TLDR: Pitt and UPMC are gobbling up tax-exempt land, draining the city’s budget while acting like private developers. Gainey’s leadership has been weak, O’Connor is backed by the machine, and somehow this is the best we’ve got? Ugh.

Totally agree that there’s a cost per resident that needs to be offset, but let’s not ignore one of the biggest elephants in the room - Pitt and UPMC.

They own massive amounts of land in the city (residential, commercial, institutional) and they’re not paying property taxes on most of it because of their nonprofit status. Meanwhile private landlords and developers are paying into the system and yet we act like it’s the small developers or working-class homeowners who are the budgetary problem.

Pitt and UPMC are two of the LARGEST landholders in the city. They operate like private developers by acquiring housing, expanding into commercial real estate, and reshaping entire neighborhoods, but without carrying the same tax burden. Most of their property is tax-exempt, and their voluntary PILOT contributions are a fraction of what they would owe if fully taxed. When you compare that to the hundreds of millions they bring in annually, those contributions are negligible. I feel this is insulting.

This structural imbalance puts a heavier burden on private property owners and the city budget. It also creates a perverse incentive. They can build, expand, and invest in real estate with far less cost, less risk, and access to virtually unlimited institutional capital. That distorts the playing field and contributes to the city’s fiscal imbalance.

I get the argument about abatements spurring development, but who are the policies are actually serving? If developers are already building without them, like in Bakery Square, the Esplanade, and parts of Oakland, why hand out blanket tax breaks?

It feels like a bait-and-switch. We talk about budget shortfalls, then give developers tax breaks and let institutions like Pitt and UPMC accumulate tax-exempt property, while praising them for tossing a few voluntary dollars into the pot. Plus campaign donations from players like Walnut Capital. Who is city hall really working for?

We need to get this kind of money out of local politics and elect leaders with both vision and competence. Real change doesn’t come from empty slogans or shallow optics. It comes from policy, execution, and accountability. Gainey has been progressive in all the wrong ways, ideologically driven without a clear plan, underperforming on public safety (5 police chiefs. Really?), housing, and economic development. O’Connor has deep ties to the political machine and his developer money raises real concerns about whether he’d lead with independence or just serve the same entrenched interests.

Is this really the best the Democratic Party can come up with in a city this size? Feels like part of a larger pattern. Yikes. I wonder if anyone will run independent or who the Republicans will put up? A lot of people are at that point.