Inclusionary Zoning

Pittsburgh at a Crossroads

We need your help on or before January 28th 2025

Speaking out against the inclusionary zoning proposal is one of the most impactful things you can do to reverse our housing crisis and keep Pittsburgh affordable for all.

Read below for more information.

We are asking people to please sign up here and let us know if you can either speak at the meeting on Tuesday at 2:00p, or send an email to the Planning Commission.

  • Inclusionary zoning (IZ) is a critical approach in addressing the growing concern of housing affordability within urban settings. By mandating or incentivizing developers to allocate a percentage of affordable housing units in their projects, IZ promotes a mix of incomes within communities. This policy not only strengthens economic diversity but also helps to mitigate the challenges presented by a competitive housing market. Through effective implementation, inclusionary zoning can contribute significantly to the availability of affordable housing, ensuring that diverse populations have access to vibrant neighborhoods and essential services. Engaging in detailed studies and policy analysis will provide further insight into how IZ can be tailored to meet the specific needs of the Pittsburgh region.

    Most studies show that mandatory unfunded IZ policies, including Pittsburgh’s current policy in Lawrenceville, actually make housing less affordable. Unfortunately, despite this, IZ is very popular because it lets politicians claim they are doing something about affordable housing without spending any money. As a result of the upcoming election season, the Gainey administration is very keen on pushing this policy through despite the fact that it will make housing more expensive at all income levels. That is why on Tuesday January 28th the Planning Commission will be considering this very issue and making a recommendation to City Council.

  • We want a future for Pittsburgh that is welcoming and affordable for all!

    We have already a seen a substantial decrease in both completed and proposed housing construction in Lawrenceville as compared to similar neighborhoods. This decrease in construction increases housing prices for all housing types. Spreading this policy citywide would be disastrous.

  • Check out our Stay Involved page for tips about making public comments.

    Testifying live is the most impactful way to make comments but it will take several hours of your time so we understand if you can only write in.

    • To testify in-person come to 412 Boulevard of the Allies, Basement Conference Room at 2PM and follow the Commission instructions to queue. (No need to pre-register)

    • To provide testimony via Zoom: join the virtual meeting at 2PM and use the raise hand function to speak. (No need to pre-register)

    If you're unable to testify live, please email your testimony to planningcommission@pittsburghpa.gov before noon the day prior to the meeting, or before Monday, January 27th at 12 PM. Make the subject Housing Needs Assessment Zoning Amendments.

    Please sign up for our email list and we will send you a reminder. Join our Slack to coordinate with other members.

It’s hard to craft an effective IZ policy

What IZ policies have been tried in other cities?*

  • Implemented a citywide inclusionary zoning which has built 4 Extremely Low Income units (30% AMI) in 6 years. In the same time it has built 44 Very Low Income units (50% AMI) by providing 7 million dollars in publicly funded subsidies

  • The Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) program is an IZ program around certain transit stations that has had some success in LA. It offers substantial incentives including a density bonus of at least 50%. It also allows by-right construction which bypasses City Planning review.

  • Implemented a fully funded IZ policy that provides tax credits that fully offset development losses. Despite the funding, according to their annual report Baltimore's policy did not create any affordable units at any level of affordability in 2024.

  • The citywide IZ policy is funded by providing tax abatements. But, in May 2024, their city auditor found that although one of the stated goals of the program was to “increase housing opportunities for families and individuals facing the greatest disparities,” Extremely Low Income renters did not qualify for units created under the program.

*These are the cities that the Pittsburgh planning department has used as examples of successful IZ implementations.

All the cities mentioned above have reporting requirements to help determine if their policies are working. Minneapolis and Los Angeles have online dashboards showing the housing created. Baltimore and Portland require annual reports. The City of Pittsburgh has not produced any such reporting to justify expanding the existing policy. The proposed citywide expansion of IZ doesn’t require it either.

What are the inclusionary zoning proposals being considered?

We currently have unfunded IZ in a few neighborhoods in the city where it has not been successful. The Department of City Planning (DCP) and the Gainey administration proposed to expand inclusionary zoning citywide. On December 3rd, 2024 Councilman Bob Charland proposed a competing inclusionary zoning bill (Legislation 2024-1284). Charland’s Enhanced Inclusionary Zoning bill attempts to address issues with the original inclusionary zoning proposal, particularly the issue of funding. On January 28th the Planning Commission will be determining whether to recommend that City Council adopts one or neither of these plans. A detailed comparison of these two proposals and some additional context can be found below.

Applicability

Funding

Approval Process

Eligibility and Affordability Requirements

Off-Site Requirements

Evictions

Development Bonuses

City Planning Inclusionary Zoning Proposal

Applicable city-wide.

Unfunded. Requires that developers search for and compete for gap financing through grants, housing vouchers, or subsidies. If funding can't be found and the neighborhood isn't upscale enough to increase rents for non restricted units, the project wont' be built.

Adheres to the procedures outlined in the zoning code, with the timeframe beginning when the applicant submits a “complete application.” Does not prioritize applicants building affordable housing.

Doesn't target deeply affordable housing. The Housing Needs Assessment indicates that Pittsburgh's housing supply gap is for Extremely Low-Income residents that earn 30% AMI or less. This policy requires that 10% units be affordable at 50% AMI. The assessent did not indicate a housing supply gap between 31% and 50% AMI.

To meet affordability requirements without building affordable units on site, the developer must find another developer interested in building the affordable units and provide that developer a fixed subsidy of $300K per unit.

Requires tenants to move out if their income ever exceeds 80% AMI. This punishes tenants for making money and enforces poverty.

Developments are given incentives consistent with the Performance Points system in the Zoning Code. If the development is already in a district eligible for performance points there are no substantial incentives.

Enhanced Inclusionary Zoning Proposal

Applicable city-wide as an elective incentive program. Allows neighborhoods to decide whether to make inclusionary zoning compulsory.

Funded. Requires a funding source. Does not pass cost onto renters.

Sets a mandated 90-day hearing timeframe for the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Adjustment from the date of application submission, at the end of which the project would be “deemed accepted.”

Similar to IZ implementations used in other cities but doesn't target deeply affordable housing.

Allows for multiple ways to meet requirements.

  • 10% units at Very Low-Income households (earning 50% AMI or less)

  • 15% units Low-Income households (earning between 51% and 80% of AMI)

  • 20% units Workforce households (earning between 81% and 99% of AMI)

To meet affordability requirements without building affordable units on site, the developer can either find another developer interested in building the affordable units and subsidize the actual cost of the units or pay the city a fixed fee of $50K per unit directly. In the latter case, this lets the city determine where the funds go based on specific affordability needs.

Rents increase as the tenant's income increases. Upon lease renewal the new rent would be capped at 30% of the new income level or market rate, whichever is lower. When the tenant moves out the unit returns to its original affordability level.

Increases the value of each performance point above what is available in the traditional Performance Point system.

Pittsburgh’s housing crisis, at a glance

Pittsburgh is experiencing a shortage of about 8,200 units affordable to Extremely Low Income households making 30% or less of the annual median income (AMI).

Two out of five Pittsburgh households who rent their homes are cost-burdened. These cost-burdened households spend over 30% of their income on rent.

Since 2015, 90% of newly constructed homes have been market rate multi-family units. Although this actually lowers rents overall as people upgrade their homes, it may take 6 months to 4 years before the upgrade chain reaches Very Low Income households.

Pittsburgh’s housing crisis, at a glance

Pittsburgh is experiencing a shortage of about 8,200 units affordable to Extremely Low Income households making 30% or less of the annual median income (AMI).

Two out of five Pittsburgh households who rent their homes are cost-burdened. These cost-burdened households spend over 30% of their income on rent.

Since 2015, 90% of newly constructed homes have been market rate multi-family units. Although this actually lowers rents overall as people upgrade their homes, it may take 6 months to 4 years before the upgrade chain reaches Very Low Income households.

What are the inclusionary zoning proposals being considered?

We currently have unfunded IZ in a few neighborhoods in the city where it has not been successful. The Department of City Planning (DCP) and the Gainey administration proposed to expand inclusionary zoning citywide. On December 3rd, 2024 Councilman Bob Charland proposed a competing inclusionary zoning bill (Legislation 2024-1284). Charland’s Enhanced Inclusionary Zoning bill attempts to address issues with the original inclusionary zoning proposal, particularly the issue of funding. On January 28th the Planning Commission will be determining whether to recommend that City Council adopts one or neither of these plans. A detailed comparison of these two proposals and some additional context can be found below.

  • City Planning IZ Proposal

    • Applicable city-wide.

    Enhanced IZ Proposal

    • Applicable city-wide as an elective incentive program. Allows neighborhoods to decide whether to make inclusionary zoning compulsory.

  • City Planning IZ Proposal

    • Unfunded. Requires that developers search for and compete for gap financing through grants, housing vouchers, or subsidies. If funding can't be found and the neighborhood isn't upscale enough to increase rents for non restricted units, the project wont' be built.

    Enhanced IZ Proposal

    • Funded. Requires a funding source. Does not pass cost onto renters.

  • City Planning IZ Proposal

    • Doesn't target deeply affordable housing. The Housing Needs Assessment indicates that Pittsburgh's housing supply gap is for Extremeley Low-Income residents that earn 30% AMI or less. This policy requires that 10% units be affordable at 50% AMI. The assessent did not indicate a housing supply gap between 30% and 50% AMI.

    Enhanced IZ Proposal

    • Similar to IZ implementations used in other cities but doesn't target deeply affordable housing.

      Allows for multiple ways to meet requirements.

      • 10% units at Very Low-Income households (earning 50% AMI or less)

      • 15% units Low-Income households (earning between 81% and 99% of AMI)

      • 20% units Workforce households (earning between 81% and 99% of AMI)

  • City Planning IZ Proposal

    • Doesn't target deeply affordable housing. The Housing Needs Assessment indicates that Pittsburgh's housing supply gap is for Extremely Low-Income residents that earn 30% AMI or less. This policy requires that 10% units be affordable at 50% AMI. The assessment did not indicate a housing supply gap between 31% and 50% AMI.

    Enhanced IZ Proposal

    • Similar to IZ implementations used in other cities but doesn't target deeply affordable housing.

      Allows for multiple ways to meet requirements.

      • 10% units at Very Low-Income households (earning 50% AMI or less)

      • 15% units Low-Income households (earning between 51% and 80% of AMI)

      • 20% units Workforce households (earning between 81% and 99% of AMI)

  • City Planning IZ Proposal

    • To meet affordability requirements without building affordable units on site, the developer must find another developer interested in building the affordable units and provide that developer a fixed subsidy of $300K per unit.

    Enhanced IZ Proposal

    • To meet affordability requirements without building affordable units on site, the developer can either find another developer interested in building the affordable units and subsidize the actual cost of the units or pay the city a fixed fee of $50K per unit directly. In the latter case, this lets the city determine where the funds go based on specific affordability needs.

  • City Planning IZ Proposal

    • Requires tenants to move out if their income ever exceeds 80% AMI. This punishes tenants for making money and enforces poverty.

    Enhanced IZ Proposal

    • Rents increase as the tenant's income increases. Upon lease renewal the new rent would be capped at 30% of the new income level or market rate, whichever is lower. When the tenant moves out the unit returns to its original affordability level.

  • City Planning IZ Proposal

    • Developments are given incentives consistent with the Performance Points system in the Zoning Code. If the development is already in a district eligible for performance points there are no substantial incentives.

    Enhanced IZ Proposal

    • Increases the value of each performance point above what is available in the traditional Performance Point system.