Category Archive: Legislative / Advocacy
-
Allegheny County purchase of liens opens doors to development
By Justin Vellucci
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, January 24, 2008Doug Van Haitsma looks at a three-story apartment building in Swissvale and sees the heart of a revitalized neighborhood.
Now that Allegheny County has bought back the lien — a legal claim for unpaid taxes — on the Monongahela Avenue property, Van Haitsma said his plan to convert it and 50 nearby parcels into a Mon Valley gateway is a step closer to reality.
“It’s a pocket within Swissvale that has really fallen on hard times,” said Van Haitsma, real estate director for the Mon Valley Initiative, a development group. “Having those liens in friendly hands … is a huge advantage.”
The county redevelopment authority agreed Wednesday to spend $1.625 million to buy back liens on 19,013 properties it sold a decade ago to GLS Capital Inc. The purchase includes vacant homes, commercial buildings and undeveloped lots in 129 municipalities — every town in the county except Pennsbury Village.
Officials hope the purchase spurs a development boom.
“We felt this was a pretty good deal,” said Dennis Davin, director of the county’s economic development office. “This gives us control of what happens at these properties.”The purchase also ends a 2007 lawsuit in which GLS accused the county of selling it “defective liens,” such as ones for sites the government planned to acquire through eminent domain, county solicitor Mike Wojcik said. The Virginia-based company sought more than $1.85 million in damages, court records show.
“It became cumbersome having to deal with them,” Wojcik said. “We can get GLS out of the picture now.”
GLS could not be reached for comment.
Attorney E.J. Strassburger, who helped file the lawsuit, forwarded questions to an attorney who didn’t return calls. Strassburger’s firm also represents the Tribune-Review.
The purchase represents just part of the 77,000 delinquent accounts GLS bought for nearly $50 million in the mid-1990s.
About one in every four of the purchased properties — roughly 4,500 — are in Pittsburgh. The city’s Urban Redevelopment Authority is interested in acquiring some liens in hopes of drawing developers to those properties, many of which are vacant, Davin said.
The head of the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation, which is restoring four Wilkinsburg homes once hit with tax liens, lauded the move.
“It sounds good to us because it (puts) the property back into the control of the county,” said foundation president Arthur Ziegler. “It would make renewal of them much easier.”
Patrick Shattuck, a ninth-generation Vermont native who moved to Wilkinsburg a year ago, agreed. He wants to turn vacant lots whose liens were bought by the county into parking and open space near his 108-year-old Edwardian home.
“The goal is to get the properties back into the hands of folks that are going to use them … and make these communities vibrant again,” Shattuck said.
The move to buy previously sold liens is not new. In 2006, Pittsburgh officials teamed with the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority and Pittsburgh Public Schools to buy liens on more than 11,000 properties for $6.5 million. The city sold about 14,000 liens from 1996 to 1999 for $64 million.
Justin Vellucci can be reached at jvellucci@tribweb.com or 412-320-7847
-
COMMUNITY RESTORATION AND REVITALIZATION ACT – H.R. 1043 and S. 584
by Preservation Action
December 7, 2007updated 12.7.2007
UPDATE
On February 14, legislation proposing to improve the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit was introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) introduced the House bill (H.R.1043) with Representative Phil English (R-PA) as the minority party lead. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) introduced the Senate bill (S.584) with Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) as the minority party lead.House cosponsors include): Reps. Mike Ross (D-AR), Jo Bonner (R-AL), Bud Cramer (D-AL), Artur Davis (D-AL), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), Christopher Shays (R-CT), Christopher Murphy (D-CT), Jeff Miller (R-FL), Kendrick Meek (D-FL), Jim Marshall (D-GA), Danny Davis (D-IL), Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Mark Steven Kirk (R-IL), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL); Ray LaHood (R-IL), Donald Manzullo (R-IL), Julia Carson (D-IN), Mark Souder (R-IN), Dennis Moore (D-KS), Nancy Boyda (D-KS), Ben Chandler (D-KY), Rich Neal (D-MA), Vernon Ehlers (R-MI); Timothy Walberg (R-MI), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Jim Ramstad (R-MN), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), William Pascrell (D-NJ), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Brian Higgins (D-NY), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Michael McNulty (D-NY), Vito Fossella (R-NY), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Brad Miller (D-NC), Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH), Michael Turner (R-OH), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Phil English (R-PA), Todd Russell Platts (R-PA), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) Rep. James Langevin (D-RI), Stephanie Herseth (D-SD), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Bart Gordon (D-TN), Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Ron Paul (R-TX) Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Nick Rahall II (D-WV), Barbara Cubin (R-WY), Randy Kuhl (R-NY), Rep. John Larson (D-CT), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Jim Moran (D-VA), Diane Watson (D-CA), John McHugh (R-NY), James McGovern (D-MA), Collin Peterson (D-MN), Thomas Allen (D-ME), David Scott (D-GA), Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Donna Christiansen (D-VI), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Leonard Boswell (D-IA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Michael Michaud (D-ME), Joe Courtney (D-CT), Jose Serrano (D-NY), Jason Altmire (D-PA), Bruce Braley (D-IA), Betty Sutton (D-OH), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), David Loebsack (D-IA), Virgil Goode (R-VA), and Peter Welch (D-VT)
Senate cosponsors include:
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Gordon Smith (R-OR), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Wayne Allard (R-CO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Tim Johnson (D-SD)
The bills are a set of amendments to the FRTC based on insights from those who have used the credit. Provisions within the bills will:
1. Improve the coupling of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit (FRTC).
2. Reduce the basis reduction required for a property using the FRTC.
3. Increase the FRTC for smaller projects. The tax credit would be increased from 20% to 40% on the first $1,000,000 of qualified expenditures for projects under $2,000,000. This would be a huge gain for Main Street-type projects.
4. Allow rental housing in “qualified rehabilitated buildings.” Currently, the 10% credit for “non-historic” buildings cannot be used for dwellings — the law would be amended to allow the credit’s use for residential rental property.
5. Change the qualifying date for non-historic rehabilitation projects (10% credit projects) from “placed in service before 1936” to placed in service “no less than 50 years prior to the year in which qualified rehabilitation expenditures are taken into account.”
6. Fine tune the leasing rules laid out in the current FRTC to reduce the number of community-oriented projects currently adversely impacted without weakening the anti-abuse function designed into the current law. The types of leasing arrangements allowed in the current tax credit program limit community revitalization-oriented projects.
7. Increase the FRTC in “high cost areas” to 130% of qualified rehabilitation expenditures. High cost areas are difficult to develop and officially recognized by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). A difficult to develop area (DDA) has high construction and land costs relative to the average local income (Area Median Gross Income or AMGI). Incomes and housing costs are compared in HUD’s formula. The 130% increase would also apply to Qualified Census Tracts (QCTs), that is, any census tract in which at least 50% of households have an income less than 60% of the area median or where the poverty rate is at least 25%.
8. Removes a provision within the current law that prevents condominium developments in FRTC projects. The current law requires a developer pay back their credit if the property is sold within five years of a given project’s completion.
The Community Restoration and Revitalization Act was first introduced by Representatives Rob Portman (R-OH) and William Jefferson (D-LA) in late 2004. It was reintroduced by Representatives English and Jefferson in 2005.
-
Charleroi historic
By Chris Buckley
VALLEY INDEPENDENT
Tuesday, November 20, 2007Charleroi’s historical heritage has been confirmed with its inclusion on the National Register by the National Park Service.
The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission approved Charleroi’s application to add much of the Magic City to the National Register of Historic Places at a meeting Sept. 11. The federal agency notified the commission Nov. 9 that it has accepted the nomination.
Bill Callahan, state representative from the commission office in Pittsburgh, previously reviewed the district, and encouraged Charleroi’s application as a historic district.
Terry Necciai, who served as Main Street program manager in Charleroi in the late 1980s, now is an architect working for the historic preservation firm John Milner Associates in its Alexandria, Va., office.
He has submitted 58 nominations for National Register of Historic Places, but said Charleroi’s was the most difficult and time-consuming process.
Inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places is approved for one or more of the following:
* A site associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
* A site associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
* A site that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
* A site that yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Necciai said most historic properties are a combination of more than one of these criteria.
In the 1980s, the state decided it had enough CDBG grants from such Valley communities as Charleroi, Donora and Monongahela for historic building facade improvements that officials came out and developed maps of the historic regions.
In 1982, Necciai filed with the National Register of Historic Places for Monongahela because he “did not like that so many buildings were being torn down.”
The year before Necciai became Charleroi’s Main Street manager in 1987, the state reviewed Charleroi’s downtown area.
State officials believed at the time that Charleroi was already protected under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 because of the architectural character and age of the downtown area.
From that time forward, Charleroi received more consideration for improvement project grants in the downtown area.
When state officials reviewed Charleroi in 1986, it recognized the eligibility for inclusion on National Register of Historic Places a section stretching from the 900 block to the 1300 block of Lincoln Avenue and Railroad Street as well as from First to 13th streets.
When state officials toured Charleroi in 2004, however, they said the boundary should be extended to include 120 blocks of Charleroi, about 80 percent of the Magic City.
Necciai returned to the Valley every weekend for four years developing an inventory for 1,800 buildings in the proposed district. The argument for Charleroi’s inclusion totaled 40 pages. The inventory is about 100 pages.
“In 1986, the state said it was historic, but this expanded the scope of the historic district,” Necciai said. “It proves what was true all along, that it is an historic district.”
The state reviewed Charleroi’s initial nomination, which was revised over several months prior to the commission meeting in September.
In September, the PHMC staff presented Charleroi’s case to the commission board
Once an application is approved at the state level and forwarded to the keeper of the national register – an office of the National Park Service – the federal agency has 90 days to act.
Necciai said the National Register of Historic Places designation will be a great marketing tool for Charleroi.
For example, he pointed to Alexandria, Va., where he lives.
During the first half of the 1960s, many buildings in a two- to three-block section of the city were razed.
But when the National Historic Preservation Act was passed in 1966, Alexandria was among the first cities to file nominations.
Four decades later, Alexandria has become the 11th densest community in the country with a steady stream of tourists, Necciai said.
Necciai pointed to the Torpedo Factory Art Center. Once a torpedo factory during World War II, it is now home to more than 165 artists in every form of media from painting, ceramics, photography and jewelry to stained glass, fiber, printmaking, and sculpture.
It also is home to various studios and workshops.
Federal government offices and political action committees also call Alexandria home, adding greatly to its growth, Necciai noted.
“But a part of the equation is that the community decided to not only value what it had, but do something about it,” Necciai said.
Chris Buckley can be reached at cbuckley@tribweb.com or 724-684-2642.
-
Garden Theatre on North Side heads toward landmark status
By The Tribune-Review
Thursday, November 8, 2007The Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission voted unanimously Wednesday to designate the Garden Theatre in the North Side a historic landmark.
The designation now must go before the city planning commission for a vote. If approved, City Council will conduct a public hearing and then vote on whether the designation should receive final approval.
A historic designation would require developers to preserve the 92-year-old building’s beaux arts terra cotta exterior. Historic status does not regulate what can be done to the interior.
The theater showed X-rated films from the 1970s until the city bought and closed it earlier this year. The city’s Urban Redevelopment Authority is reviewing proposals from several developers on how to utilize the theater.
-
SENATOR BLANCHE LINCOLN CIRCULATES DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTER FOR COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION TAX CREDIT; HOUSE LEGISLATION HITS 80 SPONSOR MARK
From Preservation Action
November 2, 2007This week, Senator Blanche Lincoln circulated a “Dear Colleague” letter to her fellow Senators asking that they sign on as cosponsors to S. 584, the Community Restoration and Revitalization Act. The bill is a complementary set of amendments to the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit designed to improve the credits’ use in the development of diverse affordable housing, condominium developments and small commercial projects and increases the stock of buildings eligible for the credit.
Now is the time to ask your Senators to sign onto S. 584! Ask them to contact Anna Taylor in Senator Lincoln’s office 202-224-4843 or Kara Getz in Senator Gordon Smith’s (R-OR) 202-224-5364 office depending on your Senator’s party affiliation.
In October, the Community Restoration and Revitalization Act (H.R.1043/S.584) added six new sponsors on the House side. Representatives Jose Serrano (D-NY), Jason Altmire (D-PA), Bruce Braley (D-IA), Betty Sutton (D-OH), Yvette Clarke (D-NY) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) brought the House bill’s sponsorship up to 80 by the month’s end.
Over the past month, Ways and Means Chair Charlie Rangel (D-NY)’s staff considered a potential affordable housing bill which prompted review of our bill as a potential source of legislative ideas. As of now however, it is unclear whether or not our bill will be added to a large tax bill this session. That said, with the new “Dear Colleague” on the Senate side, we’ve got an opportunity adjust focus to our bill. Representatives Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) and Phil English (R-PA) circulated a “Dear Colleague” on April 25th of this year. Staff stewarding this bill: Darrell Doss in Tubbs Jones’ office 202-225-7032 and David Stewart in English’s office 202-225-5406. Have your Representative call them to sign on to H.R. 1043.
-
HOUSE APPROVES LARGE HERITAGE AREA BILL
by Preservation Action
October 25, 2007Over the past year, National Heritage Areas (NHAs) have received more legislative attention than any other federal preservation program. This session, Resources committees in both the House and the Senate have considered establishing several new NHAs, authorizing funding for these areas, and reauthorizing legislation supporting several existing NHAs. These proceedings have provoked several passionate endorsements of preservation’s value from Congressional leaders.
On Wednesday, October 24, House Natural Resources Committee chair Nick Rahall (D-WV) addressed his chamber prior to the successful passage (291-122) of an opus NHA bill that folded together many individual bills into Celebrating America’s Heritage Act (H.R. 1483). His remarks well illustrated the character of support that has moved NHAs to the top of many legislators’ priority lists.
Rahall noted, “today, as America continues to grapple with the war and citizens throughout the nation deal with the daily struggles of life, I think it is important for us to harken back to our heritage, and to celebrate our culture. From the coalfields of southern West Virginia, to the Land of Lincoln in Illinois. From the awesome beauty of Niagara Falls, to the Muscle Shoals region of Alabama. From the hallowed ground of the Virginia Piedmont, where battles were fought to reunify this Nation, to the Santa Cruz Valley of Arizona.”
“This is the fabric of America. This is her heartbeat. Let us take time to listen to it. And to celebrate it.”
Creating New NHAs, Re-up Support for Existing NHAs
The bipartisan bill would establish six new NHA’s, increase the funding authorization for nine existing areas, require a feasibility study for a potential new area, and make technical changes in the establishing legislation for several additional areas. H. R. 1483 would establish six new NHAs: Journey Through Hallowed Ground (VA, WV, MD, PA); Niagara Falls (NY), Muscle Shoals (AL), Freedom’s Way (MA and NH), Abraham Lincoln (IL), and Santa Cruz Valley (AZ).The Act would authorize additional funding for nine NHA’s and require the Secretary of the Interior to evaluate the long-term viability of these existing NHAs: America’s Agricultural Partnerhsip (Silos and Smokestacks) (IA), Augusta Canal (GA), Essex (MA), Hudson River Valley (NY), Coal (WV), Ohio and Erie Canal (OH), Rivers of Steel (PA), South Carolina (SC), and Tennessee Civil War (TN).
The legislation would also require a study of Virginia’s Northern Neck as a future NHA (requested by the late Representative Jo Ann Davis), make changes to the management language governing the Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor, National Coal Heritage Area, and Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor (NY), add counties to the South Carolina and Rivers of Steel NHA’s; and temporarily extend the authorization of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route.
Pushback: Property Rights Advocates and Budget Hawks
Though popular in Congress, support for NHAs hasn’t gone unquestioned. Earlier this year, on April 19th, the Heritage Foundation, a national conservative think tank based in Washington, DC, published a cover story characterizing the Journey Through Hallowed Ground NHA legislation as “another federal assault on property rights.” According to the article, if enacted, the legislation would “threaten the rights of property owners in a corridor encompassing four states … give environmental groups more influence over land use policies in the area and up to $1 million per year in tax payers money to fund their efforts and … largely benefit the well-to-do estate owners in the area by facilitating exclusionary policies.” The story’s author, Ronald Utt, PhD, suggested a voluntary compact among states and communities in the area that would require minimal federal involvement and no federal funding.The property rights issue also figured into debate over the Niagara Falls NHA. In May of this year, Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT) argued that the designation would give government entities “significant influence” to use eminent domain. In response to Bishop’s concerns, National Parks Subcommittee Chair Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) noted that “no evidence of any adverse impacts on private property rights has ever materialized.”
Eminent domain was an extremely hot topic in the last Congress, but since, the issue has died down as a primary legislative flash point. Initial versions of the individual pieces of NHA legislation folded into H.R.1483 included language clearly outlining the role of private property. This underlying concern remains carefully clarified in the large bill for each of the individual NHAs proscribed.
An increase in funding for NHAs, within the current context of National Park maintenance backlog met with some opposition from budget hawks. Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) offered an amendment to the Niagara Falls bill earlier this year that would delay that bill’s enactment until all backlogged maintenance projects in New York state were taken care of. Representative Flake is known for opposing earmarks, and most recently, during the passage of the House Interior Appropriations bill, offered amendments blocking federal funding to Save America’s Treasures projects (because of the earmark issue).
Insufficient funding for existing NHAs has been cited as another reason not to increase authorized funding for new NHAs. And, as a point of comparison, other authorized programs, like the Historic Preservation Fund’s State Historic Preservation Offices and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices receive less than half of what they’re authorized to receive.
The National Park Service, and by extension, the Administration, opposed a number of NHA bills earlier this year because an official NHA program had not been established by law. Programmatic legislation would, according to NPS Deputy Director Daniel Wenk, provide a framework for evaluating proposed NHAs, offer guidelines for successful planning and management, clarify roles and responsibilities of all involved, and standardize timeframes and funding for designated areas. Congressional support for unifying legislation is mixed in large part because each NHA is directly connected to specific legislation and specific legislators who prefer autonomy.
Pushing Ahead
Arguments for NHAs are compelling, however, and are winning over a majority of Congress. The 70% majority vote for H.R. 1483 bodes well for preservation, at least as a tool for economic development through heritage tourism. In his remarks to the House, Rahall cited fellow Representative Ralph Regula’s (R-OH) figures for NHA impact in Ohio: $8 million in federal NHA dollars yielded $270 million in nonfederal dollars.
“We are moving this legislation today because we support national heritage areas and we want to see them succeed,” Rahall said. “We must not turn our backs on the many benefits that heritage areas have provided over the years, and we simply cannot leave local communities to fend for themselves as they try to save those things that make them special – that make America special.”
“All of the areas comprised in this legislation are worthy of the Congress’ attention. These National Heritage Areas not only help to jumpstart local economies, but also act as a critical tool for preserving our communities’ and our citizens’ links to the past,” Rahall said.
-
Hearing Before the Council of the City of Pittsburgh on the Bakery Square Tax Increment Financing Plan – Nabisco Property
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF
ANNE E. NELSON, ESQ.
DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AFFAIRS
PITTSBURGH HISTORY & LANDMARKS FOUNDATION
BEFORE THE PITTSBURGH CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BAKERY SQUARE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN – NABISCO PROPERTY
OCTOBER 23, 2007
On behalf of Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation (“Landmarks”) and our president, Arthur Ziegler, I thank you, members of the Council, for the opportunity to discuss the Bakery Square Tax Increment Financing Plan.
From a historic preservation standpoint, Landmarks appreciated the opportunity to meet with the project developers from the onset and to work with them to put together a preservation plan for the buildings that, at the same time, respected the developer’s functional needs. Landmarks is very pleased that the developer has followed through consistently with the preservation plan and is considering the donation of a historic preservation easement on the buildings.
The Bakery Square development not only serves historic preservation interests, but will provide a major capital infusion at a strategic city block that will affect the surrounding neighborhoods of East Liberty, Point Breeze, and Homewood.
Therefore, Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation supports the Bakery Square Tax Increment Financing Plan.
-
National Negro Opera House Nominated for City Historic Structure
On Monday, October 22, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission received a nomination for 7101 Apple Street – National Negro Opera House to be a City Designated Historic Structure.
Nomination affords the property protection against demolition, and mandates that all exterior changes to the building be reviewed by the HRC.
These protections are temporary until/if the HRC, Planning Commission, and City Council vote to approve the nomination.
The Historic Review Commission will make a preliminary review of this nomination at its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday, November 7, 2007.
This hearing will be held after 12:30 PM in the Commission Hearing Room on the first floor of the John P. Robin Civic Building at 200 Ross Street, Downtown.
At that time, the Commission will make a preliminary determination about whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the nominated property will meet the criteria for designation listed in the preservation ordinance.
All members of the public are invited to attend.
Please feel free to call Katherine Molnar, Historic Preservation Planner, at 412-255-2243 or email Katherine.molnar@city.pittsburgh.pa.us if you have any questions.