PPittsburghers should think hard next week before agreeing to gift — in perpetuity — more of their tax dollars for the city’s park system.
Voters will find a ballot referendum asking for a dedicated half-mill levy to fund the work of the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, a nonprofit organization that just spent thousands and thousands of dollars trying to convince voters to open their pocketbooks. The Parks Conservancy has contributed $634,000 in direct funding to the new-tax campaign, as well as another $80,000 in in-kind contributions — that’s a great deal of money, some of which, presumably, could have gone to actually improving a park or two.
The measure is supported by Mayor Bill Peduto, who has not demonstrated that he has scrutinized his multimillion-dollar budget for the money needed to properly maintain the parks. (County Controller Chelsa Wagner — the county’s fiscal watchdog and a city resident — says the budget is in a surplus mode and she has gone on the record as “against” the referendum.)
This referendum puts the decision squarely in the hands of the voters. If a majority agrees, then the new tax is enshrined. That’s democracy at work.
But those who vote Tuesday should consider all the facts and all the ramifications.
The proposed new tax is expected to raise about $10 million annually and will be funneled to an organization that is not part of city government nor is it led by people who have been elected to those leadership posts.
Is public funding for a private entity good public policy?
Second, consider the impact on citizens, many of whom already struggle under the weight of their current tax burden. This new tax would add about $50 each year on each $100,000 in assessed value of each resident’s property.
Third, has the city done adequate fiscal analysis? Has it lifted its own couch cushions? Could the city not aid the parks without a new tax?
This referendum is a clever safety maneuver by the mayor. The city gets a boost in the tax rate that generates a chunk of money for work that certainly falls within the purview and responsibility of city government, yet the mechanism shelters the mayor from political fallout. Mr. Peduto can say he didn’t propose a budget with a tax hike. He can say the voters did it.
Mr. Peduto has a responsibility to assess the needs of the city, prioritize them and propose a budget that funds them. If he feels that his true revenue requirements will place undue burden on the taxpayer, he has a couple of options. Top of the list: working diligently to strike an agreement with the city’s powerful nonprofits that pay little or no property taxes. As a fledgling mayor, one of his early acts was to withdraw litigation that sought an agreement with these entities regarding payments in lieu of taxes. That was years ago. Still no agreement.
Another option: charitable funding. Interestingly, the Parks Conservancy has said it could use the revenue stream from the new half-mill levy as leverage for foundation funding. Why isn’t the city seeking that funding? Actually, why can’t the conservancy seek the funding without a new tax?
Another idea was postulated by Ms. Wagner in an opinion piece for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. She wrote: “One option could be providing discretionary funds derived from the Allegheny County hotel tax, which already provides funding to the county’s parks, to the city parks as well. Last year, the hotel tax generated more than $11 million in funds that can be directed by county government, and less than $9 million of that was spent. Over the years, these surpluses have built a reserve of more than $12 million. I think I know where we could put that to use.”
There is no question the park system is in need of remediation, maintenance and improvement. But the city has many needs. The city needs an infrastructure grand plan. It needs a plan for dealing with its trees — a situation that is becoming dangerous. It needs its leaders to set priorities and find ways to pay for them that are proportional and fair. And it needs, in all of this, systems and structures of accountability. These would not be present in the new park tax.
First Published: November 3, 2019, 10:00 a.m.