Off Topic...Peduto to speak at commencement

[Parkview57]

If these cities would be self sufficient and live off their own tax generated finances I would say let each govern themselves, but it seems like they continue to legislate failed policies only to depend on federal funds to keep solvent. Sorta like the 30% of all 20 somethings living in the basement, some of whom expect someone else to pay for the useless education they sought.
Please tell me I am wrong!

 

[Swervin27]

If these cities would be self sufficient and live off their own tax generated finances I would say let each govern themselves, but it seems like they continue to legislate failed policies only to depend on federal funds to keep solvent. Sorta like the 30% of all 20 somethings living in the basement, some of whom expect someone else to pay for the useless education they sought.
Please tell me I am wrong!

you mean like California

 

[paulbl99]

No-
I never commented on the city, it’s governance, not live ability-
Since I had no vote in the matter.

Because it would be stupid and childish to do so.

We don’t care....wtf you think about commenting.
This is an open forum.....people who work in Pgh or live or work inside its sphere of influence or live in NC have every bit the capability & ability to comment here as does Souf “ I live in the city” 4 Life

Wif out you thinking you run the board.

 

[HailtoPitt]

If these cities would be self sufficient and live off their own tax generated finances I would say let each govern themselves, but it seems like they continue to legislate failed policies only to depend on federal funds to keep solvent.

Oh boy. Something tells me that the non city areas would be a hurtin more if the cities just governed themselves.

 

[Swervin27]

Oh boy. Something tells me that the non city areas would be a hurtin more if the cities just governed themselves.

I think the message here is, if you rely on federal money then you should oblige with federal laws. you cant call yourself a sanctuary city, openly go against laws of this country at the same time asking the federal govt for money.

Giving the govt the finger with one hand and having the other out for donations is quite silly and yet it's exactly what a lot of city officials are doing.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

We don’t care....wtf you think about commenting.
This is an open forum.....people who work in Pgh or live or work inside its sphere of influence or live in NC have every bit the capability & ability to comment here as does Souf “ I live in the city” 4 Life

Wif out you thinking you run the board.

And it’s likewise an open forum and discussion to point out your opinions are not relevant.

You’re not relevant

 

[paulbl99]

And it’s likewise an open forum and discussion to point out your opinions are not relevant.

You’re not relevant

Lol
The worlds greatest .......greatest.

Watch your posts here
SOUF “I live in the clity” 4 Life might cast it as not relevant.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Lol
The worlds greatest .......greatest.

Watch your posts here
SOUF “I live in the clity” 4 Life might cast it as not relevant.

I accept you demonstrate my premise.

It’s not about me, Paul

 

[paulbl99]

I accept you demonstrate my premise.

It’s not about me, Paul

Souf “l live in the city “ 4 Life.....

Time to take out any post not put here by a resident. .....Like Souf “I live in they city” 4 Life.
Only thing accepted is you are are bloviating blowhard.

 

[NTOP]

Wow sounds horrible. Oh wait, no it doesn't.

Keep those pinkies raised, MG. I want a clutch, a gated shifter, premium gasoline and a decent audio rig. An EZPass rig with bogus account number, too.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

If these cities would be self sufficient and live off their own tax generated finances I would say let each govern themselves, but it seems like they continue to legislate failed policies only to depend on federal funds to keep solvent. Sorta like the 30% of all 20 somethings living in the basement, some of whom expect someone else to pay for the useless education they sought.
Please tell me I am wrong!

I think you're wrong in the big picture. There is a net out-flowing of tax money from more urban states to more rural states and that's been true for many decades.

In the particular case of Pittsburgh, you're more right in terms of history. It is true the city benefited from Act 47 status from 14 years ago until a few months ago, allowing it to keep wage tax revenue other municipalities couldn't. But the city is also in much better financial shape now and is a net contributor to the state budget. And manages to do that despite the fact about a third of the land of the city is not taxable under state law (Pitt, UPMC, Highmark, CMU, etc.)

 

[tps48]

I'll admit that I don't like the guy. Bike lines are fine I suppose but the guy ignores objective findings of others (like the census bureau for one). His hubris before losing the Smart City competition to Columbus, his refusal to consider an offer to buy the PWSA and get water treatment into the hands of someone other than political hacks are but two of my beefs.

But he will be one of two commencement speakers.
Why? If you are graduating, what can this guy who has only worked off other people's taxes tell you?
Or is Pitt trying to stroke his ego?

Wow. Pitt must have been hard up to dumpster dive for a speaker. Silence would provide better advice to the new grads than Peduto's greed and drivel.

 

[Saboteur]

I think you're wrong in the big picture. There is a net out-flowing of tax money from more urban states to more rural states and that's been true for many decades.

In the particular case of Pittsburgh, you're more right in terms of history. It is true the city benefited from Act 47 status from 14 years ago until a few months ago, allowing it to keep wage tax revenue other municipalities couldn't. But the city is also in much better financial shape now and is a net contributor to the state budget. And manages to do that despite the fact about a third of the land of the city is not taxable under state law (Pitt, UPMC, Highmark, CMU, etc.)

Please, please do not omit the biggest non tax paying property owner of all...the City of Pittsburgh is by far the largest owner of real estate and it dwarfs Pitt, cmu etc..
You can't see it but it's right in front of you...they own far too much.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Please, please do not omit the biggest non tax paying property owner of all...the City of Pittsburgh is by far the largest owner of real estate and it dwarfs Pitt, cmu etc..
You can't see it but it's right in front of you...they own far too much.

You mean the 3,000 vacate lots and abandoned buildings they have listed for sale?

 

[Parkview57]

There is a net out-flowing of tax money from more urban states to more rural states and that's been true for many decades.

Thanks, I was not aware of this fact and does change the argument.

 

[Saboteur]

You mean the 3,000 vacate lots and abandoned buildings they have listed for sale?

No.

 

[Franb]

Please, please do not omit the biggest non tax paying property owner of all...the City of Pittsburgh is by far the largest owner of real estate and it dwarfs Pitt, cmu etc..
You can't see it but it's right in front of you...they own far too much.

Please cite your source. The City owns lots of property - roads, parks, hillsides, vacant land, etc. Much of it is of no real value, and does not have any relation to the taxable properties the non-profits own.

 

[Saboteur]

Please cite your source. The City owns lots of property - roads, parks, hillsides, vacant land, etc. Much of it is of no real value, and does not have any relation to the taxable properties the non-profits own.

Uhmm. Pitt is a school right? Does the city tax property occupied by it's schools? The city county building? The land occupied by the PWSA? What about the ornate building across from the Cathedral owned by the School system?
It's popular to diss on Pitt because it's presence is concentrated. But here's a news flash Franb. A pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of lead.
The city doesn't tax it's own school properties. Why should Pitt be the exception?

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

Uhmm. Pitt is a school right? Does the city tax property occupied by it's schools? The city county building? The land occupied by the PWSA? What about the ornate building across from the Cathedral owned by the School system?
It's popular to diss on Pitt because it's presence is concentrated. But here's a news flash Franb. A pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of lead.
The city doesn't tax it's own school properties. Why should Pitt be the exception?

1. No one argued that Pitt should be taxed the same as a for profit on this thread.

2. The city does not own the Pittsburgh Public Schools (its own legal authority under the state code with its own separate governance and taxing authority) or the PWSA (a public board also outside of city control.) The Bellefield building is owned by Pittsburgh Public Schools. The charter schools are owned by individual charter operators. None of those are "the city".

The city does own fire houses, police stations, and the like.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

Thanks, I was not aware of this fact and does change the argument.

The federal and some state governments heavily subsidize more rural communities through larger per capita highway and road subsidies, through state trooper payments, agricultural subsidies, and so on. The Pennsylvania dairy industry basically survives because of subsidies. A lot more businesses are paying corporate taxes in cities they are headquartered in as well.

New Mexico, West Virginia, and Mississippi receive the most federal tax money per dollar paid into the federal government of any state. In West Virginia it's now around $2.60 for each $1 paid (a mix of the things I listed above plus I'd imagine the sort of benefit programs that go to low income folks because it's a poorer, older state.) And because of the make up of the senate, rural states get disproportionate amount of votes in appropriations (see also how Mississippi got something like seven times as much aid post Katrina as Lousiana per person because Trent Lott was pretty powerful.)

I'm not anti rural by any means; I love the country and want to see depressed rural communities thrive again. I just like to push back as a city dweller about the idea we are some sort of leaching welfare den when actually it's the most urban states in the country paying the most into federal taxes per person and in Pennsylvania state politics its about the same.

 

[HailtoPitt]

The federal and some state governments heavily subsidize more rural communities through larger per capita highway and road subsidies, through state trooper payments, agricultural subsidies, and so on. The Pennsylvania dairy industry basically survives because of subsidies. A lot more businesses are paying corporate taxes in cities they are headquartered in as well.

New Mexico, West Virginia, and Mississippi receive the most federal tax money per dollar paid into the federal government of any state. In West Virginia it's now around $2.60 for each $1 paid (a mix of the things I listed above plus I'd imagine the sort of benefit programs that go to low income folks because it's a poorer, older state.) And because of the make up of the senate, rural states get disproportionate amount of votes in appropriations (see also how Mississippi got something like seven times as much aid post Katrina as Lousiana per person because Trent Lott was pretty powerful.)

I'm not anti rural by any means; I love the country and want to see depressed rural communities thrive again. I just like to push back as a city dweller about the idea we are some sort of leaching welfare den when actually it's the most urban states in the country paying the most into federal taxes per person and in Pennsylvania state politics its about the same.

No no no. We need to cut off the urban states! That'll show them!

 

[Parkview57]

and Mississippi receive the most federal tax money per dollar paid into the federal government of any state

Yes, I am all too familiar with Mississippi, albeit I have lived up north since '72, lots of good people living a tough life in the late 50's and 60's down there.

 

[Saboteur]

1. No one argued that Pitt should be taxed the same as a for profit on this thread.

2. The city does not own the Pittsburgh Public Schools (its own legal authority under the state code with its own separate governance and taxing authority) or the PWSA (a public board also outside of city control.) The Bellefield building is owned by Pittsburgh Public Schools. The charter schools are owned by individual charter operators. None of those are "the city".

The city does own fire houses, police stations, and the like.

No the city does not own the schools, but they are government related tax exempt entities...just like Pitt.

 

[CrazyPaco]

I think you're wrong in the big picture. There is a net out-flowing of tax money from more urban states to more rural states and that's been true for many decades.

In the particular case of Pittsburgh, you're more right in terms of history. It is true the city benefited from Act 47 status from 14 years ago until a few months ago, allowing it to keep wage tax revenue other municipalities couldn't. But the city is also in much better financial shape now and is a net contributor to the state budget. And manages to do that despite the fact about a third of the land of the city is not taxable under state law (Pitt, UPMC, Highmark, CMU, etc.)

Pitt campus comprises about 140 acres. Actually, its significantly less than that because it doesn't own the land, for instance, that the Frick Fine Arts Building sits on because that is Pittsburgh Parks property. The state holds the title on many Pitt buildings like Hillman Library and Sennott Square. But lets say Pitt outright owns everything. That's still only 0.37% of the total land of the City of Pittsburgh. In fact, Pitt would only "own" 14.6% of the total land in Oakland. And Pitt provides several of its own public services, like having its own, substantially large police force that also covers wide swaths of off-campus areas. Plus it helps pay for part of the city's service to the neighborhood, like housing inspectors that cover Oakland, and funds many improvement projects for city infrastructure, like street crosswalk upgrades around Oakland. Heck, Pitt essentially subsidizes the Port Authority.

Pitt doesn't owe jack to the city, PILOT or otherwise.

 

[pittchagg]

Pitt campus comprises about 140 acres. Actually, its significantly less than that because it doesn't own the land, for instance, that the Frick Fine Arts Building sits on because that is Pittsburgh Parks property. The state holds the title on many Pitt buildings like Hillman Library and Sennott Square. But lets say Pitt outright owns everything. That's still only 0.37% of the total land of the City of Pittsburgh. In fact, Pitt would only "own" 14.6% of the total land in Oakland. And Pitt provides several of its own public services, like having its own, substantially large police force that also covers wide swaths of off-campus areas. Plus it helps pay for part of the city's service to the neighborhood, like housing inspectors that cover Oakland, and funds many improvement projects for city infrastructure, like street crosswalk upgrades around Oakland. Heck, Pitt essentially subsidizes the Port Authority.

Pitt doesn't owe jack to the city, PILOT or otherwise.

Quite the opposite, actually. Under the most recent publicly available agreement (which expired in 2017 so the new agreement might have changed), Pitt reimburses the Port Authority for 50% of the fare cost of each trip taken using a Panther Card - so the Port Authority takes a haircut each time a student, staff or faculty member rides the bus.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Quite the opposite, actually. Under the most recent publicly available agreement (which expired in 2017 so the new agreement might have changed), Pitt reimburses the Port Authority for 50% of the fare cost of each trip taken using a Panther Card - so the Port Authority takes a haircut each time a student, staff or faculty member rides the bus.

What do think happens to the Port Authority's budget if Pitt doesn’t have a contract with it to pay for the transportation for all 41K faculty, staff, and students...like most schools in the world that don't pay for transportation to encourage ridership. Well, if my memory is accurate, PAT's public comments were quite telling during some of the previous contract negotiations with the university.

To be sure it is mutually beneficial, but it is certainly not something that is expected to happen in the world of academia. And if Pitt didn't start the program, CMU wouldn't have it either. I've never seen a program like that exist, totally free public transportation with a university ID, outside of Pittsburgh.

I will concede for the last 5 years, since PAT switched to electronic fare collection, payments are actually more tied to actual usage of the program, but for the first 15+ years it was contract negotiated pre-payments with no real way to track usage.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

Pitt campus comprises about 140 acres. Actually, its significantly less than that because it doesn't own the land, for instance, that the Frick Fine Arts Building sits on because that is Pittsburgh Parks property. The state holds the title on many Pitt buildings like Hillman Library and Sennott Square. But lets say Pitt outright owns everything. That's still only 0.37% of the total land of the City of Pittsburgh. In fact, Pitt would only "own" 14.6% of the total land in Oakland. And Pitt provides several of its own public services, like having its own, substantially large police force that also covers wide swaths of off-campus areas. Plus it helps pay for part of the city's service to the neighborhood, like housing inspectors that cover Oakland, and funds many improvement projects for city infrastructure, like street crosswalk upgrades around Oakland. Heck, Pitt essentially subsidizes the Port Authority.

Pitt doesn't owe jack to the city, PILOT or otherwise.

Yet Pitt, UPMC, CMU, and Highmark are negotiating one with the mayor right now. My guess is they'll contribute to an "urban wealth fund" outside of the city's general fund budget, probably to help fund PWSA, affordable housing, and maybe PreK. It'll be a smaller amount than corporate + property taxes I am sure. The hold up is UPMC and Highmark can't agree on their relative size to each other, not an ideological opposition to paying something in lieu of taxes.

Amazon is probably getting the same offer, which bothers me because for profit companies like them should pay real taxes and not PILOTs.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

And I never said Pitt owned a third of the land in the city, only that about a third of the property in the city is not taxabale, a problem (mostly northeastern) eds and meds oriented dense cities have that cities that have been allowed to annex their surroundings out we do not have.

Thankfully some of the new tech jobs are increasing the tax base and I think we may finally see real population increase in the 2020 census, if even only by a little.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

We should not rest until we achieve:

 

[Swervin27]

We should not rest until we achieve:

mopeds everywhere, that would be utopia. we'd be like the new Bermuda,

 

[Saboteur]

Yet Pitt, UPMC, CMU, and Highmark are negotiating one with the mayor right now. My guess is they'll contribute to an "urban wealth fund" outside of the city's general fund budget, probably to help fund PWSA, affordable housing, and maybe PreK. It'll be a smaller amount than corporate + property taxes I am sure. The hold up is UPMC and Highmark can't agree on their relative size to each other, not an ideological opposition to paying something in lieu of taxes.

Amazon is probably getting the same offer, which bothers me because for profit companies like them should pay real taxes and not PILOTs.

Not all not for profits are equal.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

Not all not for profits are equal.

Sure, Amazon doesn't need a tax break as much as Joe's Corner Bodega because Bezos is the world's richest man. I don't think that's how you meant it though.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Not all not for profits are equal.

Sure
For instance-
Pitt isn’t really not for profit
Neither is Highmark or upmc.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Sure
For instance-
Pitt isn’t really not for profit
Neither is Highmark or upmc.

I'm sure you know this but there is often general confusion about this subject. They are all legally 501(c)(3) charitable organizations. They are all "non-profits". "Not-for-profits" generally means the the subject isn't a separate legal entity. "Charitable" has specific legal understanding, for instance, as something whose purpose is advancing science or education.

No successfully operating non-profit organization does not have operational revenues that exceed expenses in most years. The difference is how those excess revenues are used, not how big the excess revenue is. Excess revenues for non-profits can't benefit private entities, individuals, or shareholders. The excess revenues are generally plowed back into the organization or donated to other charities. It also does not mean that non-profits can't have employees that are compensated commiserate with their positions, even if that means they command very large salaries. Nor does it mean that they don't compete against other organizations, non-profit and for-profit alike. And for sure, large or small if non-profits don't have excess revenue over expenses, they cease to function quickly.

Pitt, UPMC, and Highmark are really non-profits, legally and operationally, and they have withstood every legal challenge. They're very large non-profits, each with large scopes, and multiple diverse missions, and therefore have very large operational revenues, bureaucracies, impacts, and flaws, which makes them feel different if you are comparing to a local church or soup kitchen. They also operate for-profit subsidiaries that pay taxes.

No matter how one feels about it, labels and operational motives assigned to them by personal opinions don't change their status.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

I'm sure you know this but there is often general confusion about this subject. They are all legally 501(c)(3) charitable organizations. They are all "non-profits". "Not-for-profits" generally means the the subject isn't a separate legal entity. "Charitable" has specific legal understanding, for instance, as something whose purpose is advancing science or education.

No successfully operating non-profit organization does not have operational revenues that exceed expenses in most years. The difference is how those excess revenues are used, not how big the excess revenue is. Excess revenues for non-profits can't benefit private entities, individuals, or shareholders. The excess revenues are generally plowed back into the organization or donated to other charities. It also does not mean that non-profits can't have employees that are compensated commiserate with their positions, even if that means they command very large salaries. And for sure, if non-profits don't have excess revenue over expenses, they cease to function quickly.

Pitt, UPMC, and Highmark are really non-profits, legally and operationally, and they have withstood every legal challenge. They're very large non-profits, each with large scopes, and multiple diverse missions, and therefore have very large operational revenues, bureaucracies, impacts, and flaws, which makes them feel different if you are comparing to a local church or soup kitchen. They also operate for-profit subsidiaries that pay taxes.

No matter how one feels about it, labels and operational motives assigned to them by personal opinions don't change their status.

That’s a lot of words to agree

 

[CrazyPaco]

That’s a lot of words to agree

They weren't really words for you.

 

[HailtoPitt]

Uh oh. Paco and Souf gettin testy for the first time since Rushell Shell left.

 

[Saboteur]

Uh oh. Paco and Souf gettin testy for the first time since Rushell Shell left.

They've been shells of their former selves since that time.