Park proposal approved
Voters endorse measure to allow tax hike for upkeep, improvement of city parks
Voters endorsed a ballot measure Tuesday sanctioning a tax hike to pay for the upkeep and enhancement of city parks — a loss for critics who argued the move would give an unelected board sway over public dollars.
The measure asked voters to agree to boost property taxes starting in 2020 by 0.5 mill. The proposed increase amounted to about $50 on every $100,000 of assessed real estate value.
The nonprofit Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy petitioned for the referendum, and supporters — including Mayor Bill Peduto — said the extra tax revenue could go toward addressing a $400 million backlog in repairs and $13 million in annual routine maintenance.
If City Council pursues the plan, the tax increase would raise close to $10 million each year, the conservancy estimated. The group said it plans to match that amount through private donations and foundation contributions.
At an election night gathering at the Schenley Park Cafe in Oakland, Jayne Miller, the conservancy’s president and CEO, told supporters that their efforts have captured the attention of observers from around the world because “we are changing the model for how park systems function within cities.”
“Let’s enjoy a night of celebration, and maybe a few days of recovery,” she said, “and get on to doing the real work we need to improve the quality of life and the parks in all of Pittsburgh neighborhoods.”
Proponents said that the tax hike would pave the way for a range of public benefits, including parks
-related health and environmental advantages; improved home values; and the funds necessary for the city to tackle a lengthy backlog of fixes throughout the city’s 165 parks.
Referendum organizers said the tax hike would pay to improve
parks first in order of community need but that all city parks would see improvements within the first year.
Decisions on how to use the money would be shared between the city and a board made up of city staffers, conservancy representatives and residents, according to the mayor’s office.
The conservancy and city have worked within a City Council-approved partnership since 1998. During that period, the conservancy’s contributions have included $126 million in fundraising and completed projects in 22 of the city’s parks.
Opponents of the measure — including City Controller Michael Lamb and County Controller Chelsa Wagner — waged an active push against expanding that partnership in the runup to the election.
Along with concerns over the unelected board, they criticized the conservancy’s spending on TV ads and direct mail postcards — totaling more than $700,000 — and questioned why taxpayers should foot the bill instead of large tax-exempt property owners, such as UPMC.
As Election Day neared, opponents reiterated their qualms. Four City Council members — Anthony Coghill, Theresa KailSmith, Darlene Harris and Deb Gross — each spoke out against the referendum during their meeting Monday.
Mr. Coghill said that referendum backers were “trying to hijack the taxpayer here,” as voters would lack recourse against conservancy leaders if they disapproved of how the money was spent. Ms. Miller has disputed that characterization, noting that council would first have to approve any such arrangement.
After the results were in, Ms. Wagner issued a statement, saying in part: “While I did not support the Parks Tax ballot question in the City of Pittsburgh, I agree with its supporters that greater investment in our parks, with a focus on communities which have been neglected for years or decades, is essential. I call on the Mayor and City Council to ensure that decisions on allocations from the new tax be made transparently and with ample public involvement.To this end, I would urge that these funds remain under the auspices of City Council and not handed to an unelected board operating outside the democratic process.”
The result Tuesday aligned with Pittsburgh voters’ support of other recent campaigns to raise property taxes for programs and services. In 2011, voters endorsed a 0.25 mill increase to support the Carnegie Library system. Last November, most city precincts backed a 0.25 mill increase for children programs although the measure failed countywide.
For their part, voters Tuesday were split on the measure.
“I don’t mind having to pay a few more pennies in my taxes to help parks,” said Therese Sykes, 64, a retired Air Force officer who was voting at Spring Hill Elementary School. “You can’t expect to have good things and not be willing to pay for them.”
Others, though, expressed the sentiment shared by a man who also voted at Spring Hill K-5, and declined to give his name.
“We’re taxed enough on everything else,” he said. “How about they give us some money?”