The Pittsburgh Planning Commission on Tuesday voted to support a zoning package Mayor Ed Gainey has presented in an effort to bolster affordable housing.
The commission voted against a dueling proposal pitched by Councilman Bob Charland.
Gainey proposed to expand inclusionary zoning — a zoning regulation requiring all large-scale developments to include affordable housing — citywide.
Charland’s bill had proposed a neighborhood-by-neighborhood approach.
“Everybody deserves the right to have affordable housing, affordable, clean and decent housing — everyone,” Gainey told the commissioners Tuesday.
In the vote on Gainey’s zoning package, eight the nine commissioners were supportive, except for Steve Mazza, who abstained.
Charland’s bill was rejected 5-1, with three commissioners abstaining. Commissioners Lashawn Burton-Faulk, Dina Blackwell, Jean Holland Dick, Mel Ngami and Monica Ruiz voted against Charland’s bill.
Commissioner Steve Mazza voted in Charland’s favor, and Commissioners Rachael O’Neill, Peter Quintanilla and Phillip Wu abstained from the vote, saying they preferred to have further discussion.
The measures now move to City Council for final votes.
In their proposals, Gainey and Charland differed on various details, including what income range should be served by the affordable housing and whether the city should pay for it or let developers foot the bill.
Already, inclusionary zoning is in effect in Lawrenceville, Bloomfield, Polish Hill and much of Oakland.
Its supporters tout inclusionary zoning as a key tool to boost the city’s supply of affordable housing and curb displacement of low-income residents in desirable neighborhoods. Detractors worry it deters development.
The mayor has pushed for a citywide inclusionary zoning policy that would be in effect in all 90 of the city’s neighborhoods.
His measure would require new and renovated housing developments with 20 or more units to designate at least 10% of them as affordable housing for people making no more than half of the area median income.
An existing citywide incentive for developers meeting such guidelines provides a tax break of up to $250,000 per year for up to a decade on the assessed value added by new development.
Additional incentives proposed under Gainey’s bill include allowing developers to build on smaller lots, put more units in limited spaces and eliminate minimum requirements for parking spots.
Gainey’s legislation also legalizes accessory dwelling units, like backyard cottages.
Though the inclusionary zoning portion has sparked the most public interest, some residents Tuesday raised concerns that eliminating parking requirements could make it harder to find convenient parking in parts of the city where it’s already difficult to get sought-after spots.
Others applauded the notion of nixing parking mandates as a way to incentivize development.
Councilman Bob Charland, D-South Side, introduced competing legislation in early December. His bill would allow each neighborhood to decide for itself whether it wants to implement inclusionary zoning. It does not lay out a path for how that would be determined.
Charland’s bill, which he’s dubbed enhanced inclusionary zoning, would include a tiered structure where developers could opt to include housing for people at various income levels, up to 99% of the area median income.
It calls on the city and its partners to fully subsidize affordable housing mandated by inclusionary zoning for people making less than 81% of the area median income.
Commissioners told Charland they remained uncertain about how the city would subsidize units or how neighborhoods would opt in and out.
Charland’s proposal also offers developers the chance to opt out from the inclusionary zoning requirements for a $50,000 fee.
Commissioner Mazza said he believed there were pros and cons to both proposals. He called for more collaboration between the two sides to use the best of both bills.
“We all want affordable housing, but we want it done right,” he said, adding he believed that inclusionary zoning slows down development.
Other commissioners also seemed somewhat conflicted after hearing hours of disagreements. But everyone ultimately wants the same thing, they said.
“I think the outcomes people want are the same, which is more affordable housing,” said Commissioner Phillip Wu.
He said he believed such zoning changes can work in some places, but questioned whether it would be wise to approve it citywide. He said he’d prefer to see a compromise.
Featured Local Businesses
“I think voting on either proposal today is going to have lasting effects on the city,” Wu said, adding that he would’ve preferred to not vote until there was more time for additional conversation and potential compromise.
Residents give their opinions
The commission’s Tuesday decision came after an hourslong, often heated public meeting.
Dozens of residents voiced opposing views on the bills. And Charland sparred with some commissioners over whether he should be permitted to finish a lengthy presentation, which included a Los Angeles-based expert detailing a study on inclusionary zoning in the California town.
Some residents voiced concerns about the commission halting Charland’s presentation without allowing him and his invited experts to finish articulating their views.
“They were silenced,” said Nicholas Rizzio, of Downtown Pittsburgh.
Residents expressed differing opinions on who should fund inclusionary zoning, whether such measures were effective and whether a one-size-fits-all approach would well serve the city’s unique neighborhoods.
“I think Mayor Gainey’s plan allows for people of all areas, education levels to enjoy the accessible, decent and equitable housing that should be available,” said LeSane Latimore, of the Hill District.
Angel Gober, a North Side resident who heads the 412 Justice advocacy group, said the city has a “huge homelessness” problem, which she believes citywide mandatory inclusionary zoning can help address.
“When will we stop rolling out the red carpet for developers and stand up for the most impacted people?” She said.
Tim Stevens, who chairs the Pittsburgh Black Empowerment Project, told commissioners the city needed more efforts to create more affordable housing throughout the city.
“The Charland bill will not sufficiently forward the goal of expanding affordable housing for Pittsburgh across neighborhoods,” he said.
But others said they preferred Charland’s approach.
“I wish for Pittsburgh to remain affordable and welcoming for everyone,” said Aimy Zaiss, of Beechview, who favored Charland’s bill.
She said she supported other elements of Gainey’s plan — like reducing lot sizes and encouraging transit oriented development — but believed mandating developers include affordable housing in projects throughout the city could deter development and worsen a housing shortage.
Jack Billings of Squirrel Hill co-authored a report arguing that inclusionary zoning stunted housing development in the first neighborhood where Pittsburgh implemented it.
“I am strongly in favor of abundant affordable housing in Pittsburgh,” he said. “But the inclusionary zoning program that is currently in place has had the opposite of its intended effect.”
The standing-room-only meeting dwindled to just a handful of people as the meeting dragged into the late evening.
Opposing groups have sought to portray inclusionary zoning either as a pivotal tool to help increase the supply of much-needed housing or as a problematic zoning change that could drive developers out of the city.
National researchers have similarly been split on their interpretations of such policies implemented elsewhere.
Pro-Housing Pittsburgh has argued inclusionary zoning stunted potential development in the city’s Lawrenceville neighborhood, which was the first part of the city to pass such a measure in 2019.
According to a study conducted by that group, Lawrenceville has since lagged behind other, similar neighborhoods in housing production.
The report argued the Strip District neighborhood is poised to construct about three times the number of housing units as Lawrenceville between 2019 and 2029, though the neighborhoods have similar housing markets and base zoning districts.
“It’s hard to imagine a situation where the regulatory burden borne in Lawrenceville isn’t driving at least a portion of this data,” the report said.
But the Pittsburgh Community Reinvestment Group in its own study argued there’s data to support inclusionary zoning.
They pointed out that inclusionary zoning is set to create 116 new affordable housing units in Lawrenceville, including 35 that are already completed and occupied.
Featured Local Businesses
“It’s a necessity in Pittsburgh, looking at the housing crisis,” PCRG research analyst Druta Blatt said of inclusionary zoning after co-authoring the pro-inclusionary zoning report.
City Controller Rachael Heisler in a letter to commissioners last week said her office is compiling a report on inclusionary zoning.
“Our initial work suggests there isn’t a large enough sample size presently available to reach a clear conclusion about inclusionary zoning’s local efficacy,” she said.