“PublicSource is an independent nonprofit newsroom serving the Pittsburgh region. Sign up for our free newsletters.”
The city has zoned itself into an argument framed by zoning codes and a drive to spur denser housing construction. A bill introduced this month by City Councilor Bob Charland stands in direct contrast to Mayor Ed Gainey’s inclusionary zoning expansion efforts that were announced in September, then shelved in December.
Gainey’s proposal would, among other things, require 10% of units in new buildings to be affordable to people at 50% of the area median income [AMI]. Charland’s bill would raise the affordability ceiling to 120% of the AMI. Both versions face a mix of criticism and support. And next year the Planning Commission, in its role as the reviewer for zoning changes, is tasked with weighing in on both.
“I really don’t like this bill,” said Councilor Barb Warwick during Dec. 18 deliberations on Charland’s bill. “This is a political stunt intended to slow down the passing of [Gainey’s] inclusionary zoning. … It’s not a bill written in deliberation with anybody except a few people.”
Charland answered that he, as the nine-member council’s lone renter, represents a class of people who are most directly affected by housing policy.
“I don’t think it’s fair that Citizen Bob pays more than anyone else here.”
It started in September
Gainey’s administration started the zoning debate with a series of proposals, including expanding the area where affordable housing minimums apply for new, large developments. Under current city zoning law, any housing development with 20 or more dwelling units in Polish Hill, Bloomfield, Lawrenceville and most of Oakland must set aside 10% of new units for households making no more than 50% of AMI. Under the mayor’s plan, that would apply citywide. Gainey also proposed:
- Removing minimum parking requirements for new developments
- Permitting multi-family high-rise buildings near public transportation hubs
- Allowing accessory dwelling units [ADUs] on residential, community center or religious institution property.
Charland immediately pushed back in a prepared statement, writing, “Celebrating proposed legislation as though it were already law, before it has been introduced or much less reviewed by council, is a well-known tactic used to pressure council members into a vote.”
The nine-member Planning Commission guides land use and development within Pittsburgh. The commission also makes recommendations to council concerning zoning ordinances and zoning maps.
Gainey sought recommendations from the commission for his zoning changes in bite-sized portions. The first bite comprised Gainey’s proposal to change zoning around three identified transportation hubs. But residents from Sheraden, Polish Hill and other city neighborhoods convinced City Planning commissioners to postpone a recommendation vote.
December complications
On Dec. 3, Charland also put his own version of inclusionary zoning forward, the contents of which were discussed and debated during a Dec. 18 council meeting. Among other differences with Gainey’s version, it would:
- Allow neighborhoods to opt into inclusionary zoning
- Compel the city or its affiliated agencies to fill the “financial gap burdening the creation of each Inclusionary Unit”
- Allow developers to pay a $50,000 per unit fee in lieu of creating inclusionary units.
At the end of that meeting, the body voted 6-3 to send Charland’s bill to City Planning, piling on an extra zoning item to consider next year.
Warwick on Wednesday argued that Charland should have opted for an amendment to Gainey’s zoning efforts instead of proposing an alternative bill.
Charland’s proposed bill also drew public comments when it aired last week, including a show of support from Jack Billings, an economics PhD candidate and Squirrel Hill native with the advocacy group Pro-Housing Pittsburgh, which authored a report criticizing the city’s current, four-neighborhood inclusionary zoning overlay. The report, which looks at how the policy has played out, also informed Charland as he created his competing, looser version of inclusionary zoning [IZ].
“We found that because of IZ, Lawrenceville built roughly 300 fewer units in buildings of 20 units or more than it would have had IZ not been in place,” Billings told council, explaining his group’s methodology. Pro-Housing Pittsburgh is associated with the “Yes in My Back Yard” [YIMBY] movement. “If we want affordable housing in Pittsburgh, we need to build abundant housing in Pittsburgh.”
Charland used his own experience as a renter to make his case.
“I am the only renter on this council. I think it’s important to note I should not be the person who has the most skin in the game,” Charland said. “Current [IZ] requires the renting class to pay more than homeowners and business owners. It requires the renting class to pay for these units.”
Warwick pushed back against the YIMBY movement “that we’re seeing growing rapidly here in Pittsburgh.
“It seems this movement does not actually care about deeply affordable housing, which is the housing we need here,” Warwick said. “Even this term, renter class, invented by those in the YIMBY movement like Citizen Bob, he earns $87,000 a year just like everybody else here. He could easily buy or rent a home in Pittsburgh although not necessarily in a luxury building in a hot neighborhood.”
Referring to the provision in Charland’s bill which would require subsidies for affordable units, Warwick asked: “Do we need a subsidy for people like myself or Bob, a taxpayer subsidy to enable us to rent at those very high rates like $2,000 a month? I don’t think we do.”
“We need to help our poorest renters.”
Looking beyond zoning
If the intention is to assist the city’s poorest renters, some say that inclusionary zoning isn’t enough.
“Inclusionary zoning isn’t the cure-all they’re presenting it as,” said Chris Soult, deputy director of the city’s Commission on Human Relations.
The city agency is tasked with civil rights enforcement and investigates discrimination issues.
The Commission on Human Relations recently questioned the transfer of winter shelter from Downtown to Perry South, and they provide resources to people regarding their rights.
New housing “buildings are often constructed in gentrifying neighborhoods and the amenities in the area won’t fit for people who genuinely struggle with low income and low wealth resources,” Soult said, arguing that social capital is just as important and low income families who move into these developments will struggle to create social capital from scratch.
Soult said that there has to be a stronger emphasis on subsidized, public housing if the goal is to provide housing for low-income families and stem the loss of those families from the city.
“We need something that goes beyond both of these positions and looks like a real comprehensive housing plan,” he said.
Addressing arguments to build more market housing made by organizations like Pro-Housing Pittsburgh, Soult said that was attempted in the 1990s and early 2000s.
“The history is, 40 years of failed policy that have brought us exactly where we are now,” Soult said.
Next year: Airbnbs and unintended consequences
Residents of places like Sheraden and Polish Hill aren’t the only ones who are concerned about zoning proposals overall. In Fineview, a neighborhood familiar with zoning skirmishes, several residents have raised concerns about negative consequences that could come from passing the section of Gainey’s proposals regarding accessory dwelling units.
Candace Cain and Adrienne Johnson, longtime Fineview residents, said that their neighborhood has experienced a significant rise in the number of host housing units, including Airbnbs. They worry about a continued rise of short term rentals if accessory dwelling units — compact units that may be within the main structure or detached buildings on a property — are permitted without oversight.
Johnson said that instead of focusing on uphill zoning fights, the city should enforce the current zoning rules in the area that should prevent people from running the equivalent of hotels.
“It looks like these amendments are eliminating single-family residential [zoning],” Johnson said. “It’s gutting the protection of zoning. We have zoning for a reason. It was made to stop money-hungry developers from building unsafe structures. What they’re doing in the name of housing is they want to bring back tenements.”
Gainey administration members said that housing equity is better served by their approach to inclusionary zoning.
“The lack of affordable housing and the need for increased affordable housing is a citywide issue and it demands a citywide solution,” said Jake Pawlak, the city’s director of management and budget. The push for more housing priced at 50% of AMI, or roughly $35,000 a year for one person, is meant to address the needs of “folks who are being pushed out of the city by the changing housing market, our service workers, home care workers, food service workers, the people who are, you know, most at risk financially, economically in general.”
Pawlak addressed the YIMBY argument, that building more housing frees the housing market up for lower renters to move in. “What we see now happening is new expensive housing comes online, some people from Pittsburgh move into it and free up another unit. Some people from outside Pittsburgh move into [the old unit] and it doesn’t free anything up at all.” Rents at longstanding units often “go up because they see the higher prices that the new units are calling for and that lets them raise their price.”
Eric Jankiewicz is PublicSource’s economic development reporter, and can be reached at ericj@publicsource.org or on Twitter @ericjankiewicz.
This article first appeared on PublicSource and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
About Post Author
