PDA

View Full Version : How tax cuts saved Philadelphia (and its lessons for Pittsburgh)


Evergrey
Mar 11, 2007, 7:17 AM
I thought this was an interesting report on how Philly has used tax abatements to spur center city housing development... and how this can be applicable to a smaller city like Pittsburgh... which shares similarities... but also differs in several key ways.

Pittsburgh is currently building several thousand rental and owner-occupied units in the downtown area... which has been mostly devoid of the residential component for decades. The city politicians have proposed two competing tax abatement packages to spur residential development in the core and elsewhere in the city.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07070/768560-53.stm


How tax cuts saved Philadelphia


10-year abatements lead to boom in housing

Sunday, March 11, 2007

By Bill Toland, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette



PHILADELPHIA -- Philadelphia in the mid-1990s was like New York City two decades before it, a city in need of reclamation. People were leaving at a rate of 1,000 a month, and there were worries it might become the "next Detroit," hollowed out by suburban flight and job losses.

Then, 10 years ago, Philadelphia approved tax breaks on offices and hotels that were converted into condos. The builders and subsequent unit owners still had to pay property taxes on the old value of the property, but the improvements would be tax-free for 10 years. In 2000, the abatement was extended to new commercial and home construction, not just conversions.

What followed was a residential construction boom unrivaled by any period in the city's history, except for the antebellum era, when Philadelphia's housing stock grew in order to accommodate rapid post-Civil War population growth. The city now has close to 4,000 separate housing units under abatement -- $15 million penthouse condos, $500,000 luxury condos, entry-level condos and all styles of condominiums in between, not to mention new single-family homes in the outlying areas such as Manayunk.

All the activity has re-energized places like Chinatown, the 10 or so square blocks of groceries, restaurants, apartments and other commercial establishments that have been home to Asian immigrants for a century-plus. And it's led to the refurbishment of buildings like the Ten Ten, a former Chinatown hotel that's been converted into a condominium tower along the neighborhood's Race Street. Among its residents is Delaware County Community College communications professor David Paterno, lured to the city partly by the tax break and the solid brick bones of the Ten Ten.

The 37-year-old estimates that he saves more than $1,200 a year on property taxes, and says it's tough to imagine leaving his new digs and the Center City. Even "if I had to pay the full amount now, I wouldn't move," he says.


Message for Pittsburgh

As Pittsburgh eyes similar tax breaks to woo city residents, its hard to ignore the Philadelphia story. Young professionals and empty-nesters are moving to the state's largest city for the tax breaks, and, it's hoped, they will stay for the museums, nightlife, sidewalk cafes and convenient commutes even when the abatements expire, which will begin to happen next year. Philadelphia leaders say the 10-year experiment with tax abatements has helped fuel $4 billion in construction activity since 1997, causing a residential building boom that saw housing permits in Philadelphia in 2004 outpace those granted in surrounding counties. That hasn't happened here in decades.

Moreover, a study for the city's Building Industry Association estimates that so-called "spillover" tax benefits from the abatement program will total $285 million over the next 25 years as more people move into the city and pay local wage and sales taxes -- more than double the estimated $121 million foregone through 2005 from abatements.

Predictably, the activity hasn't come without social costs and tensions. Take Chinatown. The Ten Ten, the nearby Pearl Condominiums, the hospital-turned-Metro Club Condominiums and other smaller projects reflect a gentrification wave that is luring wealthier residents and pushing up rents and property tax assessments. The concern is that the overall cost of living eventually could exceed the budgets of those who have called Chinatown and neighborhoods like it home for generations.

"A lot of Chinese immigrants who are coming in aren't making the kind of incomes needed to afford these new condos," said Greg Heller, an urban planner with an office a few blocks from Chinatown. He, not to mention the neighborhood's 4,000 residents, worries a day may come when the Asian community that has made Chinatown home for 130 years might be forced elsewhere, leaving in their wake just foreign pictographs on buildings and a bevy of restaurants and souvenir shops for tourists.

City leaders haven't done enough to "make sure you retain the existing backbone of the community," Mr. Heller said. Goosing the construction market, without planning for what may happen next, affects a neighborhood's historical stability, the very thing that made Chinatown a destination for America-bound immigrants in the first place.

Here's where the hard feelings come in: Hypothetically, "I've lived in a house, a neighborhood, real hardscrabble, for all my life ... then some guy bought [a] vacant lot and puts two McMansions on it. These out-of-towners came in and paid $750,000 for those mansions. And those jerks aren't paying any taxes on it," said Brett Mandel, executive director of a citizens' group and former financial policy guru for the city controller's office.

"Nothing will be a salve to that," he said. And yet without the abatements, the neighborhood surely would miss out on investment opportunities that otherwise wouldn't have looked Chinatown's way. "The tax incentives are fantastic for development," said Lance Silver, principal with Silver & Harting real estate, which developed the Ten Ten. The tax break "made it very competitive" to invest in Chinatown's dilapidated residential market.

Both the successes and the unintended consequences are issues Pittsburgh leaders will need to weigh as the city starts considering proposals for 10-year abatements for new and rehabilitated residential buildings. Mayor Luke Ravenstahl wants to waive the first $2,700 in city property taxes for 10 years on new housing units built Downtown and in 20 other neighborhoods. Councilman Bill Peduto would waive up to $150,000 in city taxes on major housing developments -- rather than on individual units -- in Downtown and five surrounding neighborhoods.

Both approaches, Mr. Heller, the urban planner, believes, risk putting politics before policy, coming as they do in the rush of an election year.

"You need to figure out a long-term strategy," he said. If the tax breaks succeed in spurring development in Homewood, does Homewood retain its identity? What happens when the abatements expire -- do you phase the new tax collections in gradually, or all at once? Does the new money go straight to the general fund, or into a pot dedicated to housing initiatives? Should the city attach an affordable housing component to the tax abatement?

But development-starved cities sometimes intentionally step around those conversations, he said. "You say, 'We're in desperation phase here. We need to take any development we can get.' "

If Pittsburgh hopes to replicate Philadelphia's success, it must be wary that Philadelphia has some built-in advantages that Pittsburgh won't be able to exploit. For one, Philadelphia is well positioned to capture buyers from New York City and, to a lesser extent, Washington, D.C., who have money to spend on the East Coast, but have been priced out of the largest metro markets. New Yorkers, in fact, have taken to calling Philadelphia the "sixth borough" in recent years. Pittsburgh, obviously, isn't so positioned.

Second, Philadelphia's suburbs are saturated with housing. Bucks, Chester and Montgomery counties are rebuffing some developers because of their own crowding and traffic concerns. In the Pittsburgh region, places such as Butler, Beaver, Washington and Westmoreland counties -- despite lots of development in places such as Murrysville, Cranberry and Peters -- haven't reached a saturation point yet.

Third, when it came to reinvigorating its downtown, Philadelphia was able to build upon the existing housing stock since its flat and sprawling downtown already was a residential hub. "There was a lot of pent-up demand for decent housing in the city, said Ed Dodson, a retired Fannie Mae executive.


Boon for empty-nesters
On the other hand, Pittsburgh shares some demographic similarities with Philadelphia, including a high percentage of senior citizens and early baby boomers who wouldn't mind living close to Downtown, but would prefer something new to something old.

This tax break caters to them especially, since one of the disadvantages to living in both Pittsburgh and Philadelphia is the big wage tax. But if your wage-earning years are over, and you also get out of paying property taxes for 10 years, that's a deal that can't be matched by even the suburban communities with low millage rates. "The abatement that either candidate is proposing in Pittsburgh is perfect for empty-nesters," said Joshua Vincent, director of the Philadelphia-based Henry George Foundation's Center for the Study of Economics.

Pittsburgh, because of cheaper land and home prices, might be better positioned than Philadelphia to convince individual buyers to invest via the abatement program. Philadelphia's program failed in that regard, and even the outlying single-family homes were financed by major developers, said Vern Anastasio, a Democrat running for city council in Philadelphia's District 1. He's also a real estate lawyer.

"That's where my rub with the 10-year tax abatement comes in," he said. The tax break meant he was "able to stay in the neighborhood I was born and raised in." He bought a property on the cheap, and built his own house, but he was an exception, not a fair example of the program's impact.

Those familiar with the Philadelphia experience also caution against trying to force housing into the underdeveloped parts of Pittsburgh, as both Mr. Peduto and Mr. Ravenstahl hope to do by limiting the tax breaks to neighborhoods such as the Lower Hill, Uptown, Knoxville, Lincoln-Larimer and Allentown.

Philadelphia's abatement program, for example, has so far failed to force development in the area north of Center City, even though that was one of the goals. "Take the subway north about five stops" from Center City, Mr. Vincent said. "Make sure it's daytime. Get off the subway, just walk five blocks in any direction, and you'll see a wasteland. It's Dresden after the bombing."

That's because the housing market doesn't mind being pushed from behind, but doesn't like it when you grab the wheel.

"It's just plain tough to get people to build in areas that aren't driven by the market," said Mr. Mandel. "The truth is, the market is a powerful thing. If the market is not demanding that something get built, good luck."

A citywide abatement is maybe a better way to go, he said.

Or maybe it isn't. Pittsburgh, which is much smaller geographically than Philadelphia, must be more careful about forfeiting potential revenue than its eastern brother.

"Philadelphia doesn't have to do all of the right things, and they can still survive and even partially thrive," said Mr. Dodson. "Pittsburgh is in a much more precarious position. Pittsburgh has to do all the right things."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Bill Toland can be reached at btoland@post-gazette.com or 1-412-263-2625. )


\

austin356
Mar 11, 2007, 8:13 AM
I never would have known that an abatement on just the improved portion could add up to be so much.....

LMich
Mar 11, 2007, 8:21 AM
Michigan law allows cities to offer 12-year tax abatements in their city centers and other designated business areas.

passdoubt
Mar 11, 2007, 8:22 PM
Abatements are also a great way to fuel the class war. The old school homeowning tax-payers, including retirees, get to pay for all the new infrastructure to support the high-income yuppies.

Evergrey
Mar 11, 2007, 8:27 PM
Abatements are also a great way to fuel the class war. The old school homeowning tax-payers, including retirees, get to pay for all the new infrastructure to support the high-income yuppies.

This was mentioned in the article... using the Chinatown example...


I am certainly torn on the issue... neighborhoods can languish, decay and slide into the abyss... or they can be radically transformed by development and investment... but lose their traditional character and residents...

the middle path seems to be rare in urban america

PhillyRising
Mar 12, 2007, 2:01 AM
Abatements are also a great way to fuel the class war. The old school homeowning tax-payers, including retirees, get to pay for all the new infrastructure to support the high-income yuppies.

True. However....the catch 22 of the situation is if they don't.....they'd most likely get more abandonment and crackwhores sitting on their front steps.

The high income yuppies paying their wage taxes is what is helping keep Philly's coffers in the black for now.

miketoronto
Mar 12, 2007, 2:51 AM
Overeall Pittsburgh is in much better shape then Philly.

The housing may be coming to Central Philly, but business is leaving, and the central city has lower market share of regional employment, etc, then Pittsburgh.

In Pittsburgh's case, downtown is actually gaining jobs, is expected to add thousands of new office jobs over the coming years, and is still the major office centre of the region(containing a large share of regional office jobs, compared to Philly where the share has been cut in half since the 1990's). Not as bad as people may think.

Might need some more housing, but overall Pitt is pretty healthy in the heart, save for some needed retail upgrades, etc.

Palms
Mar 12, 2007, 3:08 AM
Abatements are also a great way to fuel the class war. The old school homeowning tax-payers, including retirees, get to pay for all the new infrastructure to support the high-income yuppies.

Remember the newcomers are still paying taxes on the condition of the property before the improvement. Which in most cases is still going to be more than the older homeowner and retirees are paying.

LMich
Mar 12, 2007, 3:09 AM
True. However....the catch 22 of the situation is if they don't.....they'd most likely get more abandonment and crackwhores sitting on their front steps.

The high income yuppies paying their wage taxes is what is helping keep Philly's coffers in the black for now.

Yeah, I've always been torn on it, myself, because you do get an increasingly poor populace paying for people that may not even stick around for 10 years to begin with. On the other hand, it's one of the ONLY tricks in the bag that cities have to compete with their surrounding suburbs (which function as tax havens, anyway) and other high-growth regions. At the end of the day, though, since this is one of the only cards the city has to play, they have to play and risk it.

Palms
Mar 12, 2007, 3:20 AM
Yeah, I've always been torn on it, myself, because you do get an increasingly poor populace paying for people that may not even stick around for 10 years to begin with.


Guys the new residents are still paying taxes. Its not a free ride. They are contributing and paying taxes on the property, just not on the brand new finished product.

I would imagine in most cases it is about half of what they will pay in 10 years when full value comes into effect.

LMich
Mar 12, 2007, 5:47 AM
You act as if I don't understand that. At the end of the day, this is still a risk, and an increasingly poor populace is subisidizing (and this isn't some insignificant subsidy) attracting transient wealthy individuals, mostly. You want to make this sound as if it's a no brainer, but it's not. There are downsides, and it's not only worth debating them, it is a necessity to debate them. I personally happen to believe that declined cities can't afford not to take this risk, but I do also recognize the negatives of such a risk.

Crawford
Mar 12, 2007, 2:07 PM
I have no opinion for or against these tax cuts, but what a dumb article.

The premise of the article is definitely false. There is no evidence that tax cuts have reversed Philly's population decline. First, there's no evidence that the population decline has ceased. Second, every single city in America has had some degree of a downtown condo boom.

Philly's core is booming, but it likely has more to do with low mortgage rates, a new national interest in urban living and better management under Rendell.

Evergrey
Mar 12, 2007, 4:50 PM
I have no opinion for or against these tax cuts, but what a dumb article.

The premise of the article is definitely false. There is no evidence that tax cuts have reversed Philly's population decline. First, there's no evidence that the population decline has ceased. Second, every single city in America has had some degree of a downtown condo boom.

Philly's core is booming, but it likely has more to do with low mortgage rates, a new national interest in urban living and better management under Rendell.

There are a lot of criticisms to make of the article... but I think you're missing the point... the article even mentioned the continued population decline. This isn't about population growth, but about new housing starts in the urban core... after decades of low amounts of new housing supply, Philly is now undergoing a boom in new housing... the city government employed mechanisms to make the market supply curve more favorable for developers... reduce certain costs... and the suppliers are now willing and able to produce the quantity demanded.

Crawford
Mar 12, 2007, 5:09 PM
^
But even Detroit's core neighborhoods have thousands of proposed units. I'm not getting the direct causation.

Also, something that nobody wants to discuss is that all these residential conversions are actually signs of commercial distress. In many cities, office vacancies are so high that owners want to get out of the office business. When cities subsidize new office space (such as that new Pelli bldg. near Philly's 30th Street Station), it pulls tenants from older buildings, thus incentivizing residential conversions. This may or may not be a good thing, but it is rarely discussed.

Evergrey
Mar 12, 2007, 5:58 PM
I'm not sure if Detroit has any sort of tax incentive... but... there has been an increase in residential supply in cities across the country... including Detroit... due to a change in "tastes and preferences" of the general public... which has increased demand. However, the equilibrium point is now skewed towards a smaller number of supply than what is demanded.. because it's so expensive for developers to supply housing in downtown areas. So a developer is only willing and able to supply housing at a very high price... a price that is higher than the customers are willing and able to pay. So while the supply is greater than 15 years ago... it still remains limited compared to demand. A city that uses tax incentives can lower the cost for residential suppliers... who can then build more supply because they are able to lower prices to an equilibrium point where more customers can purchase while retaining or increasing total profit margins. There's a few thousand units going on in Pittsburgh right now due to a change in tastes and preferences that favors downtown condo living... but a tax incentive could make this area really boom... as seen in the Philly example. These tax incentives should lead to a significant increase of the taxable property value within a city, increasing the fiscal health... critical in a city with tiny boundaries like Pittsburgh where 1/3rd of property value is tax-exempt (universities, hospitals, etc.)


That said, you make a good point about housing conversions being a sign of commercial distress... which has been apparent in Philly... where Liberty Two is going condo. In a strange twist, job creation overwhelmingly takes place in edge areas while the previous Central Business Districts are turning increasingly residential...

miketoronto
Mar 12, 2007, 9:43 PM
^
Also, something that nobody wants to discuss is that all these residential conversions are actually signs of commercial distress.

You bring up a very good point. Everyone is so worried about the residents, that they forget jobs.
Jobs are just as important, and in that regard Philly has not been keeping up.

Infact Downtown Pittsburgh has been able to see job growth, while Central Philly has lost employment. So Pittsburgh must be doing something right, if they are forcasting thousands of new jobs in the downtown, while Philly is hoping to just stay stable or actually lose more jobs and market share to the suburbs.

alex1
Mar 12, 2007, 11:09 PM
I have no opinion for or against these tax cuts, but what a dumb article.

The premise of the article is definitely false. There is no evidence that tax cuts have reversed Philly's population decline. First, there's no evidence that the population decline has ceased. Second, every single city in America has had some degree of a downtown condo boom.

Philly's core is booming, but it likely has more to do with low mortgage rates, a new national interest in urban living and better management under Rendell.

you are spot on.

mja
Mar 13, 2007, 1:37 AM
I have no opinion for or against these tax cuts, but what a dumb article.

The premise of the article is definitely false. There is no evidence that tax cuts have reversed Philly's population decline. First, there's no evidence that the population decline has ceased. Second, every single city in America has had some degree of a downtown condo boom.

Philly's core is booming, but it likely has more to do with low mortgage rates, a new national interest in urban living and better management under Rendell.

While everything you cited as a factor is true, nonetheless, I think there is pretty substantial evidence pointing to the abatement as having spurred a great deal of the boom.

1st of all, it is important to remember that neighborhoods that are now considered to be in Center City according to the CCD, were not considered to be in Center City before. Hoods like G-Ho, No Libs, Fairmount, Queen Village, Bella Vista, Hawthorne, Spring Garden, etc. These were the fringe neighborhoods. Now, the fringe neighborhoods are IN the core and their fringe neighborhoods (some of them - Brewerytown, Fishtown, New or Olde or whatever Kensington) are experiencing building and rehabbing and conversion.

Secondly, the greatest piece of evidence supporting the abatements is the number of market rate housing starts. Before the abatement, practically nothing. Immediately after, an immediate jump. After the abatement was expanded, another jump.

Hoods like No Libs, G-Ho, Hawthorne, Brewerytown, New or Olde or whatever the hell they call it Kensington would not be what they are today if not for the abatement.

Also, University City clearly benefited from UPENN's mortgage programs.

In the end, areas that were beyond gone are suddenly hot. You could have bought a decent house in G-Ho fifteen years ago for next to nothing. Now you'll drop 300K on crap. You have DINKS and young families displacing drug dealers (what a wonderful irony). I think the abatement has a great deal to do with that.

Palms
Mar 13, 2007, 2:47 AM
Infact Downtown Pittsburgh has been able to see job growth, while Central Philly has lost employment. So Pittsburgh must be doing something right, if they are forcasting thousands of new jobs in the downtown, while Philly is hoping to just stay stable or actually lose more jobs and market share to the suburbs.

You are off on a few things.

I don't want to bash Pittsburgh but if you put Pittsburgh up against the suburbs of Philadelphia it would be in for the fight of its life. The 202 corridor from Princeton down to Wilmington is a juggernaut and to be honest with you Philadelphia has done a remarkable job in holding its own. South Jersey with a population of close to 2 million and more economic incentives that- you- can- shake -a -stick- at is nipping at Center Citys heels on the eastern front.

You are incorrect, Philadelphia is not losing jobs. Center City has the same amount of jobs it had 20 years ago. You are correct in the fact that Center City has lost regional market share as the suburbs have exploded over the past 20 years.

Comcast is expected to add 2500-4000 jobs in center city in the next couple years. That will surely help.

As far as the Cira Centre being a negative influence and stealing tenants. Nonsense. Philadelphia needed to upgrade its office portfolio significantly. 2 major companies if not for the Cira were goiing to move out of the city altogether. 50% of the tenants in the Cira came from out of the city, close to a 1000 new jobs added that the city taxbase.

Even with the 1.2 M sq.feet Comcast Center and 800,000 sq.ft. Cira Center Philadelpias office market remains quite stable. Cira is 100% leased. Comcast is 90% leased a year from opening. Center Citys overall office market is extreme solid.

13% vacancy rate
$26 per sq. ft.

Its not Manhattan but thats nothing to sneeze at.

Your eulogy of Center City Philly is unnecessary..