After months of debate and public input, Pittsburgh City Council advanced an agreement Wednesday designed to make it easier for the city’s land bank to return more vacant and distressed property to active use. The agreement governs how the city, the Urban Redevelopment Authority, and the land bank work together to transfer and sell blighted properties.
But the version of the agreement that members approved Wednesday comes with several new conditions.
The agreement is designed to even the property-buying playing field among the city, the URA and the land bank — each of which may be more or less suited to handle a given transaction depending on the circumstances. Supporters of the proposal, including Councilor Bobby Wilson, argue the current process has too much red tape, in part because council must currently approve any transfer of land between the government entities. Wilson had proposed a new version of the agreement that allowed the land bank to buy property without council's permission.
But some members of council have expressed concern that the agreement diminishes their role in development, potentially leading to large amounts of land being sold without their input.
In an effort to strike a balance, members debated several amendments to the agreement Wednesday. They included provisions that will keep council involved in transfers to varying extents, depending on which government body is seeking to transfer the land.
In cases where property owned by the city is to be shifted to the land bank or the URA, the new language requires approval from a majority of the full council. But in cases where the property is being transferred from the land bank itself, all that is needed is the approval of the council member in whose district the property lies.
Wilson, along with fellow Council members Ricky Burgess and Bruce Kraus, strongly opposed those changes during Wednesday’s discussion.
“These are poison pills by council to keep their artificial control,” said Burgess, whose objections were particularly strong in cases where the full council could vote on a transfer in one council member's district. “These are ways where people who don’t live in these communities get to control what happens in these communities.”
Burgess argued council already has input on land bank decisions by virtue of its representation on the land bank board. He, Wilson, and councilor Dan Lavelle currently sit on the board.
Lavelle, who also serves as Vice Chair of the URA, said including the relevant council member in a land-bank transfer was a compromise to avoid bringing such transfers to the full council, as happens when the city owns the property.
Council members also fought over an amendment that would require the agreement to be reauthorized after two years.
Burgess added the work of the land bank is “too complex for a two-year agreement.”
“There’s a whole big bureaucracy thing that has to occur,” he said, pointing to two vacant positions on the land bank board.
Councilor Bruce Kraus worried a two-year timeline would create “a level of instability.”
“It’s quite appalling what’s been taking place,” Wilson agreed. “To put more restrictions and more redundancy [on] the land bank will just hinder [it].”
But a majority of Council members supported the changes. Councilor Barb Warwick characterized the reauthorization requirement as a way to keep the land bank accountable.
“I think that the reauthorization will motivate those at the land bank to deliver,” Warwick said. “That’s not to say we’re going to end it… but it will be an opportunity for us to then say, ‘Okay, what’s not working?’”
Councilor Anthony Coghill pushed back on the suggestion that council is seeking to slow down the land bank.
“I don't believe this council wants to get bureaucracy in the way of filtering properties and getting them back on the tax rolls,” said Coghill.
Other new clauses in the agreement included a requirement that 80% of the properties disposed of by the land bank be used for affordable housing.
Council members voted to preliminarily approve the new agreement, setting it up for a final vote next week. But Councilor Burgess stressed he would not support it if it still included the two-year reauthorization clause.
Kraus said though he felt strongly about removing the reauthorization clause, it was “not a hill I'm willing to die on.”
Pittsburgh’s land bank has long been tangled in bureaucratic delays and council members have been debating the new agreement for more than a year. The Gainey administration first introduced the bill to change the agreement in June 2022.
Wilson bemoaned how long it’s taken council to settle on a new agreement. He said although he disagreed with some of the changes, he was optimistic that the land bank would soon be able to activate more vacant properties in the city.
“I look forward to the great work that the land bank can accomplish regardless of what’s happened here,” Wilson said.
