Comments
pedantic_comments t1_j8aj5pe wrote
Buying my side lot took about ten years and I think I had to start the process over at least three times due to “lost” paperwork and staff turnover.
The city seems to be doing its best to rollback the side lot program, but won’t sell lots individually - only in groups to developers.
Evorgleb t1_j8dllnl wrote
> the side lot program
I am not familiar with this program. How is it supposed to work?
pedantic_comments t1_j8dnwkr wrote
I’d love to drop some knowledge bombs!
It’s a relic from when houses cost less than an used car. I’m pretty confident that the powers that be are trying to do as few of these sales as possible, because now it means selling a lot worth $25k+ for $400 to a neighbor.
I maintained the lot next to my house for a decade and filled out the paperwork. It takes about a year or two if you’re approved and you can’t have any major code violations or owe any tax or utilities. My neighbors got rejected for a week-overdue water bill, for example.
https://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/finance/sideyard_sale_program.pdf
AlleghenyCityHolding t1_j8apc07 wrote
Just say fuck it and adverse possession it.
the_real_xuth t1_j8b3rhb wrote
Just for clarity, there's a lot to be said for just acting as if you own the property and depending on the details, there's a good chance you'll never have an issue in your lifetime (when I was looking at homes recently, one that I was seriously considering had much of its fenced in yard and paved driveway on city property and it had been that way for at least several decades with no reason to believe that that the situation would change any time in coming decades). However PA state law doesn't allow actual adverse possession (with transfer of title at the end of the process) with municipally owned property.
mainelinerzzzzz t1_j8bxgyv wrote
Corruption is the word you’re looking for.
[deleted] t1_j8ati0o wrote
[deleted]
put_the_ux_in_sux t1_j8axa29 wrote
5456 Black St Acquired in 1994. Sold to Module Development in 2019 for $1,500.
Subdivided into two additional lots (5454, 5452).
Mr-Pugtastic t1_j8bfg9e wrote
Got im
verdesquared4533 t1_j8d66am wrote
>5456 Black St
Didn’t that go through the URA and the not the City?
[deleted] t1_j8b1zw9 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j8bm6x6 wrote
[deleted]
bredthings t1_j8dbyj8 wrote
Yes it is, and especially for that price. The point you’re missing is that the city does not offer the same price on lots/buying opportunities to local families and small businesses (for the most part)
ChefGuru t1_j8a0tf9 wrote
On the other hand, if the city allows people to redevelop them so they're no longer dilapidated, most of this sub will scream about gentrification.
I_read_that_as_xxxx t1_j8a8t1o wrote
Fucking right. Preach the truth my man. My brother was in the bullshit about Wilkinsburg when they were fixing East Lib. Well congrats mother fucker, Wilkinsburg still sucks a bag of dicks 15 years later. You got your wish.
BoopSquiggShorterly t1_j8xptsg wrote
Yep. See Dean Bog's Wilkinsburg episode and his "flippers stay the fuck out of Wilkinsburg" comments lmao.
Paranoidexboyfriend t1_j8b7joh wrote
Those people want someone to pour thousands upon thousands of dollars into updating the houses to make them safe and livable, but then to rent or sell those houses out at or below cost so the people that already live there can afford it. Which of course no one would do that.
da_london_09 t1_j8eka1t wrote
Its the same ones that scream that the city should build more homeless shelters, without thinking about where any of that money would come from.
Also the same ones that scream that schools are underfunded while they also bitch about their property tax assessments.
You know, the kind that want everything, but don't want to be the ones to actually pay for it.
hydrospanner t1_j8e62z3 wrote
Yeah, I've yet to hear of any easy, economical, sustainable, way to simultaneously revitalize an area, attract new business, improve quality and quantity of housing, and reduce crime while also not displacing any current residents, not tearing down any older buildings other than dilapidated ones, not increasing average rent, and not "flooding the area with traffic and outsiders".
That's just not how it works. You get both the good and the bad or you get neither.
PseudoAccountant t1_j8de0xh wrote
Very true. The reality is that you can’t ask people to rehab or rebuild for less than it costs. Asking a carpenter to work for free or half off so that someone can have housing isn’t sustainable and businesses can’t (not won’t) participate in it.
The good news is that there are a lot of ways to ensure that the new homes prevent displacement and fight gentrification; however, this outcome would involve subsidization and public private partnerships. The end result could be low income households (50-80% AMI) being able to own high quality homes in improving neighborhoods with good access to jobs, services, and amenities. This is within reach without levying new tax revenues. But this is unlikely to occur in the near future.
But hey, keep Pittsburgh shitty!
Alt_North t1_j8evx4r wrote
This is a real political problem. It might indeed be preferable were the city able to transform these lots for some highest and best public use the marketplace cannot provide. But they got no nuttin' money to do that with, and letting them dilapidate forever out of stubbornness just doesn't seem good
theciaskaelie t1_j8alkht wrote
half the city needs bulldozed down and rebuilt. i had a friend from long island come to visit once and all he said was "this city looks old"
drift__687 t1_j8ao3vl wrote
I was back home over the weekend. First time I’ve been back in a while. Spent 30 years here. I appreciate the old of Pittsburgh, Americans go to Europe to see old all the time. My thought was just everything was ran down. A coat of paint would be nice. Clean up the trash and rocks from the roadway. Paint over all the graffiti everywhere. Fix the roadways. Everything feels like it did when I left. Just some upkeep would go a long way.
rh1980pgh t1_j8c5xrc wrote
yes it does... and we like it that way.
theciaskaelie t1_j8d4x1q wrote
not old as in like rome or something, old as in dilapidated and should be condemned. so many of the houses are so poorly maintained im amazed anyone lives in them.
EmphasisFinal t1_j8a0n4c wrote
I know somebody who knows somebody and they make a killing buying up properties from the city. It really is a racket.
SuperRocketRumble t1_j8bknjo wrote
Is this a joke or sarcasm or?
I can’t even tell anymore
EmphasisFinal t1_j8eure3 wrote
Typically, on this website, sarcasm is followed by a (/s).
Unfortunately this isn't a joke or sarcasm. I went out on dudes boat last summer, purchased with money from flipping city owned houses.
His boat is a few hundred square feet less than my house.
It pays to know somebody
imouttahereta t1_j8f71v2 wrote
Just gotta pull yourself up by your bootstraps and give the mayor a firm handshake.
QdelBastardo t1_j8del2u wrote
uglybushes t1_j89sbkw wrote
Pittsburgh fucking sucks at selling off properties and allowing for growth
eonerv t1_j8fk1hd wrote
Having recently moved to the area, why is this? Why can't the powers that be who are making it suck be..voted out?
BoopSquiggShorterly t1_j8xpo1i wrote
Shitty politicians run this corrupt city
DannyLameJokes t1_j8a3rsh wrote
Housing Advocates is a funny way of spelling for profit real estate developers.
412gage t1_j8ah8dv wrote
A lot of them are non-profits, as well.
DannyLameJokes t1_j8aop0x wrote
Are they the same kind of “non-profit” that was forcing people to sell their north side houses by repeatedly reporting minor code violations so they could buy and flip them?
412gage t1_j8aqt10 wrote
You're gonna have to provide the link to what you're referring to, because I didn't hear of that. I'm referring to the non-profits that I used to work with in the Pittsburgh and Philly areas that were building affordable housing. Some of them are pretty rough but a lot of them are genuine mission-driven developers.
DannyLameJokes t1_j8b0wdq wrote
I’m sure you can find other articles. One of the entities doing this was disguising themselves as a community housing non-profit. The city didn’t seem to mind residents being forced out of their homes
412gage t1_j8b3tmr wrote
Yeah I’m speaking purely about developers, although I know very well of these firms that buy up properties as mentioned in the article. Shady practices aren’t uncommon, unfortunately.
S4ltyInt3ractions t1_j8a0vgy wrote
The city needs to do better with its property but conservatorship is not the answer. Developers have already started trying to take peoples homes that they live in. https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/homeowners-say-developer-is-using-state-law-to-get-control-of-properties/
Paranoidexboyfriend t1_j8b7r32 wrote
Thats completely irrelevant to the issue of the city not doing anything with the property they've taken. No one lives in the homes being discussed in the article, unless they're squatters.
S4ltyInt3ractions t1_j8boi5h wrote
How is that irrelevant I acknowledged the city's failure I'm stating conservatorship is not a good solution where is your disconnect?
AirtimeAficionado t1_j8a7j8h wrote
They aren’t “taking” homes— people are compensated at fair market value for the land and structure. Developers aren’t building empty buildings, how is it fair for one person to hog a plot of land in a blighted structure that potentially hundreds of people could live on? It’s driving up housing costs for everyone, stifling growth, and hurting the recovery of the city as a whole. Tearing down homes to put up a parking lot or highway is bad, but tearing down homes to build even more homes (often times with a larger affordable unit stock than before) is not. And if one person is refusing to sell at a reasonable price, laws like these are critical to ensure the future development of a neighborhood isn’t stifled by one disgruntled individual.
S4ltyInt3ractions t1_j8add5b wrote
Wow did you read the article? This isn't eminent domain and your hypothetical situation where one individual is holding up a development for the greater good is delusional this is for profit companies doing land grabs.
AirtimeAficionado t1_j8amuos wrote
It isn’t eminent domain, but they are not able to take the home without purchasing it from the current owner following the conservatorship process. And it isn’t a land grab because they are still ultimately paying for the property at market value. It is more complicated than either of us are giving it credit, but it isn’t a big bad developer stealing people’s homes or a rosey utopia in the making. It’s just a messy process of neighborhood redevelopment, which is forced into this position in part because of the laws which limit development/allow for development to be stalled by a vocal minority.
Karmanat0r t1_j8bhou4 wrote
I thought the Land Bank was supposed to fix all of this? What the fuck is the Land Bank even doing??
MaybeADumbass t1_j8d0pdk wrote
Fighting against the very same forces that prevent the City from selling properties to the public in a fair and equitable fashion.
PseudoAccountant t1_j8daxqg wrote
We advocated at the mayoral, city staff, URA, and county levels for a more sane policy about the local govt owned homes and lots in city limits and let me tell you: you have no idea how backwards our government is. It’s basically run behind the scenes by idealists who are full of fear and who distrust the public. A classical “we know better than everyone else” kind of group.
There are a lot of reasons given for why they continue to amass lots and have basically no plan or policy for getting these lots back on the tax rolls. One of these fears is displacement/gentrification. And I’d be lying if I said that, given the absolutely insane level of govt ownership of unused lots in the city, there wasn’t at least some validity to that concern.
However, paralysis is what we have. Because they can’t see a perfect way out of this situation, they prefer to delay until they can find one. This is not sane. Some of these lots have been held since the 60’s. The deindustrialization of the 70s and 80s and the ensuing economic chaos here only accelerated the governments REO rolls. They’ve been trying to figure this problem out for 40+ years. More time isn’t the solution.
But that’s not how they see it at all. It’s sad. And we gave up trying to talk about it. The city could do some amazing things with that land. Affordable home ownership is within reach in Pittsburgh for many families that are struggling to make things work. But there is no political will to make this happen. The unelected staff of the city think most of us are ignorant idiots. And there are no adults in the room with enough spine to take action.
I’m hoping that Gainey will prove to be a difference maker, but only time will tell.
eonerv t1_j8flaf2 wrote
I just asked this in another thread and you answered here:
> The unelected staff
And who hired these staff? Who's responsible for them? What chain can we follow to vote someone in who will actually make good changes?
Apologies, I just moved here and am learning more about the area.
PseudoAccountant t1_j8iy35a wrote
Welcome to the Burgh! Despite our problems, it can be a wonderful place to live! Hope you enjoy it here.
Our local government is just like any large government body in that the overwhelming majority of government workers are not elected but instead appointed or hired. So nothing wrong with that inherently. The issue comes up when the staff are allowed to basically set their own agenda and priorities, taking actions that may not be to the letter of the law. Unfortunately, many of these people don’t care (they may think they now better, or sometimes it just make their lives easier so they don’t care). Additionally there isn’t really any recourse that you have other than to sue. But the staff very often has no legal risk. You sue the city and not them personally. So if they do something that is against the law and they do it knowingly, they typically have no real risk personally. In other words, there is no downside for them.
For the aggrieved parties, you have to take the risk of fighting city hall. That includes time and money. Your opponent is a juggernaut with a monopoly on tax collection, so getting them to back down is pretty hard. It’s not like a private business. In many cases, it ends up better to take your lumps and salvage what you can when dealing with the city. A bitter pill to swallow.
Pittsburgh isn’t the only city with this problem. It’s more the rule than the exception in most places to greater or lesser degrees.
Pittsburgh basically has a political monoculture. This is a big problem here as it means most of the population is disenfranchised and receives no representation in matters of the government. Voting almost doesn’t matter unless you are very progressive and then your choice is between a couple of different progressive voices. I’m not saying progressives are good or bad here. I’m just saying that when you have basically one thought group making policy unopposed, you end up with a lot of chronic overstepping or convenient oversights.
I want to caveat this whole post though. While there are some people in local government that are problems, there are many hard working people trying to do the right thing too. So please don’t take this as an indictment of all local govt staff. You have to meet people where they are and see them for who they are. Anything less than that isn’t right.
Chubby-bunny-22 t1_j8bgc2k wrote
I do NOT understand why the city would do this? Any theories? Seems like some type of shady back dealing?
SuperRocketRumble t1_j8bnrvd wrote
Sure would be nice if I could read the article
[deleted] t1_j8agva2 wrote
[deleted]
put_the_ux_in_sux t1_j89z3lj wrote
I’ve tried for over 3 years to buy an empty lot owned by the city. Never a single reply back.
Weird that people with connections to the city get massive prime lots for pennies on the dollar.