By Sean P. Ray | Managing Editor

Mayor Ed Gainey’s proposed series of reforms to Pittsburgh’s property laws and zoning codes, including spreading inclusionary zoning requirements citywide, has become a hotly debated topic in city politics.

A Pittsburgh Planning Commission meeting on Jan. 28 to vote on the mayor’s proposal on inclusionary zoning ran for 10 hours as multiple city residents and stakeholders voiced their opinions on the idea. Ultimately, the commission approved Gainey’s legislation, creating an easier road to passage when it goes before city council, while giving a negative recommendation to a competing proposal by Councilman Bob Charland, who represents the South Side, Mt. Washington, Mt. Oliver and South Oakland.

The Northside Chronicle reached out to Northside’s representatives on council, as well as representatives from Northside neighborhood groups, to get their stance on the mayor’s reforms.

What’s in the bill

The mayor’s reforms are based on a Pittsburgh Housing Needs Assessment completed in 2022, which is viewable online at engage.pittsburghpa.gov.

In what has become the most debated part of the bill is the expansion of inclusionary zoning across all of Pittsburgh. Inclusionary zoning requires that new or renovated developments of 20+ units include 10% of those units as affordable housing. Developers can also provide affordable units at off-site locations, but must increase the affordable unit percentage to 12%.

The program was first implemented in Pittsburgh in Lawrenceville in 2019, and has expanded to Bloomfield, Polish Hill and most of Oakland.

Councilman Charland’s proposal would only expand inclusionary zoning to a neighborhood if that neighborhood chose to adopt it.

The planning commission’s positive recommendation for the mayor’s legislation means that when it goes before Pittsburgh City Council, it will require only a simple majority to pass. Meanwhile, the negative recommendation to Charland’s proposal means seven of the nine council members must vote in its favor in order for the bill to pass.

Inclusionary zoning is not the only reform Gainey plans to bring before council. One other major change is the removal of off-street parking requirements from the city’s laws, meaning a new development or renovated structure does not have to provide a minimum number of off-street parking lots.

Another major change will be easing requirements for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which are residential dwelling units built on a property with an existing, primary dwelling unit. These could include smaller apartments connected or detached from an existing building.

Gainey is further proposing the reduction of minimum lot sizes in residential sub-districts, as well as the removal of minimum lot size-per-unit requirements. This would allow residential units to be built on smaller property lots.

Stances of Northside’s City Council representatives

Councilman Daniel Lavelle, whose district includes Perry Hilltop, Marshall-Shadeland, the North Shore, Manchester and California-Kirkbride, expressed support for the concept of inclusionary zoning and a preference for the mayor’s proposal over Councilman Charland’s.

However, Lavelle stressed that he expects the mayor’s legislation to undergo change and amendments before it can be passed, saying that he wants to create a bill that’s the “right size” for Pittsburgh.

Lavelle said there were no specific amendment ideas he would “speak to right now” when asked by The Chronicle, but believes that City Council “will pass some version of the administration’s proposed bill.” He did not believe Councilman Charland’s legislation, meanwhile, would be passed by Council.

“I think you look at areas such as the North Shore, areas such as Chateau, even in Manchester, I think there are elements of the inclusionary zoning bill that are useful in those areas,” Councilman Lavelle said when asked about the legislation’s potential impact on the Northside.

Councilman Bobby Wilson, meanwhile, was a bit more skeptical about inclusionary zoning, though had support for the mayor’s other reforms.

Wilson represents the rest of the Northside not represented by Lavelle and, in fact, only has a single neighborhood in his district that is not on the Northside, that being the Strip District.

Wilson said he wanted to have the inclusionary zoning aspect of the mayor’s reforms broken away from the rest of them, as he believed the other changes to have a “much straighter path” to being passed than inclusionary zoning.

“I think there’s less barriers to passing the other parts of the package,” he said.

While Wilson did not explicitly disavow the concept of inclusionary zoning, he expressed worries that it could drive away developers in its current form, and wanted a chance for council to discuss and edit the program further. He called the mayor’s legislation a “starter bill” in its current form, one which needs refinement before it can be passed.

“Council is going to do the hard work to make sure that we’re going to pass something meaningful,” he said.

Wilson said that some neighborhoods in the Northside, specifically citing Troy Hill as an example, do not have the zoning to benefit from inclusionary zoning, and are either unlikely or unable to attract larger-scale developments where the inclusionary zoning policy would kick in. Further, he feared the policy could lead to fewer developments in the city, which could lead to declining revenue for city services, schools and other government programs.

Meanwhile, he saw the ADU reforms as something that could especially help the Northside, though said he would like to see a restriction that such ADUs cannot be used for short-term rental or require owner occupation in some form. He also said the minimum lot size reforms will help to “fill out” neighborhoods that have multiple vacant areas.

As to Councilman Charland’s bill, Wilson believes Council is more likely to focus on the mayor’s proposal.

Northside organizations react

Representatives from all three Northside organizations who responded to The Chronicle were positive about the concept of inclusionary zoning, as well as the mayor’s other reforms.

Jerome Jackson, executive director of Northside Leadership Conference, called inclusionary zoning a “step in the right direction to deal with affordable housing programs.”

While Jackson acknowledged that some fear inclusionary zoning may lead to less development, he did not feel the issue was as widespread as some believe.

“There may be some developers who feel that way,” he said. “I don’t think they all feel like that.”

Jackson did express worry that developers may choose to only build affordable housing in one neighborhood, and wanted some guidelines to ensure affordable housing is spread out through the city, rather than concentrated in specific areas. Still, he was overall positive about the idea.

“I’m excited to see what comes from it,” he said. I’m excited to see what projects come from this.”

Debbie Reed, of California-Kirkbride Neighbors, called inclusionary zoning “a very important tool, especially to keep people in Pittsburgh.”

Reed said California-Kirkbride already had a lot of affordable housing, but believes the policy would be helpful in other communities in the city.

Meanwhile, Fineview and Perry Hilltop Citizens Councils voted unanimously to endorse the mayor’s reforms at their Feb. 11 meeting, according to Jon Hanrahan, vice president of the Fineview Citizens Council and co-chair of Fineview and Perry Hilltop Housing Working Group.

Speaking to Fineview specifically, Hanrahan said that while the group supports inclusionary zoning, he believes the other reforms the mayor proposed, especially the parking minimum, minimum lot sizes and ADU changes, will be especially impactful in Fineview.

“We support (inclusionary zoning) in the sense that we think it’s the right thing to do, but we don’t see it having much effect in Fineview,” he said.

Fineview has many skinny lots, Hanrahan said, which are difficult to build on under the current requirements. By eliminating or lessening those, it will allow the neighborhood to see more housing construction which was previously impossible.

Public opinion

The Northside Chronicle is interested in hearing from Northside residents about their views on inclusionary zoning, as well as the other reforms proposed by Mayor Gainey.

Chronicle readers are encouraged to write in letters to the editor about the issue, or email their views to editor@thenorthsidechronicle.com. Such opinions may be used in future coverage as this story develops.

Letters to the editor can be emailed to the email above, sent by mail to 3925 Perrysville Ave., Pittsburgh PA 15214 or sent via the Letter to the Editor button on our website, thenorthsidechronicle.com.

See page 2 of the paper to view the guidelines on letters to the editor.