Still no decision on land bank from Gateway School Board |

Still no decision on land bank from Gateway School Board

Gateway School Board again held off on deciding whether to join a land bank as a way to reduce blight and tax delinquency.

The board tabled the resolution last Wednesday that would allow the district to enter into an agreement to form a multi-municipal land bank.

The intergovernmental cooperation agreement would allow a proposed land bank, which is slated to begin acquiring property next year, to discharge liens for delinquent real estate taxes owed to the school district when it acquires property within district bounds.

The Turtle Creek Valley, Steel Valley and Three Rivers councils of government — which has 40 member municipalities in the region — have encouraged members to authorize the agreement as a way for them to turn tax-delinquent houses and land into money-makers for local tax rolls.

School board member Bob Elms proposed posting the text of the agreement on the school district website for public review.

Members approved his proposal when they voted to table the resolution.

Monroeville Council approved the agreement in September.

The business plan the COGs have drawn up for the land bank calls for approval from local governments and school districts in communities that wish to join.

The resolution has been tabled since board vice president Chad Stubenbort introduced it in September.

Some members have said in earlier discussions that they’d rather see the roughly $75,000 a year the district would have to pay into the land bank spent directly on education.

Gideon Bradshaw is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-871-2369 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.