Public hearing on downtown TRID spotlights divide over decades-long tax diversion

Pittsburgh City Council held a public hearing June 25 on Bill 531, a resolution to adopt a downtown Transit Revitalization Investment District (TRID) implementation plan and related agreements. Speakers for and against the measure delivered more than two hours of testimony before council adjourned to schedule a fact-finding session with URA officials.

Supporters represented by the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership said the TRID will protect the existing tax base while unlocking private investment. Jason Rona, a commercial real-estate attorney and treasurer of the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership, said the mechanism captures only incremental tax value and helps close private financing gaps "so projects move from term sheet to ribbon cutting." He added the TRID can fund lighting, sidewalks, small-business support, residential conversions and affordable housing that make downtown a 24/7 neighborhood.

Labor leaders echoed that message. Steve Maza, a council representative of the Eastern Atlantic States Regional Council Carpenters and a building-trades vice president, urged approval on job-creation grounds, saying projects tied to the TRID would generate work for union members who live throughout the city.

Opponents ranged from transit advocates and housing coalitions to individual residents who raised three recurring concerns: a perceived lack of meaningful public engagement and transparency; the proposal’s 40-year revenue-capture term; and the plan’s apparent allocation mix, which many speakers described as roughly 20% for public infrastructure and 80% for private development.

"This proposal is asking you to gamble with taxpayer money," said Jackie Smith, a Park Place resident and board member of the Human Rights City Alliance, who urged council to vote no and asked the mayor’s office and the URA to provide evidence that the TRID will deliver benefits for all neighborhoods.

Transit advocates, including leaders of Pittsburgers for Public Transit, said the plan was thin on specifics. "This loan…will be received as a grant by a dozen wealthy corporations," said Laura Chu Wis, the group’s executive director, arguing the proposal lacks public obligations and could foreclose future budgets for schools and neighborhood services.

Multiple speakers asked where legally required public engagement and the TRID planning study had occurred. Mattie McGrady, co-chair of the Pittsburgh Housing Justice Table, and Laura Perkins separately cited Section 901 of the Pennsylvania TRID law and said they had not seen the planning study or required public hearings before URA approval.

Residents and school advocates warned the measure could divert real-estate tax revenue used to support public schools and neighborhood services. John Cooper, a Park Place resident and former food bank employee, said the city is being asked to risk as much as $200 million in future tax revenue while families and schools face austerity.

Council members said they heard the public. Councilman Wilson acknowledged widespread concerns about process and said a post-agenda fact-finding meeting with URA members will be scheduled, with Councilman Mosley hosting; Councilman Charlotte, a URA board member, said downtown tax revenue underpins many city services and that supporting downtown can prevent larger tax increases elsewhere. Councilwoman Gross listed outstanding questions — including the legal effect of termination if bonds are outstanding — and said council will pursue answers before any final action.

No formal vote occurred at the hearing. Council scheduled additional fact-finding and briefing to address outstanding legal, boundary, financing and oversight questions raised by speakers and council members.