Past examples from the 1920s, 1960s, etc. suggest that the latest land-planning scheme will probably not be enough to successfully direct Pittsburgh's growth. It is far more likely to result in a waste of resources... just like many past cases.
Pittsburgh decided to create a master land-planning effort to guide their decisions for the next 20 years, so that they would be able to chart the future of all neighborhoods as a cohesive whole. To get the community involved in the planning process, they created an initiative called “ForgingPGH” that asked residents to fill out a survey about the direction they wanted the city to go. Bill Peduto, who was the mayor when ForgingPGH was created, said that city officials would be able to continue working with developers or do urban planning in their own way. In other words, the developers would still be allowed to make their own decisions.
The very fact that they felt it was necessary to create an overarching plan is an indication that the state wants to take control of the marketplace again. The city encouraged input from residents, promising that they would use the information to steer future development; but they also decided that two consultants would be hired at a cost of $100,000 each. These consultants were supposed to be planning economic development while simultaneously evaluating the housing needs in Pittsburgh, and the fact that they were being paid by the government created a conflict of interest right off the bat. How can anyone expect that the consultants would focus on what was best for the residents instead of just what would help their bosses (namely, the government and big business)?
Former Mayor Bill Peduto explained away the lack of investments from the 1980s to the early 2000s, saying that “We were playing defense. We were trying to save our city and keep our head above the water.” However, from the 1990s to the early 2000s, there are several cases of failed taxpayer-subsidized projects like professional football and baseball stadiums. There’s also the project of the rebuilt convention center.
When public officials criticized these projects, the new stadiums got rejected at the ballot box. The comprehensive plan is supposed to fix things by giving the appearance of putting citizens in charge, while the state continues to control everything behind the scenes. They have mentioned working on issues of systematic racism and equity, and said it is important to make significant investments in black communities. Yet there is still no clear method in place for determining whether or not these efforts will even being made, much less making a positive impact.
The plan is supposed to focus on helping the city, not representing the state. It imitates the waste of city resources that we have seen in past cases. "Community-driven?" Hardly! This is just another misdirected attempt to seize power from the community and give the government more control than ever.
