Methodology
How the blight score works
Here's the full methodology: how parcels are scored, how ROI is modeled, how the co-investment trigger model qualifies permit events, and which external benchmarks anchor the numbers. Figures produced by platform simulation are labeled as such.
Blight Score — Composite Index
How each parcel receives its 0–100 blight severity score
Every parcel in the dataset receives a Blight Score between 0 (no blight indicators) and 100 (severely blighted). The score is a weighted composite of eight indicator dimensions, each sourced from a distinct city or county dataset.
BlightScore = ( 0.25 × StructuralScore + // condemnation, IPMC unsafe-structure flag, PLI 0.20 × CrimeProximity + // weighted crime incident counts, 500m radius 0.20 × TaxDelinquency + // prior_years ≥ 2 + amount owed; treasury sale 0.15 × OwnerProfile + // absentee flag, out-of-municipality owner 0.10 × VacancyDuration + // year-built + permit-absence-derived proxy 0.10 × LienStacking // PLI violation count (count-based proxy) ) Normalized to 0–100. Tier assignment: Tier 1 (Critical): 75–100 Tier 2 (High): 50–74 Tier 3 (Moderate): 25–49 Tier 4 (Low): 0–24
The weights reflect the platform author's calibration against the full Pittsburgh assessor roll (n=584,896 parcels) using distributional-sanity checks — tier breakpoints chosen so critical and high tiers match the rough order of magnitude of PLB's publicly reported inventory counts. Weights have not been fitted against a held-out sample of known-outcome parcels; no external audit has been performed. Parcels with active condemnation orders receive a minimum structural score of 95 regardless of other indicators (v5.1 rule; parcels with IPMC "unsafe structure" citations receive a floor of 85).
ROI Model
How parcel-level return on investment is estimated
The platform's ROI model estimates the economic return from a blight intervention on a specific parcel. It combines direct remediation cost, adjacent property value restoration, TIF amplification (where applicable), and opportunity cost of inaction.
// Intervention cost — calibrated monthly against FRED construction PPI
intervention_cost = base_cost[demolition|rehab|land_bank|p3|conservatorship]
× cost_index // FRED series WPUIP2311001
// Value unlocked — zone / size / market / rate-environment modifiers
value_unlocked = min(
assessed_value
× hpi_factor // FRED Allegheny HPI
× zone_size_mult // zone × lot-size, capped 2.0
× market_mult // BAMP builder-pipeline tier
× rate_penalty // FRED 30-yr mortgage ≥ 6.5% trigger
× new_const_mult, // 1.08 if in active builder corridor
VALUE_UNLOCKED_MAX // $5M ceiling
)
// Externality offsets
crime_red_val = crime_cost × 0.15 × crime_red_factor × crime_zone_mult
generational_val = min(opportunity_atlas_value, $50K_cap)
incarc_savings = incarceration_cost × crime_red_factor
total_value = value_unlocked + crime_red_val
+ generational_val + incarc_savings
// ROI score, normalized to 0–100
public_in = intervention_cost × public_share[intervention]
roi_raw = (total_value − intervention_cost) / public_in
roi_raw_adj = roi_raw × mobility_mult × equity_mult
roi_score = clamp(normalize(roi_raw_adj), 0, 100)
// Modeled median across the active portfolio: 4.5× (range 1.2×–18.7×)Model Inputs & Anchors
Limitations: The ROI model estimates economic value restoration, not financial return to any single investor. Remediation cost figures are medians calibrated by FRED construction-PPI; actual costs vary by contractor and condition. Adjacent-value restoration is derived from the Tri-COG benchmark applied to a propagation radius — a modeling assumption, not a measured outcome. TIF amplification assumes the parcel comes back onto tax rolls within 3 years of remediation. The model has not been validated against a held-out sample of known-outcome parcels.
Co-Investment Trigger Model
How private permit events qualify as co-investment windows
The co-investment trigger model is the platform's thesis about when blight intervention has its highest marginal return: when a qualifying private-permit event creates a time-bounded window for remediating adjacent blighted parcels before the market reprices them. Below is the qualification logic; real-time alerting off live permit ingestion is on the product roadmap but not yet wired end-to-end.
// Qualification logic (applied to a permit feed)
A permit qualifies as a co-investment trigger when ALL are true:
1. BBI permit value >= $1,000,000
2. At least one critical- or high-tier parcel within 500m
3. Permit type in {commercial, residential, mixed-use, institutional}
4. Corridor is not in "active remediation" lockout
// Recommended budget per qualifying trigger
recommended_co_investment = permit_value × 0.05
// The 5% figure is informed by three reference points (see report):
// 1. Cuyahoga Land Bank 2009–2023 empirical ratio: 5.6–7.5%
// 2. Pittsburgh inventory cost model: ~$34.8M ÷ ~$683M = 5.1% (platform-derived)
// 3. HUD/PHFA federal program thresholds: 10–50% public match
// These are three anchor points, not three independent confirmations.Pittsburgh Co-Investment Simulation · 2024–2026
The figures below come from this platform's researched dossier of seven Pittsburgh development corridors (see the full report). They are not the output of an operating real-time trigger engine running against live permit data; they are a hand-compiled portfolio used to pressure-test the 5% framework.
Data Sources
The 12 datasets powering the platform
| Source | Refresh |
|---|---|
| WPRDC — PLI Violations & Permits | Weekly |
| WPRDC — Allegheny County Assessment | Monthly |
| WPRDC — Police Incident Blotter | Weekly |
| City of Pittsburgh — Treasury Sale Listings | Quarterly |
| City of Pittsburgh — Tax Delinquency Roll | Quarterly |
| City of Pittsburgh — TIF District Boundaries | Annual |
| Opportunity Atlas (Chetty et al.) | Vintage 2024 |
| FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data) | Monthly |
| PA DCED — RACP Grant Records | Annual |
| Tri-COG Land Bank — Cost Benchmarks | Static |
| PGH2050 Comprehensive Plan | Plan revision |
Benchmarks & Anchors
External research the platform builds on — and which figures are platform-derived
Tri-COG Land Bank
Ongoing
Key finding: $5,145 adjacent property value restored per remediated structure
Used as one input anchor in the ROI model's adjacent-value restoration term. The figure itself is external; its application to Pittsburgh parcels via a propagation radius is a platform modeling choice.
Cuyahoga Land Bank (Cleveland)
2009–2023, 14-year record
Key finding: ~$450M public/philanthropic deployed against ~$6–8B private activity — a 5.6–7.5% empirical ratio
The strongest peer benchmark. Cuyahoga's multi-decade co-investment ratio is one of three reference points informing the 5% figure used elsewhere on this site. It remains a Cleveland-specific outcome, not evidence that Pittsburgh would behave identically.
Opportunity Atlas (Chetty et al.)
Vintage 2024
Key finding: Census-tract generational-mobility and earnings outcomes for children raised in each tract
Ingested into the platform's mobility_context table. Drives the mobility multiplier on ROI and the opportunity-bargain flag for parcels in high-mobility tracts with below-median home prices.
Pittsburgh Inventory Cost Model
Platform-derived, Jan 2026
Key finding: ~$34.8M/year remediation-need estimate against PLB's ~23,757-parcel inventory at blended cost
A bottom-up cost model built inside this platform using PLB's published inventory count × blended $15K–$25K remediation-cost range ÷ 5-year elimination horizon. It is not a figure PLB has published, and should not be cited as external research. Presented here for transparency about how platform-derived numbers relate to the 5% recommendation.
Questions about the methodology? Contact contact@blightintel.com