Pittsburgh city councilors have moved one step closer to greenlighting a new investment in affordable housing.
Mayor Ed Gainey’s June announcement that his administration wanted to issue a bond to fund affordable housing set off a tense debate in Pittsburgh City Council. The main sticking points have been council’s oversight of how the money is spent, and the cost of borrowing the money.
Gainey’s proposal asks council to set aside $2.5 million each year for 25 years to send to the Urban Redevelopment Authority — which will actually issue the bond — to pay back the bondholders. That $62.5 million is expected to bring in between $25 million to $40 million for actual housing construction and preservation.
When the legislation came up for debate Wednesday, Councilor Deb Gross introduced amendments that would require the URA to file an annual report on how the bond dollars are spent, as well as to submit to an annual audit by the city controller.
The URA already issues an annual report on its affordable housing programs. But because of how the bond is structured, most of the conditions approved by council have to be considered as suggestions to the URA, rather than as binding agreements. Other conditions sought by council include a pledge to respect and stabilize existing communities, and to adhere to community plans.
Councilors have much less control of the cost of borrowing the money.
Councilor Anthony Coghill said he doesn’t question the need for affordable housing, but “I can’t justify getting possibly $25 million and spending $30 million in interest.”
But Councilor Daniel Lavelle noted $2.5 million is less than half of 1 percent of the city’s annual budget.
“We’re not talking about a lot of money, which is actually part of the problem,” he said. “The demand and the need is around $100 million.”
Lavelle asked Coghill to remember the discussion “when you ask for more money for demolition, as opposed to investing those dollars into units that could be being rehabbed for affordable housing opportunities.”
Lavelle said council had failed to have an even more pressing conversation.
“Our city continues to lose population because our residents can’t afford to stay here,” he said. And that, he added, meant a smaller tax base to pay for critical services such as public safety, and the potential loss of federal grant dollars.
Lavelle cited the city’s housing needs assessment, which the Department of City Planning has been working to update. While it remains in draft form, Deputy Mayor Jake Pawlak told councilors that the report found that the number of units needed is actually lower than a 2016 assessment. But that’s not because the city is solving the problem, he said. Rather, people who need affordable housing are leaving faster than units can be provided.
“Those findings are fairly stark and fairly concerning,” Pawlak said.
Ultimately, only Coghill voted against the bond issue. The measure is expected to pass during a final vote next week.
