Suggested solutions to save money included privatizing the EMS, or merging them with the fire bureau. Much of the blame for the budget deficit was laid at the feet of the unions that represented workers in the public sector. But at the same time a study found that 17 of the largest corporate employers and 30% of all city property had tax-exempt status. Instead of directing their attentions toward these inequities, city managers decided to increase the tax on alcohol purchased in the city. Consolidation of services and new taxes went some way toward alleviating the situation.
But we are still not totally in the clear. So what steps can be taken to put us in a better financial position? Some are calling for tax revenues from the huge non-profit organizations that seem to grow without limits. They pay neither property, nor payroll, nor business privilege taxes. Yet they seem to be almost omnipotent. The universities and the healthcare organizations are certainly thriving in the 'Burgh. But at the same time, they create many thousands of jobs. There are observers who believe that we could stifle job growth in the non-profit sector by increasing its tax burden. That's a major obstacle, because the shortfall of quality jobs probably outweighs budget woes in the minds of many city residents. In the past, non-profits have been asked to voluntarily contribute millions of dollars to city coffers. Ravenstahl has actually worked such speculative donations into future budgets. This may explain how he arrives at the unlikely conclusion that we will have a surplus in the coming year.
Meanwhile, many who have made the commitment to live within the city would like to see commuter or higher parking taxes. Unfortunately the city is run by politicians that seem more concerned with how the suburbanites view them than the city residents who elected them to their positions. Luke Ravenstahl's bid for power included appeals to reduce the parking tax. He is a friend of sprawl and white flight. But this is part of a larger trend throughout our nation. People move out of the city to avoid paying taxes- yet they still depend on the city infrastructure and benefit from the many amenities that they no longer support. It's a travesty, but this segment of the population has a lot of political influence, so little ever changes.
One such suburbanite/pundit (AM talk radio hack Fred Honsberger) suggests instituting a 25% tax on pornography. He posits the theory that the area can generate millions of dollars through such a measure. This sounds a lot like the previous tax on alcohol that was also supposed to be "the answer" to city debt. It's an idea that may sound good in the cloistered channels of conservative talk, but I don't foresee it making much of a real difference. Bus routes are being curtailed. Citypark pools remain unfilled during the summer. Our streets are plagued with potholes. At the same time the Pittsburgh Public Schools are underfunded. And people complain about relatively high inner city property taxes. But instead of coming up with some substantial plan, Ravenstahl talks of "donations" and Honsberger speaks of "porn". What we really need is a leader who is going to put the interests of city residents above that of corporations, suburbanites, and outsiders.
posted by Merge Divide at 4:25 PM
4 Comments:
America's Most Livable City? Seriously? Wow.
It's what you can do with statistics. I've been to most of the country's 25 major cities. My favs are Seattle and San Fran. For some reason, I haven't yet been to LA or San Diego, and because there doesn't seem to be any reason to go, I haven't visited Atlanta, Detroit, Houston, Milwaukee, or Cleveland. As a visitor, there are certainly more interesting places than Pittsburgh, but not that many. Good food, nice enclaves, and the people are friendly. As far as overall livability, I imagine Pgh. got the statistical edge when you consider education, health care and affordable housing. Of course, I could just read the article and find out..but I was bored and needed to write.
There are still a lot of people who have never spent time in this city that can't believe the reports of residents and outside experts. But this fact keeps it from getting too congested. That's actually one of the reasons why it has been rated in the top twenty of all American cities consistently over the last 25 years (it's lowest rating was #14).
Having said that, you're not going to find a perfect place anywhere in the country. Like any other city in the US, its tax base has been eroded by suburban sprawl and sweetheart deals for corporations. But Pittsburghers are used to a high level of services and commitment from local government. The tax structure just needs to be revisited to make things more equitable. City managers are on their way towards straightening things out.
Here's a link to a recent article from the UPMC News Bureau titled, UPMC Reports Record Nine-Month Revenue of $5 Billion. http://www.upmc.com/Communications/NewsBureau/NewsReleaseArchives/2007/May/3QEarnings.htm
So, um, how did that tax burden song go again?
lk
Post a Comment
<< Home