Commissioners:
After listening to the last commission meeting on 12 August 2014 I have a few questions that I'd like to ask your Honors:
I don't want to put Mr. Bendel on the spot, so any one of you who is so inclined may answer those questions as well. In addition to the above, I have been wrestling with a couple of other issues related to field turf, but not necessarily exclusive to it. It has been stated that placing artificial turf on our Cedar Boulevard fields will attract new, young families into the municipality. With that in mind, I have the following questions:
- A resident asked Commissioner Bendel if he thought artificial turf was "an essential need." Mr. Bendel replied that "it's a need." May I conclude from that exchange that the commission agrees that it is not part of the core responsibilities of Mt. Lebanon to provide artificial turf to the community?
- I would agree that it is not a core responsibility. However as I look back these last three years, we do a lot that isn't our core responsibility whether still in the community's best interest or possibly not. The conversation with Mr. Bendel and the resident was about essential need vs need. I personally believe that we have need at maintaining the fields we have and if the opportunity arises to add a field to do so, as you know, I don't think that I would have done very well in the debate because I don't see turf as an essential need or even a need.
- Earlier in the meeting (if I remember the timeline correctly) Mr. Bendel told the same resident that one of the benefits of artificial turf is that it would eliminate the necessity of our field sports teams to occasionally play or practice on fields located outside the municipality. Why is playing on a field outside the boundaries of Mt. Lebanon a bad thing? If venues are available and nearby, what difference does it make where they are located? Some of the venues are not nearby and I think that is the concern. I agree with Mr. Bendel that it would be optimal to have some of these teams play here in Mt Lebanon, but I also agree with you Mr. Gideon if you can't what's the big deal if it's nearby (30-40 mins).
- What constitutes the demographics for a "new, young family?" It certainly can't be Millennials (18 to 29); a recent survey by the Reason-Rupe Poll, in cooperation with the Pew Foundation, shows that most Millennials are unmarried (71%), only 19% currently own a home or condo, and what's more important, most Millennials don't have the money it would take to live In Mt. Lebanon. I assume you are targeting the over 30 crowd. I read that poll as well and I think even more so that age group is looking at condo and townhouse living with move-in ready and you are right we don't have a lot of that housing stock here. That is why SF, Peters, and others are booming. I am not sure what demographic the Commission is looking at specifically because I don't think it has ever been discussed.
- Since Mt. Lebanon is (almost) completely built-out, and a large percentage of homes (probably more than half) are older, post WWII vintage houses with limited floor space, it becomes rather apparent that attracting "new, young families" will be a zero sum game; i.e., some person, couple, or family in a desirable house will have to "go away" for the new young family to move in. Of course this is not 100% correct, but I think you would all agree that the amount of space available for new construction is severely limited. It also becomes rather obvious that the people who will have to go are elderly couples or elderly singles, "empty nest" families, or families consisting of only one child. Does the commission have a plan to encourage these people to go away? (By the way, I'm not being "flippant"; these are questions that other communities are debating!) I understand your question and the answer is no I don't believe we do. We also don't have a comprehensive plan if they stay and I mean our public transportation isn't there. We don't have sidewalks everywhere either and we are currently working on our accessibility practices for buildings/roads.
- Should you achieve your goal of attracting moderate to large numbers of new, young families into Mt. Lebanon it will undoubtedly put a strain on field services - we're assuming these families want their kiddos to play field sports - and the school district. This, in turn, will necessitate increased spending on the part of both the municipality and the district (for example, the artificial turf will experience more use due to the increased number of kids using it). Spending comes from revenues, and revenues come mostly from real estate and earned income taxes. If the number of new families is limited by the availability of desirable housing, then these families will perforce have to be very high income earners (probably duel-incomes). Given these things, what constitutes the profile of your target family? In other words, what should they have in terms of net income (because real estate taxes are paid out of net income, not gross); ideally, how many kids should each family have; and what would be the typical value of a home they would purchase? In a community, and especially a "built-out" one, there must be an optimum ratio between the under 18 population and non-essential services provided to them by taxpayers. This is my personal opinion, not the Commissions. We highly rely on our families to do volunteerism in the schools which almost requires a stay at home parent. Our school system is making some headway, but still relies/assumes that most students have one parent that stays home so we already have a disparity, because our taxes almost require dual income. Most families in the country, cannot afford one parent staying home and affording our cost of living in Mt Lebanon for purchasing real estate but also times are changing and both parents are becoming more ambitious about their careers and don't want to take time off to raise the children. So our school district still lives in part in the days where "Johnny" could come home for lunch or expect Johnny's mom to do the PTA/Science group and Writing Lab. When we begin looking at this shift as a community/school we will see full-day Kindergarten, comprehensive after school programming for all kids, and maybe some school programs eliminated. I think we would see major differences in school/community if we became more dual parent focused. Until then, I believe that is why we are seeing more rentals and that will continue to grow. Young families, single moms want to have their child attend a safe school/live in a safe neighborhood and they pull the funds together to rent. I also see many retirees or recent widows that want to live in a safe area but don't want to be responsible for the daily care of a house so they rent. Ward 5 continues to grow in rental living every year and some properties do take decent care of the rental, others most definitely do not. To answer your question in a number ratio, I am not sure, but I understand your question and see the issues every time I talk to residents.
- What is your estimate of home price inflation that will be required to sustain a growth of, say, 10% in the under 18 demographic over a period of eight years (I chose eight years because that's the replacement time for artificial field turf) - keeping in mind that the total population of Mt. Lebanon would not rise by the same amount? Same question, but with an increase of 20%? To guide your thinking on this, consider a hypothetical town with two families, A and B, each consisting of five "under 18" kids and two adults. The total number of kids is 10, and the total population is 14. Family B moves away and is replaced by family C, consisting of six kids and two adults. The number of kids in total has increased by 10%, but the total population has increased by seven percent. That additional kid, not being a producer, will put additional strain on the municipality and school system, thus raising the costs for both. I am not sure.
- Finally, what is the criteria for public financing of special interest entertainments? (Again, I'm not being flippant. Each organized field sport, such as baseball, football, lacrosse, etc., is a special interest. That does not mean field sports are bad things; it simply means they are not "essential needs" and do not serve over 50% of the community.) As a private pilot I'd love to see an airfield in Mt. Lebanon - it would save me from driving to the Allegheny County Airport (if I were still flying, that is!). I am sure other Mt. Lebanon pilots would agree. Now that may be a little grandiose, so how about a zip-line facility - perhaps in Bird Park? That would be fun, and it would certainly attract the more adventurous types of young families and their kids. So, hypothetically speaking, if I were to provide a quarter of the costs for a zip-line could I depend upon the municipality to fund the rest? There isn't a criteria. Anyone could come to us and if a Commissioner or staff person has an interest in moving the idea forward it can be possible. Zip line, Denis Theater, Horsing facility, airport, what have you.
I hope this information helps. I can definitely expand my personal thoughts, opinions etc by phone or over coffee as well.Thanks Mr. Gideon.Kelly
49 comments:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/pittsburgh/1315241-peters-twp-vs-mount-lebanon.html
Interesting comments—
"I didn't realize it was that high. Over $7k in taxes for a mediocre $200k house is just disgusting. I drive through Mt.Lebo everyday for work and it's nice, but not THAT nice. Someone would have to be nuts to pay those kinds of taxes. There are plenty of good school districts that don't cost so much, like Hempfield, Seneca Valley, Franklin Regional, Mars, Peters Twp, etc. Mt. Lebo can keep their walkable neighborhood and lame coffee shops. Apparently, being progressive is quite expensive. Imagine that."
Especially the following observation:
"Just an aside, but the reason walkable places like Mt Lebanon are priced at a premium is that they are artificially scarce. And they are artificially scarce because of public policies and regulations. So those high prices are a side-effect of the policies and regulations that subsidize and otherwise encourage auto-centric sprawl and discourage (and sometimes prohibit) walkable developments.
And yes, this is an example of governments distorting the natural market outcome, to ill effect. But many (albeit not all) of the usual anti-government suspects tend to ignore this particular example because it happens to favor their preferred lifestyle."
I'd rather pay 7k on a 200,000 house in Mt. Lebanon than $3,000 for Hempfield, Seneca, Franklin Regional, Mars, or Peters township. It's okay if people that drive through here think it's disgusting.
Who cares? Yes, Peters has a good school district, but I don't think low taxes are worth the long commute,brutal traffic,endless strip malls, auto dealers and chain restaurants. But IF you like that, then MOVE TO PETERS or ANYWHERE ELSE and enjoy your lower taxes and friendly commissioners. A house in Mt. Lebanon has proven to be a good investment. So put the sign up and start looking.
On a side not - Are you telling me private pilots have to drive all the way to the Allegheny Count Airport from Mt. Lebanon? This is shocking and quite frankly, disgusting. I can't believe we're considering things like turf fields, rifle ranges and brick streets when pilots don't have a local runway. I may have to move to latrobe. Good schools, lower taxes and a RUNWAY.
I am so glad that Kelly recognized that Mt. Lebanon taxes and real estate prices almost necessitate 2 income households, save for the very rich. We bought a nice home here - and our real estate taxes alone are $1,200 a MONTH. We're ok with it - we made our choices (though we didn't realize how fiscally irresponsible the local government was at the time), but we both absolutely have to work in order to make ends meet. The school district needs to recognize that while they demand higher and higher taxes from their citizenry, they need to accommodate working parents. This isn't the 1950's, and stay at home moms are not the norm anymore.
3:23pm, your "side not" misses Gideon's point. He used an absurd example, followed by a more realistic one, to draw out the commissioners. If that was too difficult for you to see then I'll bet you're a municipal employee or a Mt. Lebanon teacher. And if you'd rather pay $7K on a $200K house, why not pay more if you think you're getting a deal; how about $14K, or $21K - the higher the better, right?
3:23 PM, I have to move if I want friendly commissioners? You mean I can't have endless mattress stores AND friendly commissioners in Mt. Lebanon? Is that an unrealistic expectation, 3:23 PM? Mr. Gideon was making a point about how having an airstrip in Mt. Lebanon would serve a very small segment of the community, but I think you already know where he was going with that. It makes about the same amount of sense as putting in expensive toxic turf fields in an area prone to flooding, while serving a small portion of Mt. Lebanon. Or you don't get it because you took too many hits to the head as a kid.
Elaine
Good for 3:23, you like it here and $7k in taxes on a $200k home isn't a problem for.
But, everyone has a breaking point and I'll bet at some point irregardless of your occupation you'll reach yours.
Apparently the bond market is beginning to reach theirs with lending Lebo cheap money.
The decline in the school district's enrollment figures suggest young couples aren't moving here or for some unknown reason, our young females aren't very fertile.
3:23...That's telling 'em. Peter's is chock full of those awful "auto dealers"...like BMW and Audi and Cadillac. Ew, yuck, right? Good thing nobody in Lebo values materialistic vehicles like that. And those "chain restaurants" there are just horrible. You know, like Applebee's and Atria's. I'm so thankful we don't have anything that gauche in Lebo. Nope.
Long commute and brutal traffic? I drive to Southpointe every day. The absolute worst part of the drive is either the Kirwan Heights exit or the stretch on 19 between Fort Couch Road and the Galleria (depends on which route I choose).
I haven't moved because I happen to still like that physical layout of Mt. Lebanon, and the proximity to PNC Park to see my beloved Pirates. So save me the "if you don't like it, move" nonsense. If you want to pay insane taxes, why don't YOU move? Why should the rest of us be dragged along on some elitist odyssey where, in a twisted sense of logic, paying exorbitant taxes somehow equals status? That's absurd.
JE CANNON the 3rd: you like fancy call dealerships, chain restaurants, low taxes and work at Southpointe. But you like the layout of Mt. Lebanon and the Pirates. You've got to be kidding me. So for the layout and the pirates you're willing to pay these exorbitant taxes. Do you realize you could move to peters and save on gas. You'd be losing the 'layout' but could use the extra money and get some club seats.
6:11
I get that it was an absurd example. As are most on this blog. And I did not say I was getting a deal. I said I'm willing to pay more.
Elaine, if you think turf and an airstrip are equal in term of need, or making sense, then I get why you don't gain any traction in your efforts.
Mr. Cannon, don't overlook those unique gourmet restaurants-- McDonalds, Wendy's, Taco Bell, Einstein's and for something truly special Max & Erma's and Panera's.
Yep 3:23, Mt. Lebanon is truly a gourmand's paradise with restaurants beyond compare.
3:23 don't forget those Dollar Stores! Who needs a Nordstrom's right?!
8:50 you don't say how much more you're willing to pay.
Let's look at the school district.
In 2012 school district expenditures were $90,460,219 or a cost per student of $17,068 per year according to the CAFR report.
In 2013 expenditures were $122,530,022 or $23,539/student/year.
What will your limit be... $30,000/student? $40,000 or maybe $60,000.
The cost to educate a kid in Lebo jumped by over $5,000 in one year. How long do you think themarket will accept those kinds of increases?
I , too, have seen the number of rentals growing. In fact, there is one next door to me. The CA owner only had the grass cut 4 times this summer while the property is overgrown with weeds and the landscaping is overgrown. A very nice family has finally moved in from Europe and we help them as much as we can. They are nice people. We hope they stay for a while. There rent is $2600.00 per month plus utilities.
Excuse me, cost per student didn't jump over $5,000 between 2012 and 2013.
It was a jump of $6,471!
who said anything about gourmet restaurants. How about this?
Drive from South Hills Village to the Meadows on Rt. 19. If that is appealing to you. Move. You will have lower taxes. And if you're lucky, they will drill underneath your yard in Peters and you can offset the already low taxes.
My my my 8:50, arent you the wise one. Perhaps if you'd spend more time on reading comprehension as opposed to taking shots at Elaine, you would have noticed nowhere did I express a like or dislike for "call"(sic) dealerships or restaurants of any sort. But I think I understand a point you were attempting to make. No, I do not stay solely because of the Pirates or the layout of the community. I stay because for whatever reason, I hold out a naive optimism that someday soon people with your mindset and that of the free-spending commission will eventually either be relegated to the fringe or just leave. Then people like me, people who recognize paying higher taxes certainly doesn't elevate us in terms of desirability as a community, can start repairing the damage caused by reckless spending, burdensome tax increases and special interests dictating the direction of the community. Is that a better answer for you?
You're happy paying high taxes? Good for you. I don't want to deny another resident their happiness (nor the pursuit of the same). But, and I'm just spitballing here, I would venture to say if you took a poll and asked people "do you enjoy paying higher taxes?", the responses would likely tilt pretty heavy in one direction. Again, if you like shelling out more money than necessary, feel free to share that "bargain" mentality and pay your neighbor's taxes next year in addition to your own. Then come back and let us all know what a great deal it was.
Folks looking for a freebie from the other taxpayers always say they are willing to pay more. If that is the case how much did the Anon. commentator donate to the toxic turf fund? Tell us how much more you paid or SHUT UP AND MOVE BIG MOUTH!
How much do you want to bet 8:50 was one of the lucky homeowners that made out like a bandit in the reassessments while others got hammered with increases. (See Moertel's analysis of property valuations here on the blog)
Ooops, Moertel's analysis is on Bloglebo not here on Lebocitizens.
8:50, if I'm reading you correctly anyone that has a problem with any thing in Mt. Lebanon and compares it to Peters, USC, SF, should immediately pack up and leave!
Everyone must love everything in your bubble because you do, is that the rule? Their family, friends and neighborhood, their dream house, work commute have nothing to do with it. They don't like your turf... get the hell out!
Worry about escalating taxes... don't let the door hit you in the ass as you leave!
That certain isn't the community I thought our family bought into and I'll be damned if I'm going to let you dictate that is the community it has become!
So the next time one of your pals uses an argument that we must build an indoor facility, turf another field or institute PAYT because XXX township is doing it, how about you pack up and move there instead of pushing it on us.
This morning I received a reply to my letter from Commissioner Bendel. He writes, in part, "What I meant and should have clarified in my response was that there is insufficient field space in the municipality for residents playing field sports. We have plenty of baseball fields, but not enough space for field sports (soccer, Lacrosse, field hockey), which have grown in popularity. This is a need that could be satisfied a number of different ways; creating new fields, expanding playability of the existing fields or renting fields outside of the municipality. A status quo, do nothing option was also available."
Mr. Bendel then directly addresses the "essential need" aspect of my letter: "While I do not believe the turf project is on par with "essential needs" such as public safety and infrastructure, I do believe the project addresses the need for field space. In the end, after considering the options available, the past failures of more expensive alternatives and the number of years of inaction by the municipality, I supported the turf project as the best option."
Mr. Bendel is to be applauded for recognizing that artificial field turf is not an "essential need" and saying so. In addition, while he did not address the additional questions I raised in my letter, he did say he would be open to discussing them with me - which I take to mean a phone call or personal meeting - and I will take him up on it.
Finally, while I am philosophically and intellectually opposed to this "turf deal" and the stated reasons for it, Mr. Bendel at least read and understood the first two questions in my letter and addressed them. He did not go off on a tangent, answer a question I didn't ask (exempli gratia, the School Board), nor intimate that I should move out of town if I didn't like the way things are run around here. That is more than I can say for some of the anonymous posters on this Blog!
With all that "community-building" that the RealLebo girls professed to be interested in developing it is amazing that we still read comments from people like 3:23 still exist.
Linfante never seems to have a problem with someone telling her constituents to move elsewhere.
I can agree with Bendel on a lack of regulation soccer/lacrosse fields and see no reason why we can't build or convert a field for starters to satisfy the growing popularity of those sports.
That said, I'm not in favor of artificial turf, but if the sports' groups demand something more than well-maintained natural grass they should foot the total bill to move to turf. Also, if the McNeilly/Twin Hills purchases are not going to be used for their original purpose - new fields - we should unload them before spending another dime on fields.
Also it appears the county is building soccer fields so more offsite fields will be available.
"A fifth project involves seeking $3 million for infrastructure improvements to the former Sports Legacy 78-acre site called the Montour Junction property, where perhaps 11 sports fields will be developed.
Regarding the sports field, the board accepted a $1 million agreement with the Beadling Soccer Association to construct a synthetic soccer field on the site at Montour Junction — which straddles Moon, Coraopolis and Robinson. As part of the agreement, Beadling would designate the dates and times for use of the field to avoid conflicts with other soccer clubs. The county aims to build three or four synthetic soccer fields there this year."
http://triblive.com/mobile/5639488-96/county-million-soccer
On ESPN2-athletes cooling feet in ice water due to turf heat
Elaine
Richard, you haven't heard from your commissioner, correct? I will be surprised if you get a response from Dave. Also, according to Kristen's very hectic schedule, I doubt that you will hear from her. I saw no time built in her jam-packed week for communicating with constituents.
Thanks for writing to the commissioners, RG.
Elaine
Commissioners Bendel, Linfante, Silverman and Brumfield: Are we going to be seeing our children dunking their shoes in buckets of ice water on Middle and Wildcat Fields? How about providing buckets of ice water for spectators too?
Alex Morgan upset about 159-degree temps on turf field Dr. McNitt recommended that spectators prop up their feet. I don't know if foot stools would void the warranty.
Elaine
Elaine:
I have not heard from Mr. Silverman as yet. I did hear from Ms. Linfante, but not on this topic; it was in response to a Reason Foundation study on pension reform that I sent the commissioners and Dan Miller. The last time I had a direct reply from Mr. Brumfield on any topic was 11 November 2013.
Thanks for providing this forum!
RG
All I have to say about the sports experts in Lebo is look at who is driving it. Here is a pic of turf proponent Dave Franklin (and it's from a public source, Davey so don't get your tighty whiteys in a knot):
http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/potm/2012-11-06/
And her is Alex Morgan, the professional soccer player referred to in Elaine's 4:36 post (also from a public source, and I won't even get into the bikini pics of this young lady):
http://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/olympic-soccer-star-alex-morgan
Who are you going to believe with regard to possible negative effects of turf?
Regarding the hot fields. We could install those coin-operated water cannons like they have at Kennywood's Ragin' Rapids, up at the pool.
Kidscould hose their friends and siblings while they play on the hot turf. The kids get cooled and the rec dept makes money.
I appreciate John Bendel's reply to Richard...I would like to know how John justifies the use of unassigned funds on non-essential needs (wants) and borrowing money to fund essential needs. I believe these concerns were raised at the last commission meeting but I don't remember a sensible answer, if any answer at all.
Nick M.
That is a conundrum Nick M. for the Commissioner.
He states specifically: " "While I do not believe the turf project is on par with "essential needs" such as public safety and infrastructure, I do believe the project addresses the need for field space."
So he's OK with spending - in the bank, undesignated tax revenue - on non-essential field turf and putting essential public safety and infrastructure on a very expensive credit card (bond).
So here's a question for the commissioner. If we don't turf do kids not play soccer or lacrosse? I don't think so, because the WPIAL highly ranks our soccer and lacrosse teams (boys and girls) now and they play on grass. Therefore, turf doesn't even rank very high on the essential want ranking. It is a luxury item desired by a small, select group of people.
Ask the commissioner, if he created a fair, transparent, and equitable policy for the distribution and use of unassigned funds. Certainly, he wouldn't create obstacles for non-turf essential needs in order to protect the money for turf, would he?
10:19 PM, John Bendel is OK with putting SOME essential public safety and infrastructure on a very expensive credit. Flooding on Cedar and Castle Shannon Blvds. are not being addressed in the CIP (2015-2019 Capital Improvement Program) or the recent bond issue.
Bendel is concerned about preserving the historical integrity of a partially bricked road with fourteen houses on it, at the same time doesn't inform the Historic Preservation Board of his grandiose plan to artificially turf the green space specifically mentioned as a contributing site in the Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places application.
Elaine
Bengal appears to be talking out of two sides of his mouth. Either put up or shut up. He can't have his cake and eat it too. He has no skills as a politician! He needs to go!
A resident sent me this blast from the past. From Blog-Lebo, June 24, 2009:
Guest Blogger Dave Franklin is Angry and Mystified: More on the Curious Case of the Mt. Lebanon Commission and its Paving Bonds
"'MR Fiscal Responsibility' didn't want to pave roads. BUT Mr Fiscal Responsibility is willing to strip mine fields now, spending up money that impacts our bond rating and leaves us having to borrow more money to fix streets."
Keep this in mind when the cost of the turf project is higher than expected, in order to meet Government Standards.
Elaine
Not only higher than expected but higher than budgeted ! the fraud practtioner's will find a way to cost shift the over budget costs to another budget, just like the school board has done and is doing on the high school project.
Late last night I received a reply to my letter from Kristen Linfante. In her reply she echoed John Bendel's comments, and then added the following:
"Additionally, to answer your question about housing stock and people coming in and leaving, my response is that the nature of the housing stock that exists in Mt. Lebanon lends itself to families moving in rather than empty-nesters. Multi-bedroom homes with yards tend to appeal to families - at least real estate transactions suggest as much. In addition, I know quite a few people who have raised families here and then chose to leave when they longer required a larger home and a good school district for their children. This was the case with the former owners of my home and others in the neighborhood. However , i don't think the municipality is looking to encourage anyone to leave. That is up to each individual or family based on needs and wants. Certainly our excellent school district and municipal amenities draw many families to Mt. Lebanon. Whether people choose to stay later in life is their choice. In any case, we are fortunate to live in a community that is viewed as a very desirable place to live by many moving to the area. It is proof of a well-chosen investment by our residents in my opinion.
"As far as your questions regarding what we perceive as municipal needs, my response is similar to what I spoke about when we voted on the turf. The five commissioners were elected to make decisions on behalf of the community while keeping the community's best interest in mind. Of course, what is best for the community is debatable as are most things. But again, the community entrusted us to make those decisions when it voted us into office. Each of us is doing our best to keep the community in mind when making all decisions. A majority believes that the turf project addresses a problem that was identified many years ago. Therefore, the project will move forward."
These comments are extremely interesting and quite pointed, and I thank Ms. Linfante for taking the time to send them to me. However, I want to address one item: I did not posit a question concerning "municipal needs." If one reads my letter one will look in vain for a question that asks the commissioners what they perceive as municipal needs. I did ask whether the Commission feels that artificial turf is an "essential need," based on a question a resident raised at the last Commission meeting.
Here are the questions I asked the Commission:
• A resident asked Commissioner Bendel if he thought artificial turf was "an essential need." Mr. Bendel replied that "it's a need." May I conclude from that exchange that the commission agrees that it is not part of the core responsibilities of Mt. Lebanon to provide artificial turf to the community?
• If venues are available and nearby, what difference does it make where they are located?
• What constitutes the demographics for a "new, young family?"
• Does the commission have a plan to encourage these people to go away? (Seniors, "empty-nesters," etc.)
• ...what constitutes the profile of your target family?
• What is your estimate of home price inflation that will be required to sustain a growth of, say, 10% in the under 18 demographic over a period of eight years
• ...what is the criteria for public financing of special interest entertainments?
So he was upset with the commission deciding, after minimal debate and one commissioner openly questioning the wisdom of the decision, to spend $2 million that wasnt a priority and might increase the future debt load...gosh, Dave. How does that work?
Wait, I get it. It's fiscally responsible if it's something YOU want. Glad I finally understand.
Ms. Linfante's comments are interesting... Really?! Let's look closely at one of her paragraphs.
"As far as your questions regarding what we perceive as municipal needs, [yes we have questions, get to the point, don't make us search for your words!] my response is similar [similar? why isn't it exactly the same, you're about to spend over $2 million.] to what I spoke about when we voted on the turf. [Did you vote for something "similar" to turf?] The five commissioners were elected to make decisions on behalf of the community while keeping the community's best interest in mind. [OK, so far so good, no arguing with that, but there's no explanation how she determined the community's best interest!] Of course, what is best for the community is debatable as are most things. [Sure is, everything and anything can be debatable. But Ms. Linfante what resolved the debate for you??? You told us you didn't need to listen to taxpayers, advisory boards. You had the 3 votes needed to buy turf. Doesn't sound like a debate.] But again, the community entrusted us to make those decisions when it voted us into office. [Yes we did but we also voted for transparency and collaboration remember?] Each of us is doing our best to keep the community in mind when making all decisions. [OK, you're doing your best, good for you... maybe not so good for us! An athlete can play their heart out and still lose.] A majority believes that the turf project addresses a problem that was identified many years ago. [Twin Hills and McNeilly were suppose to address that same need at a cost to the taxpayers of $2 million! What makes this expensive solution better and what do we do with the other solutions?] Therefore, the project will move forward." [Because you can-- right?]
I'm sorry, I don't find this above comment interesting at all as evidendenced by my thoughts in [...]. Can anyone point out to me anything interesting that I missed?
Kristen Linfante: "Additionally, to answer your question about housing stock and people coming in and leaving, my response is that the nature of the housing stock that exists in Mt. Lebanon lends itself to families moving in rather than empty-nesters. Multi-bedroom homes with yards tend to appeal to families - at least real estate transactions suggest as much. In addition, I know quite a few people who have raised families here and then chose to leave when they longer required a larger home and a good school district for their children."
Are these seat-of-the-pants impressions, or are they backed up with real data? Of course Mt. Lebanon lends itself to families, most suburban communities like Lebo, USC, Peters, Cranberry do. They all also tend to have multi-bedroom housing stock with yards-often times 1 acre or larger as compared to Lebo's 1/4 acre.
Beyond that though, with falling school district enrollments, a rising median age Mt. Lebanon with its high taxes, older houses and small lots may not be the magnet for young families that Linfante chooses to imagine.
But let's say she is right.... what does that say about the municipality's plans to build small apts/condos at the T station?
The commissioners need to, as Fraasch opines, figure out which demographic they want to market the community too, before throwing money at community amenities!
Mr. Franklin: It is obvious to me that any and all criticisms that you direct to those who oppose the artificial turf are YOUR issues that you project on other people. It's narcissism. Narcissists use the defense mechanism of projection directed against others who disagree with their specific diatribe. Your projection has been consistent over a long period of time! It is dysfunctional at best! It is unfortunate that you think that it is socially acceptable to bully others and pigeon-hole them as a scapegoat. That is disgusting!
Like nations, no community of any maturity exists with the same society with which it started. All political jurisdictions have life-cycles. Towns start out with low costs, room to grow, and naturally attract young families. Youngsters populate the schools and many of them stay after graduation, marrying and creating more kids. But eventually the real estate runs out. If the local economy declines subsequent kids move away of necessity. The community then passes into the "exchange" phase, where available housing is predicated on a movement of homeowners to other places, opening those homes to new families. While all of this is going on prices rise, largely based on erroneous forecasts of growth. School enrollments drop, but school prices rise because the school model does not keep up with reality. Officials in local governments, probably remembering the "glory days," try to recapture the youthful community they desire; not realizing that older residents are the ones with the money (with some exceptions, of course). By wittingly or unwittingly forcing out their "baby boomers" they are forcing out a large chunk of local wealth, to be replaced with younger but less affluent and more expensive families. And so it goes.
There is an optimum proportion of age brackets for any mature community, and a reasonable turn-over of residents is healthy; but trying to "micromanage" this turn-over is a recipe for disaster. Local government officials should be concentrating on the community's "physical plant." A town with a superior infrastructure is likely to be more attractive to prospective new residents than a couple of play fields located next to a street that turns into a lake at the first hard rain.
One thing is certain: There is no such thing as perpetual growth. Accepting this fact is the first step toward a sane local government.
RG - no one seems to realize, or want to, that 75% of Lebo households do not have children in the public school system and that 20% of the Lebo population is age 65 and over !
Gideon's comments are pretty good, but I'm curious at this continual reference by many that Mt. Lebanon is built out.
There is plenty of property available for development of condos and apartments of the type the muni is pushing for the T station area and that already exist nest to the South garage or Between St. Clair Hospital and the Jewish Temple.
We have the Zamagias property, the area at MTL and CS Blvds. If they can plan to build 50 or 60 condos or apartment at the T Station how many can be built at the preceeding to properties... 100... 200? Then there is the property for sale parallel to the T line and behind the Castle Shannon Blvd post office. Surely another 100 condos could be built in that corridor.
But they are not, why? No demand? Taxes too high? Better, less costly property elsewhere?
These are the discussion our leaders should be having and searching for solutions.
Remember the analysis of the $30 million TOD plan. It advised no developer in their right mind would invest in a project like that because they couldn't possibly recoup their investment.
Lately I've been getting messages from some of my local acquaintances, and anonymous comments on this Blog, as to whether Mt. Lebanon is actually "built-out." In my original letter I qualified "built-out" by saying "almost." Remember; the MLC wants to attract "new, young" families. But what IS a "new, young" family, and what do they want?
I maintain that if they consist of the traditional husband, wife, 2.4 kids, a dog, a cat, and two cars, they aren't going to want to buy a condo, a townhouse, or rent an apartment. They are going to want a stand-alone house on a lot. (It's interesting that despite the amount of time that has gone by since WWII, many studies show that most young nuclear families still want what their grandparents wanted when they were starting out.)
Now if you argue that the number of traditional, nuclear families has declined over the past 30 years I'll agree. That being the case, Millennials might find a Condo or an apartment in Lebo just the thing - and there seems to be room for this kind of development. The Gen-X'ers are another matter. They may weigh a Lebo Condo against a home with a yard in Peters, and go to Peters; and accept a longer commute. (Of course, business are moving too, so the question of a commute is relative.) Schools? - the schools in Peters are just as good as here.
The other side of the coin is that, while there are some green spaces that might be developed, how much of that land do you want to give up for new homes? Does the Municipality really want to have houses on every available square foot of land? So for those of you who say the town isn't built out; you're right! And for those of you who think it is built-out; you're right, too! It all depends upon what you want to build, and what you're willing to accept.
I realize that the commissioners get together from time to time and have these wonderful planning sessions. But the bottom line is this: I don't know what the commissioners want; and given the conflicting signals they send out, I don't think they know either!
Richard, the "built out" comment wasn't aimed specifically at you, many people inluding our elected officials frequently refer to the community as built out.
You present an interesting question as tto how much of the vacant land do we want to develop. It is a good topic for discussion, but it isn't all up to the community to decide. There are plots of land ready for the construction of single family homes, across from St. Winfreds and at the end of Country Club, come to mind. The lots haven't been moving much. Why not you'll probably ask and there may be various reasons.
I still think your original question To the commissioners about what type of immigrants they were trying to attract to was an excellent one and the answer should preceed all initiatives... recreation, TODs, TIFS.
I'm reminded of the saying - "if you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there!"
If I'm reading Mr. Gideon correctly, his case is that Mt. Lebanon government provide the essential services police, fire, stormwater handling etc., to a standard the residents expect or demand.
Then after that is done, determine and develop those frills and "crown jewels" that would attract the target audience(s). Then let private money and developers build the kind of housing that meets demand.
I agree with the last comment that Mt Lebanon should provide "essential services police, fire, stormwater handling etc., to a standard the residents expect or demand". If Mt Lebanon could stick to these basics, we would all be better off. The problem is that they are not accomplishing the basics and instead focusing on developing "crown jewels" and ridiculous, political undertakings. People shouldn't have to beg to get their street maintained (i.e., Summer Place), their flooded storm sewer maintained or for the municipality to refrain from random newcomer tax initiatives, etc.. If you wonder what the difference is between Mt Lebanon and the other "nice Pittsburgh suburbs", this is it.
Anybodyknow what kind of major production going on down at Dixon and Wildcat and Middle fields tonight with all those different kinds of trucks?
Believe they may have been working on the sanitary sewer, not storm sewer, pipe system along Cedar from Morgan Drive to the driveway into Cedar parking lot just south of Wildcat. The contractors had installed a flexible continuous pipe into the manholes, indicating sanitary sewers, along the fields side of Cedar. Anyone recall the sewage odors after the flooding earlier this month ? Any connection ?
What is going on at the T Station? They have the drop off spaces blocked off.
Post a Comment