Public Hearing on East Carson Street Improvement District (Bill 2026-0518) - September 2, 2026
Public Hearing on East Carson Street Improvement District (Bill 2026-0518) - September 2, 2026
The Pittsburgh City Council Committee on Hearings and Policy held a second public hearing on Wednesday, September 2, 2026, at 1:30 PM in Council Chambers to consider Bill 2026-0518, which would establish an East Carson Street Neighborhood Improvement District (NID). The hearing featured presentations from the bill's sponsor, Councilman Charland, and testimony from registered and unregistered speakers. The hearing focused on the purpose, structure, and community impact of the proposed district, which would fund commercial corridor improvements through a frontage-based assessment on commercial properties.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Peter Margotai (South Side, President of South Side Chamber of Commerce) – Expressed strong support for the NID, comparing the South Side’s lack of dedicated funding to other districts (Lawrenceville: $1.5M, Northside: $5.95M, Bloomfield-Garfield: $1.7M, Oakland: $1.2M, South Side: $0). He urged support to compete.
- Anna Campbell (property owner on East Carson Street) – Supported the NID, noting common goals with opponents: safety, beauty, fewer vacancies, quality businesses. She argued that the cost of doing nothing is greater.
- Michelle Margotai (resident and commercial property owner, not in NID area but willing to contribute) – Expressed strong support, recounting volunteer efforts and the need for paid staff to sustain community work.
- Ken Eschenbach (South Side resident, HOA president) – Supported the NID as an investment, comparing it to his own decision to increase HOA dues. He called opposition disinformation.
- John DiMarrow (property owner, 9 buildings on East Carson Street) – Supported the NID, emphasizing 18 months of process, two surveys, and a reduction in vacancy from 23% to under 17%. He argued for a permanent structure.
- Demosthenes Kefalianis (property owner on 28th Street) – Opposed, questioning whether residents are exempt and expressing concern about tax burden. He said the process is handled wrong and will fail.
- Lou Croak (law practice owner, South Side, volunteered to pay even if not assessed) – Supported the NID, noting the district cannot be run by volunteers.
- Jimmy Hoffman (partner at Mario's South Side Saloon) – Supported the NID, comparing it to an HOA, and noted his assessment of $150/month. He stressed competition with other districts.
- Richard Kupka (inside NID footprint) – Opposed, citing unfair process (18 months for planners, 45 days for objectors), disputed vacancy numbers, questioned fiscal accountability, and alleged that prior leaders (Anderson, Harden, Gibbons) with high compensation did not deliver results.
- Dan Friedson (attorney representing Linda Gable and Richard Kupka) – Opposed, arguing the meeting should focus on public safety, that the NID is a tax (not an investment), that NIDs are ineligible for grants, and that other tools like LERTA exist. He raised rational nexus concerns.
- Don Berman (president of South Side Can, resident and property owner) – Supported the NID, citing math: Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership had $23.5M revenue with less than 15% from assessments. He also criticized a fraudulent anti-NID flyer.
- Amanda Bundy (business owner and resident) – Supported the NID, emphasizing the need to work together and try this opportunity.
- Lynn Gable (property owner at 1509 East Carson Street) – Strongly opposed, questioning why property owners should pay more when values decline, vacancy rises, and core issues (violence, homelessness) are unaddressed. She alleged secret meetings, unfair assessments, and "friends and family discounts."
- Dr. Barbara Rudia (resident, past president of South Side Community Council) – Supported the NID, noting recent successful events and criticizing opposition flyers with false claims about residential fees.
- Councilman Jordan Botta (Allegheny County Council District 13) – Supported the NID, praising Susan Anderson's work, clarifying that NIDs exist in Pittsburgh (Downtown, Oakland), and noting the frontage-based assessment gives predictability.
- Dan McSwigan (restaurant owner, 1701 East Carson Street, Cambota Can Kitchen) – Opposed, citing lack of vote, public safety concerns, and a personal story of a shooting. He argued the NID is a band-aid and undemocratic.
- Dean Costas (former property/business owner) – Opposed, criticizing the process as undemocratic, questioning the voting system, and arguing the city should cut costs instead of adding taxes.
- Claire Drobot (artistic director, City Theater Company) – Supported the NID, noting City Theater's 52nd season, 30,000 patrons annually, and commitment to contribute funding despite being a nonprofit.
- Jocelyn Garcia (lives and works in South Side) – Opposed, questioning whether property liens would be placed for non-payment and noting that businesses left due to security, not lack of flowers.
- James Garvey (owner of Garvey's Bar, two buildings on Carson Street) – Supported the NID, urging property owners to reinvest and take responsibility.
- Joshua D. Augustine (last registered speaker) – Opposed, criticizing budget allocation: 31% program management, 22% branding, 19% events, only 3% ($15,000) for economic vitality. He argued assessment based on frontage is unfair, and that barriers like permitting and high rents are neglected.
- Rebecca Kastevich (owner of Copies on Carson, 1315 East Carson Street) – Supported the NID, arguing that the current system is not working and that the NID provides a structure for execution. She corrected that the law calls it an assessment, not a tax.
- Unregistered speaker (not named) – Requested vacancy rates be provided for the record.
Discussion Items
- Councilman Charland presented the history and details of the NID proposal. He clarified that the boundary is based on the Local Neighborhood Commercial (LNC) corridor, with additions like Bedford Square and the 10th Street Corridor. He emphasized that the assessment is on commercial properties only, and the management association will be an independent nonprofit governed by property owners paying the assessment. The four primary outcomes: improve experience, strengthen brand, grow economy, drive traffic. He noted that commercial vacancy dropped from 23% to 16% over 18 months with a temporary business district manager (Susan Anderson). He explained the statutory objection process: 45 days from September 2 to October 19 for written objections. He also addressed the process being mandated by state law, not city rule.
- Councilman Salnatro acknowledged the passion and love for the South Side, stating he would continue to listen.
- Councilman Congo (who arrived late) said he would pay attention and vote when the bill comes up, which would be after 45 days.
- Councilman Charland responded to comments: LERTA is an abatement for property improvements, not applicable here. He argued that the NID is not a tax but a local assessment, and that both the Downtown Partnership and OBID receive grants and multiply their budgets. He also corrected that discussions have been ongoing for years, not just 18 months.
Key Outcomes
- The public hearing was held as scheduled.
- The 45-day formal objection period began on September 2, 2026, and ends on October 19, 2026. Property owners must file written objections with the city clerk to be counted.
- No vote was taken at the hearing. The bill will be referred to the Committee on Land Use and Economic Development for further action after the objection period.
- Council members indicated they will consider the testimony and public input before making a decision.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon, and welcome to Pittsburgh City Council's Cablecast Public Hearing for Wednesday, September 2nd, 2026, relative to Bill 2026 0518. Will the clerk please read the title of the bill? Bill five eighteen ordinance establishing an East Carson Street Improvement District for the area shown on Exhibit A at the behest of the East Carson Street Business District Advisory Committee, property owners and business owners to be benefited with specific improvements to be undertaken, including but not limited to financing of said improvements, method of assessing specific properties to be benefited, establishing a neighborhood improvement district management association to conduct administrative procedures for the neighborhood improvement district, providing for the establishment of a separate account for deposit and withdrawal of project funds and providing for the cost thereof. Today we're back before council to show you what we heard, what we clarified, and importantly, what changed as a result of the process. I want to take a moment to clarify how the proposed boundary was established and why certain areas are included. The top map shows the LNC or local neighborhood commercial boundary in pink. That commercial corridor along East Carson Street was the starting point in the foundation for the district. The bottom map shows the proposed NIDMA boundary. It largely follows the LNC corridor with a few specific additions that are directly connected to the commercial district. Bedford Square is included because it serves as a hub for events, programming, and public space activation. The 10th Street Corridor is included because it is an important gateway into East Carson Street. The northern side of South 14th Street up to Sarah Street was added after commercial property owners expressed interest in participating and was determined to be directly connected to the corridor. As feedback came in, we reviewed the boundary within that same framework. Feedback informed the review, but it did not change the basis on which the district was established. Where a refinement was supported, it was made. Simply put, the top map shows the commercial foundation. What you see on the lower map is the final proposed boundary, still grounded in the LNC commercial corridor and the specific areas that function as part of the district. With that framework in place, there are a few other elements of the plan that are important to clarify. Who pays, who controls the organization and its funding, and what the investment is intended to accomplish. First, this is an assessment of commercial property within the proposed district. Second, and very important to emphasize, the management association would be an independent nonprofit governed by an owner controlled board of directors made up of the very people paying the assessment. That means people investing in the district will have direct responsibility for how those dollars are used. The board will establish the annual budget, set priorities, and determine how district funds are invested within the parameters of the approved district plan. The money stays here. The decisions are made here, and the people paying the assessment have a direct voice in how it is invested. So what is that investment intended to accomplish? The plan identifies four primary outcomes. Improve the experience on East Carson Street, strengthen the district's brand and reputation, grow the economy, and drive more traffic and spending into the commercial corridor. The activities in the plan are how we work towards those outcomes, dedicated district management, business recruitment, marketing and promotion, events and programming, storefront activation, property owner support, and grant writing. The city would continue providing municipal services while existing organizations and volunteers would continue the work they already do. The NIDMA provides the dedicated funding, staffing, and organizational capacity to carry out this commercial district work consistently over time. Through one-time temporary funding, we're able to bring Susan Anderson on as our business district manager and begin testing what it looks like to have someone consistently focused on the East Carson Street commercial corridor. With an incredibly limited operating budget and no dedicated staff, Susan has worked directly with businesses and property owners. She's recruited new businesses and has helped connect vacant storefronts with prospective tenants. Additionally, she's built partnerships with the government agencies and community groups, coordinated public space improvements, developed new district marketing tools, and created events and programming designed to bring customers back to East Carson Street. We're also seeing encouraging movement in one of the district's most important indicators. When this work began, commercial vacancy was approximately 23%. Today it is approximately 16%. That's a seven-point swing in just 18 months. No single person or program is responsible for a change like that. It takes property owners investing in their buildings, it takes businesses investing in their operations. It takes the city providing services and resources, and it takes existing community organizations working throughout the South side. What these 18 months have demonstrated is the role that a dedicated management district management can play in connecting those efforts and maintaining a consistent focus on the economic health of the commercial district. The phrase we've often said is that this is someone who wakes up every day and thinks about what problems the district has and puts boots on the ground to fix those problems. The NIDMA would be a permanent structure around that work. And that structure is important. It would be led by the building owners and business owners who are themselves the most invested in the success of the district. They would establish district priorities, oversee the organization, and determine how those district resources are put to work. So this is not about one person or one position. It's about whether East Carson Street has a sustainable, locally led structure with a capacity to manage the district over the long term.
openpublica.com