Who's Accountable for Pittsburgh Redevelopment?

February 21st, 2008, posted by Greg Palmer

The Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh (URA) is a quasi-public entity. It is only quasi-public because while it serves the public purpose of coordinating redevelopment for the City of Pittsburgh, it has no direct accountability mechanism. A creation of the state (Act 385 of 1945), the URA is governed by members (i.e. a board) appointed by the mayor and led by an executive director appointed by those members. Even though funds pass back and forth between them, the URA is a legally distinct government entity from the City. Even though the mayor appoints the leadership, the URA serves a purpose defined by the Commonwealth.

So, when the director of the URA makes a decision that people don’t like, how is he held accountable? Does the quasi-public nature of the URA mean that it can do whatever it wants? Does the long chain of command mean that the buck is constantly being passed?

Filed under:

Pittsburgh

Getting rid of these

On February 21st, 2008 Anonymous said:

Getting rid of these “developent agencies” would go a long way toward helping a city that has declined since they started to “work”.
These groups are simply job providers for the politically-connected. Outside of that, they have no value. Well, they do have a lot of meetings.
Their success is best measured by population, which has, in this case, been cut in half by their efforts.

All you need to know about

On February 21st, 2008 Anonymous said:

All you need to know about “Authorities” you can learn by reading the history of Robert Moses. He knew that these organizations, which are not accountable to voters, are a great way to “get what you want” with almost no accountability.

Pilt