Inclusionary zoning expansion at center of Pittsburgh zoning proposal debate

Earlier this month, Pittsburgh Mayor Ed Gainey’s office put forth a slate of zoning-related proposals aimed at increasing housing affordability in Pittsburgh. The bills would in many cases increase flexibility for housing developers — making it easier to build on smaller lots, to build more dense housing near transit access points, and allow so-called “granny flats,” such as a small apartment over a detached garage.

Most of the proposals seem to have broad support, but one has drawn more vigorous pushback: inclusionary zoning would require new housing developments with at least 20 units to set aside a portion of them for people with lower incomes. The proposal would expand a policy already in place in Lawrenceville and some other East End neighborhoods to one that is city-wide.

Affordable housing advocates argue inclusionary zoning will create much-needed apartments that are affordable to lower-income Pittsburghers and help neighborhoods be more economically integrated. But others have said implementing such a mandate is too costly for developers — so much so that it will depress the creation of new market-rate housing, hurting overall housing affordability.

Pittsburgh is short about 8,200 housing units for its lowest-income households — those earning about 30% or less of the area median income, or roughly $30,360 for a family of four — according to its most recent housing needs assessment.

The study noted more than two out of every five renters in Pittsburgh are cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on housing. The same analysis also found the city is projected to add 9,700 households in the coming decade, with most of those people being renters, placing additional upward pressure on rental prices.

“We all know the rent is too damn high,” said City Council member Deb Gross, speaking at a press conference announcing the proposals earlier this month.

The Lawrenceville example

With so much pressure to create more housing, both market-rate and affordable, advocates point to new affordable units in Lawrenceville, which has had inclusionary zoning since 2019, as an example of why such a policy is needed city-wide.

“I think it has been a success here,” said Dave Breingan, executive director at community group Lawrenceville United.

Breingan cites six projects — both completed and in the works — under inclusionary zoning requirements: 35 units are already occupied with roughly another 70 units in the pipeline or under construction. 

“That's over 100 units for affordable housing that we didn't have before this policy,” he said.

The mandate also means families living in the affordable units have access to all the amenities of walkable, centrally-located neighborhoods like Lawrenceville, Breingan said.

“We want to be mixed-income communities where people of all means and all incomes can live and access the benefits of a thriving neighborhood.”

But others say such a policy will ultimately prove harmful to overall housing affordability.

Pro-Housing Pittsburgh, a group advocating to create more housing by removing zoning barriers and making it easier and cheaper to build, is opposed to more inclusionary zoning.

“We shouldn't be making it harder to build housing. We should be making it easier to build housing,” said David Vatz, the group’s leader. “I.Z. ultimately makes it harder to build housing. It makes it more expensive. It makes it more onerous, and it makes it so that you will get less housing.”

Meanwhile, a 2022 federal lawsuit by a local builder’s group over the city’s existing inclusionary zoning policy is ongoing.

Some research does show such policies can result in less new market-rate housing than would otherwise be built.

While research about the results of inclusionary zoning has shown mixed results and policies can be difficult to compare from one city to another, officials should be very cautious when designing such policies, said Shane Phillips, who studies housing policy and affordability at the UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies in Los Angeles.

A report Phillips published earlier this year that modeled IZ policies in Los Angeles found the higher the inclusionary zoning requirement was, the lower market-rate housing production. A computer simulation found that for every one added affordable unit there were roughly four fewer market-rate units.

Phillips said cities should make such programs voluntary rather than mandatory, and provide incentives to developers that allow for things like permission to build taller buildings, which might allow projects with affordable units to still be economically feasible to build.

“The reality is that just imposing an IZ requirement is a cost. Like, unquestionably it is a cost to developers,” Phillips said.

William Gatti, President and CEO of Trek Development Group, a Pittsburgh-based developer that builds both market-rate and affordable housing, also struck a cautious note and said any changes to policy need to be examined carefully.

“We applaud the city’s efforts to take direct and aggressive action to deal with this thorny issue; although it is important that we (the city and the development community) take the time to work through all of the issues to ensure that there are no unintended consequences that hampers the overall redevelopment of our city,” Gatti wrote in an email. “There is a lot of work to be done.”

The mayor’s proposal

Supporters argue the law and its potential expansion have been carefully crafted.

In Pittsburgh, in addition to the mandatory inclusionary zoning currently in place in Lawrenceville and a few other neighborhoods, developers can opt-in to a voluntary inclusionary zoning framework in other parts of the city. They are able to build higher and denser buildings — so developers can recoup some of their costs — in exchange for including affordable units. Developers can also take advantage of the LERTA tax abatement program when they include affordable units in their buildings.

The proposed inclusionary zoning expansion would relax some other zoning requirements and make some other changes that are favorable to developers. For instance, the city’s proposal relaxes the requirement of building 10% affordable units. In a hypothetical project of 100 one-bedroom apartments, instead of being required to build 10 one-bedroom apartments, a developer could instead build five two-bedroom apartments.

City Council member Bob Charland, who represents Oakland and the South Side, said he needs to see more details on the potential changes.

“There is a world [where] inclusionary zoning could be a beneficial program. Unfortunately, the details really do matter and we're lacking the details of this plan so far,” Charland said.

“We need to make sure the math checks out,” he said, adding he wouldn’t support anything paid for “on the backs of renters” and a successful program would likely require public subsidies to make it work, as well as zoning changes such as expedited reviews for developers.

The proposal, along with the others put forth by the Gainey administration, is now before the city’s Planning Commission. They are expected to come before City Council early next year.

City Council member Barb Warwick, who supports expanding inclusionary zoning and the other changes put forth by the Mayor, said she is hopeful the measures will pass.

She said all council members are concerned about housing costs, though they may differ on what they see as solutions.

“I think that making housing more affordable is … what everybody wants to do. Right? You know, we want to see people moving to Pittsburgh. We don't want to see people moving out of Pittsburgh,” Warwick said. “We want to keep our population. We want to grow our tax base. So from that perspective, I think most council members are on the same page.”

Reporter Julia Maruca contributed to this story.

The audio for this story was produced by Susan Scott Peterson.