Controversial inclusionary zoning policy proposal draws criticism from urban planning faculty

Urban planning experts and lawmakers have continued to grapple with the realities of Pittsburgh’s Inclusionary Zoning policy over the past weeks.

Inclusionary Zoning was introduced last fall by Mayor Ed Gainey and aims to combat the housing shortage much of Pittsburgh is facing. The policy — which has been in place in Lawrenceville, Bloomfield, Polish Hill and parts of Oakland since 2021 — would require all new housing developments throughout the entire City to maintain affordable rent prices on 10% of units.

On Oct. 15, Pittsburgh City Council voted to amend the proposal, shifting the policy from a mandate to a tax incentive for developers to offer affordable housing and contribute to a housing fund for future affordable housing projects. The amendment was proposed by Councilperson Erika Strassburger, who represents the neighborhoods of Squirrel Hill, Shadyside and parts of Oakland. Strassburger has previously criticized Pittsburgh’s IZ policy.

Strassburger said the new IZ legislation will not apply to the four neighborhoods with an affordable housing mandate already in place.

“The four neighborhoods that have the mandatory [Inclusionary Zoning] will continue to have that. And it’s just the rest of the City that would have this opt-in program,” Strassburger said. “[Oakland] is not being touched by this legislation.”

Strassburger said one of the challenges with IZ is ensuring price stability in the 90% of units that are not mandated to be affordable. She stressed the importance of maintaining transparency about housing prices.

“There would have to be an acknowledgement — if a developer opts into this program — that either they’re finding funding such that they don’t have to raise the rents or they’re acknowledging that that’s going to happen, and they still want to opt in,” Strassburger said.

Another challenge IZ aims to address is issues with landlords not accepting housing vouchers, which has contributed to the housing shortage in recent years. Strassburger expressed doubt in the policy’s effectiveness as a means to streamline voucher acceptance.

“I don’t think that inclusionary zoning is the way to get more market-rate developers to accept vouchers,” Strassburger said. “I think that’s been the goal of a lot of people, and I think it’s a little bit backwards.”

Urban planning professor Susan Lucas expressed support for the ideas behind IZ in theory, but said she doubts its effectiveness as the City’s standalone housing policy.

“In terms of shared access, quality of housing, access to amenities and that sort of thing, it’s wonderful, or it can be,” Lucas said. “I think you probably have to enact other pieces of legislation to make it work in the way that I suspect local policymakers want it to work.”

According to Lucas, the shift from a mandate to a voluntary incentive will contribute to housing developers focusing on profit above all else.

“In terms of equity and inclusion, I would think it’s probably a step backwards. Businesses are focused on the bottom line. They build housing to make profit,” Lucas said. “I think taking away a requirement developers have to meet won’t increase the supply, because now their motive is even more profit.”

Lucas said she worries the policy will be counterproductive, decreasing the affordable housing supply and leaving student renters worse off.

“I think the type of housing being constructed will change. The price of housing will increase. The supply of certain types of housing, affordable housing in general, will tighten. Landlords that already have properties will probably do less maintenance,” Lucas said. “I would imagine the average student would suffer.”

Urban planning professor Colt Pierce additionally stressed how the 10% mandate currently in effect within parts of Oakland is not strong enough to ensure affordable housing for all residents in need of housing.

“Right now, Pittsburgh has an affordable housing problem,” Pierce said. “If we’re 8,000 homes short and we’re only saying 10% of new developments are going to be allocated to affordable housing, is that going to match what we need? It’s not.”

Another concern City council has to grapple with is the City’s geography, compounded by aging housing infrastructure, which Pierce highlighted as a chief issue.

“Pittsburgh has to reconcile the fact that they had to overcome limited geography,” Pierce said. 

“There’s housing stock that was built over a hundred years ago, which is not typical for all other cities.”

Urban planning professor Michael Glass expressed doubts about IZ’s long-term efficacy to combat Pittsburgh’s housing crisis.

“Inclusionary zoning tends to be a really short-term fix that doesn’t get to the fundamentals of what causes affordability crises in the first place,” Glass said. “It’s a pretty blunt instrument.”

Glass said he feels the tax incentives in the recent amendment will lead to higher taxes for City residents to compensate — potentially causing issues down the road.

“The real problem here is that it’s unclear how much this sort of tax incentive is going to cost the City’s taxpayers,” Glass said. “I don’t see this as a sustainable sort of incentive to lubricate developers in the way of affordability.”

Glass stressed that there are additional options to combat housing shortages that he feels will work more effectively and with less direct financial consequences for renters.

“Other mechanisms beyond inclusionary zoning exist that can create more sustainable, affordable solutions,” Glass said. “I’m thinking here of things like community land trusts, where the land is held by a non-profit and it’s just the structure on top of that communally-held land that can be sold or leased.”