Loopholes R Us

So it at least rates a news story that the sale of the Steel Building downtown is somehow going to be exempt from the real estate transfer tax that most folks have to pay.

The Philadelphia Business Journal had a remarkable piece in the spring on the lack of interest in Pennsylvania in even thinking about changing this “89-11″ loophole.  Basically the state dropped interest in reforming the loophole based on public input, which I can only speculate means the input was all from real estate owners and investors and I bet none from anyone else.  No outrage, no change, no revenue.

So in this particular case, it seems that even if the sale had happened in Philadelphia, it would have been exempt from the transfer tax.  Nonetheless, what I have pointed out before and before, is that Philadelphia captures a lot more of the transfer taxes than we do because of more stringent requirements on what is exempt.  That could be fixed if the powers that be so chose.  Unfortunately it is not a local issue, but like so much of city finances dependent on state legislation. Still if there is no political will for a change then it will never happen anyway.

So this one transaction lost the city of Pittsburgh more than the entire Library tax will bring in for more than a year. Maybe a year and a half or more, and that is without counting the additional revenue it would bring the school district and the state even.  One transaction!  Compare the amount of public effort focused on the library tax referendum and how much anyone will even notice that one article in the paper today.. to be forgotten about tomorrow.  I am so confused by what generates public interest, let alone news coverage.

Makes you wonder what the cumulative loss to the city has been over the last decade in lost transfer tax revenues?

Harrisburg or Bust

Remember this is all about the capital of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The latest on the financial soap opera otherwise known as Harrisburg.

The real endgame playing out as Moody’s withdraws its rating on certain Harrisburg water bonds.

Yet money or not, money has to be spent on Harrisburg’s water infrastructure.

Harrisburg may get what it asked for in the end.

To bankrupt or not to bankrupt

The news is that Harrisburg has filed for bankruptcy.  While technically true that they have filed for bankruptcy, this may be shot down before it all begins.  The funniest part of this at the moment is that all the judges for this are in Tampa for a conference.  So hold your breath.

Remember, bankruptcy has not been far below the horizon here in the past.  The closest the city of Pittsburgh should have come to bankruptcy was in the early 1990’s just as Tom Murphy became mayor.  Yet the history is that the City of Bridgeport, CT had just before that time tried to file bankruptcy but was denied by a federal court to even enter bankruptcy.  Municipal (Chapter 9) bankruptcy is not like bankruptcy for you and me in lots of ways.  US constitutional issues prevent a judge from exerting many of the powers over a state entity the same way might happen in recievership for an individual or company.

In Bridgeport’s case the court ruled that the city was not really broke enough to file for bankruptcy, i.e that it had the fiscal capacity to tax or borrow its way to meet its obligations. Unlike other bankruptcies which really look at assets and liabilities, Chapter 9 is more about cash and the fiscal capacity to raise cash.  Most public assets are not going to be considered for sale or liquidation no matter, so there is no risk of the mayor’s chair being carted off to a flea market.

The thing is that while I believe the City of Pittsburgh was in a far worse shape than Bridgeport was at the time, that precedent was clearly the biggest thing on the mind of city lawyers who likely advised a bankruptcy filing would not go forward.  I personally bet they were wrong on that and that Pittsburgh was not in as good shape as Bridgeport was and well over the line of insolvency in a public sense.  There is even a school of thought that says if Bridgeport just waited another year before filing its fiscal condition would have been so bad that the court would have had no choice but to let the filing go forward.

Still I bet Bridgeport’s aborted bankruptcy is the only thing that kept the Murphy administration from filing for bankruptcy right as they took office when they were told the city was about to go cash zero. Prevented from bankruptcy all sorts of even worse things happened.  The result was that over the subsequent decade city in succession ’sold’ or liquidated the water department into the water authority (long story there), the city’s debt ballooned,  tax liens sold off to a third party without much concern for city of Pittsburgh development and no significant increase (Pension bonds were a wash I would say.. at best) in pension funding would leave us where we are today.   So today we have more debt, more pension liability, no direct control of the water system (think of all the problems that has caused) and had much of a decade of neighborhood economic development arrested because it was held hostage by a wall street company that couldnt spell in Latin.

Then there is this logic people say the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania must ‘approve’ any bankruptcy filing.  Also technically true in the legal sense.  In the real world sense it is not so important.  The lawyers might argue, but consider a few things.  In Pennsylvania the state approval for letting a federal bankruptcy filing go forward is mostly embedded in the Act 47 law and process.  There has been municipal bankruptcy in Pennsylvania, even one  recently in the case of Westfall Township.  Did Westfall get permmission to file for banktruptcy?   I would argue it didn’t in that an Act 47 process only began after they filed and had a bankruptcy proceeding move forward. The state went along, but it was kind of after the fact.  And in one of the stranger acts of jurisprudence.. some folks may remember the monster AHERF bankruptcy that still lives on in shaping the region’s state’s health care system.  AHERF, even though it was not a municipality, was a Chapter 9 bankruptcy.  Does not quite make sense to me, but I think it was just too big and too complex to really fit into a Chater 11.

In the bigger sense it does not matter if the state really approves a major bankruptcy or not.  If bills go unpaid, or say bond payments don’t go out.  Bad things happen and at some point someone would be forced to do something.  The state would have little choice to ‘approve’ a bankruptcy, or a judge would find some way to rule that a filing could go forward.

Also unmentioned in the article is the story of Vallejo, California and its bankruptcy that is just about to come out of.  That also is a case where I have argued the fundamental finances there are far better than they were (or are) here.   Go figure and again think about all the victory signs last month when the state accepted the while pension accounting scheme. Is Vallejo a model for what may happen in Harrisburg?   Probably not just yet.

So what happens now?  My guess is that when the judges get back from Tampa and have a hearing on any of this they are likely to push back and say no… no filing for you.   Sort of like the soup guy on Seinfeld.  Federal judges are not going to want to get into what is, on top of everything else, a political circus in the city of Harrisburg.   They will tell them they are not there to settle the city’s political problems, whether or not that is the verbiage of any actual ruling who knows.  So a bankruptcy may happen… but I bet it is not right now.

Still,  I am surprised the Commonwealth let this all get this far already.  There are consequences across the state for such financial miasma in any one municipality, let alone in the state capital.

The Harrisburg Miasma = Pennsylvania's Miasma

The thing that gets me about the fiscal mess in Harrisburg these days.  The city is so broke it is seeking bankruptcy. Even if that does not go forward, why are they in this situation?  Is the city itself that mismanaged?  Even if you want to think so, the actual fiscal miasma they are dealing with is from a debt owed by something called the “Harrisburg Authority” for building of all things a garbage incinerator.  The full story was written up by the Patriot News earlier in the year.

The real story here, IMHO, is not really about anything specific to Harrisburg, but what this all says about public governance in Pennsylvania.  How many folks really paid attention to whatever public debate there was over the garbage incinerator that has created their current predicament?   All the public authorities and special districts in Pennsylvania create an impossible to decipher mosiac of governance that leads to these problems.   Pennsylvania is by far the most fragmented state in the nation when it comes to local governance.  Most focus on municipalities when they think about that, but it goes far beyond boroughs and townships and cities…  few people really think about the secondary costs of all the ‘other’ governments we have out there.   Why is there a generic “Harrisburg Authority” in existence if not to obscure the public governance.  There is even an Equipment Leasing Authority here in the City of Pittsburgh that is nominally an independent public authority according to the laws of Pennsylvania.

How bad is it? A version of a graphic I made in the past is below.. when you lay out all the official and distinct governments in Pennsylvania this is what you get. Each government is scaled by the number of employees it has. You never know what will jump up and bite you. Somewhere in there is the “Harrisburg Authority”.  From obscurity to what is becoming national news and beyond.

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

Health Insurance

Some new data out on Small Area Health Insurance Estimates from the census folks.

They have a tool there you can use to look this up yourself, but what I get is that for children (age 18 and under) in Pennsylania, Allegheny County is tied with Montgomery for the lowest percentage without health insurance at 3.9%.  The highest: 10% in Lancaster County.  Data is for 2009.

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

Shale Past - Shale Future

While shale development is even more in the news than normal…. Here is something worth reading carefully.

One of the biggest players in the whole shale gas play to date has been Chesapeake Energy.  Everyone should read Chesapeake’s October investor presentation.  I spent just enough time on Wall Street to not really take investor presentations all that seriously, or at the very least discount the hyperbole,  but lots of info in there and some pretty clear foreshadowing of their intentions.

Read page 23 and page 24 first.  Then go back and read page 20 on where the oil play is.  Once again: go west.

Also, it seems the big hope is all about future auto use of natural gas as what will support natural gas prices out into the future.  On that the USAToday has a piece on one of the few commerical vehicles you can buy that run on Natural Gas.  See:  Honda prices new tragically ignored natural-gas Civic.  It was for a long time the only natural gas vehicle for retail sale in the US. I don’t know if that is still true at the moment.   I was just curious and looked up the official Honda web site for the car.  I plugged in some local zips to find a dealer who would either sell or even service a NG vehicle, and it wouldn’t give me one in Pennsylvania at all.  The USAToday article says Honda has just now increased its retail availability for these NG cars to 38 states.  Is Pennsylvania one of them?

Desperately Seeking Spike

In Pennsylvania, the 5 counties with the largest number of permitted Marcellus Shale pads are Bradford, Tioga, Lycoming, Washington and Susquehanna respectively.

Washington County is by far the largest county among the group. It is also part of a larger metro area.  So set Washington aside just for a moment and think about the other 4 which are the core of Marcellus Shale development in Pennsylvania to date.. especially in the NE and north central parts of the state.

I just added up the employment counts for those 4 counties over the last 5 years and in aggregate this is what you get for the time series:

I must have made a mistake.

Drilling for facts

Marcellus hagiography is getting way out of hand. Here is an oped in New York that quotes a US Congressperson from Pennsylvania:

“Two of my counties have a zero percent unemployment. This has been very positive.”

Zero percent unemployment?!  I don’t see it.  I don’t care that someone actually out there said it… even if it was a congressperson. The news criteria of a quote makes a source does not trump simple verifiable factuality. There are no counties in Pennsylvania with zero unemployment rates. Nor any that close. By historical standards, most all PA counties have some pretty high unemployment rates these days.  Yet someone thinks it’s zero in more than one whole county.

So this is what gets me. So let’s all agree the development of shale gas is a big economic deal. Does that mean it is responsible for everything. Here is another example. There was a pro-shale gas oped in Cleveland last week. See: Buckeye Oil Billions Will Unleash an Ohio Manufacturing Tech Boom

Again, it is a positive economic story for sure.  Yet why does that piece not stick to the facts in abundance that could help make his case?   In it is a quote about how Marcellus Shale development has impacted Pittsburgh:

“(Marcellus Shale) has already fueled a downtown construction boom in Pittsburgh.”

Really?  Why do people say these things? Let’s go through it. In Pittsburgh the biggest Downtown construction of late has clearly been the new PNC Tower. The decision or at least the idea to build the tower clearly dates back to late 2005 at least and its construction decision appears to have been influenced by a sizable TIF offered by city/school district and county. Hold that TIF thought for a moment.

So if that was really a Marcellus Shale influenced decision back then, someone was really really prescient down there at PNC and on the 5th Floor.

If that construction is not what the author thinks is shale gas related, then it must be the score of highly subsidized (in one form or another) Downtown condominium developments that have been completed in recent years. Most of those date back to decisions in the mid to early 00’s or earlier.   The connection to Marcellus Shale in them is what exactly?

Let’s see.. there were the two big bank operations centers built in town? Not really recent enough to be considered related to shale gas unless someone was really really looking into the future. Would have required help from the custom Delorean.

I know, he was thinking of almost completed tunnel construction and related. The $524 million in construction North Shore Connector and Downtown T station reconstruction is really a stealth way to get around the ban on drilling for shale gas in the City of Pittsburgh. Of course the decision to build the NSC dates back to decisions decades ago. Brilliant.

The Casino.. that must be it. The Casino built on the same spot as the once planned Riverboat Casino here in town and resulting directly from a state licensing process that all but required it to be built in the city.   Don Barden was talking Marcellus Shale all the time.  Again, there must be frac(k?)ing equipment buried under the poker tables.

The entirely public Grant Street Transportation Center was built not all that long ago? That would be a hard argument to connect to shale gas. Those workers coming in from Oklahoma and Texas were not getting here by Greyhound as best I can tell.

What am I missing? The New African American Center and it’s wing devoted to minorities working on Developing shale gas in the Pennsylvania T (the other T that is).

Look.. I don’t believe the guy made it up all by himself. The question is what did someone tell the author that lead him to believe Marcellus shale was causing, or did cause the boom in Downtown development?  Sure seems that if you go through all of the above, the biggest factor in any recent boom in Downtown construction has been a lot of public money and subsidies or related public incentives. Funny that isn’t mentioned, but there is a story for someone to dig into. If there is a Marcellus side story in what has happened Downtown over the last decade, it is a very very small small piece of the puzzle and pales in comparison to a lot of public investment…

Oh wait.. I forgot the Consol Arena.  Named at the time for more of a coal company ironically…  but built with public money through and through.  Point Park construction?  Duquesne construction?

Windfalls all around

So here is something I should have noticed.  I actually will sometimes look at what the state’s revenue reports look like.

The story today on the state of the city’s budget has a real bonus in there.  The city received $10 million more than anticipated in aide from the state for municipal pensions.  The line in the Post-Gazette story is that “Officials weren’t sure why the city and other municipalities were getting extra money this year”.

There is no mystery here at all.  Pennsylvania distributes pension aide to local municipalities from a single dedicated source, the Foreign Fire Insurance Tax. So the more comes in from that tax, the more goes to the municipalities.  You might have thought the recession would put a damper on that type of tax, but I guess we are becoming a risk averse (i.e. insurance loving) society.. That or insurance premia are way up?  I’d like to know which it is actually.

From the June revenue report you get the fiscal year to date data for the 2010-2011 fiscal year in Harrisburg.  Below is the trend for the revenue stream dedicated to local municipal pension.  You will see a big big jump in the fiscal year that just ended.  There is a related story here.  It was not any goodwill toward Pittsburgh in particular that gave us a boost.   That boost in state aide went to most every municipality receiving pension aide from the state.  Should be a lot of happy local officials out there with some ‘free’ money hitting their books.

Anyway… if we looked at that June report that came out last month, it should have been obvious a big(or at least bigger) check was coming our way.

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

Marcellus Bar None

Things that fascinate me.  From the Legal Intelligencer on Marcellus Shale induced migration to Pittsburgh…  of lawyers of course.

See:  Marcellus Shale Attracts Laterals From Miles Around

Curious quote in there. I can’t quite figure why it is there:

“I don’t want to be a wannabe,” he said. “Somebody once said to me, ‘There are a lot of people with great ideas in cemeteries; they just never spoke to anybody about those ideas.’

Ok then…  We’ve become the place to self-actualize. The New New Pittsburgh.  I was born somewhere else.