{"id":15133506,"date":"2026-06-02T22:55:48","date_gmt":"2026-06-03T02:55:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/pittsburgh-planners-swing-behind-optional-affordable-housing-proposal\/"},"modified":"2026-06-02T23:00:43","modified_gmt":"2026-06-03T03:00:43","slug":"pittsburgh-planners-swing-behind-optional-affordable-housing-proposal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/pittsburgh-planners-swing-behind-optional-affordable-housing-proposal\/","title":{"rendered":"Pittsburgh planners swing behind optional affordable housing proposal"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Several<\/figure>\n

A Pittsburgh City Council bill that replaces a proposed citywide affordable housing mandate with an optional program will soon return to the body with the City Planning Commission\u2019s blessing. <\/p>\n

On Tuesday, commissioners unanimously recommended the legislation package, which proposes an affordable housing bonus program, would permit accessory dwelling units by right for certain buildings and would remove minimum parking requirements for new developments.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n
\"A
Pittsburgh Councilor Erika Strassburger looks to a TV screen during an inclusionary zoning hearing in the City-County Building on Sept. 10. (Photo by Alex Jurkuta\/Pittsburgh’s Public Source)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cThe best inclusionary housing policies recognize the economic realities of residential development in the local rental market and incorporate flexibility,\u201d said City Councilor Erika Strassburger prior to the commission\u2019s vote. <\/p>\n

The bill, if passed, would allow developers to earn points based on the number of affordable units that they incorporate into their housing developments \u2014 a system that already exists along the riverfronts, residential mixed-use areas and urban centers. The points allow developers to add height to buildings.\u00a0<\/p>\n

If developers don\u2019t want to participate in the point-based program, then they would pay $25 per square foot of housing they build. Those funds would support affordable housing development. <\/p>\n

The commissioners\u2019 recommendation wasn\u2019t without conditions. While City Planning staff proposed expanding the duration of affordability for units in the optional bonus program from 20 to 35 years, the body ultimately went with the shorter term. <\/p>\n

Developers who do not want to build affordable housing can instead opt to pay a fee per square foot of housing that they build. The commission suggested listing those costs in a fee schedule rather than legislation. <\/p>\n

The original bill came about in 2024, when former Mayor Ed Gainey unveiled his goal to implement inclusionary zoning \u2014 a zoning district that\u2019s overlaid across existing zones and requires developers to build a specific ratio of affordable units \u2014 across the city. Inclusionary zoning is in place in a handful of neighborhoods today, and the proposal endorsed by the commission would not change that.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat bill was the wrong policy for this particular moment in Pittsburgh, despite public enthusiasm about it,\u201d Strassburger said at the commission meeting.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"A
Demonstrators are led in chants prior to the inclusionary zoning hearing at the City-County Building on Sept. 10. More than 25 demonstrators gathered to express support for inclusionary zoning. (Photo by Alex Jurkuta\/Pittsburgh’s Public Source)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Gainey\u2019s plan resulted in a yearslong debate between affordable housing advocates, developers and city officials. Last September, Strassburger proposed a revision to that original bill, with the largest change being the replacement of the citywide inclusionary zoning measure. <\/p>\n

With the commission\u2019s positive recommendation, the bill will return to City Council for a vote, likely after the council\u2019s recess in August, said Andrew Dash, the deputy director of City Planning.<\/p>\n

Mayor Corey O\u2019Connor said<\/a> while campaigning for his current position that he didn\u2019t support a citywide affordability mandate for all new housing. <\/p>\n

Finding a window of affordability that works<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Some commissioners \u2014 as well as members of the public who submitted testimony \u2014 were at odds over which affordability term to push forward: 20 or 35 years? <\/p>\n

In a separate vote to determine which term to use, commissioners Diamonte Walker and Rachel O\u2019Neill voted against 20 years. <\/p>\n

Walker said she wasn\u2019t \u201cwholly convinced\u201d that keeping units affordable for 35 years would deter developers. In fact, she said, the length of time would benefit those who specialize in affordable housing development. <\/p>\n

She is the chief executive officer of Rising Tide Partners, an organization that preserves affordable housing through acquisitions. \u201cI come from a world where 40 years of affordability\u201d isn\u2019t uncommon, she said.<\/p>\n

\u201cI also come from a world where I\u2019ve seen people come to the end of a LIHTC<\/a> term and had their housing affordability gutted from them, and that was a 40-year term of affordability,\u201d she said, referring to the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program that underwrites much of the nation\u2019s affordable housing.<\/p>\n

For an affordable housing unit that remains affordable for 20 years, City Planning staff estimates, developers lose about $120,000 in rent over that period. For a 35-year term, developers would lose about $162,000. Spread out over decades, the month-to-month loss that developers would experience would decrease as the number of years increases. <\/p>\n

\"\"
People confer as the Pittsburgh City Planning Commission holds a hearing on whether to recommend an affordable housing bonus program to City Council on June 2, in Downtown. (Photo by Stephanie Strasburg\/Pittsburgh\u2019s Public Source)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Still, \u201cIt\u2019s ultimately something that sounds good on paper but won\u2019t result in the apartments that the commission, and ultimately the city, is looking for,\u201d said Commissioner Justin Hunt. <\/p>\n

Maddy McGrady is a co-chair of the Pittsburgh Housing Justice Table, a coalition of housing advocates that formed to push for the city\u2019s Housing Opportunity Fund<\/a>. McGrady overall supported the revised legislation but opposed council\u2019s original 20-year affordability term. <\/p>\n

\u201cTo reduce the term from 35 years is to erode the public benefit of the program for the residents who need it the most, and that is unacceptable,\u201d McGrady said. <\/p>\n

While Walker and O\u2019Neill opposed the shorter of the two terms, the rest of the commissioners recommended keeping units affordable for 20 years. <\/p>\n

The commissioners and public also debated the proposed payment in lieu of building affordable housing that developers could opt into. Dave Breingan, executive director of Lawrenceville United, urged commissioners to recommend a fee of $35 per square foot of housing. <\/p>\n

\u201cBecause it\u2019s so low, it will strongly disincentivize developers from creating mixed-income projects and it\u2019s likely to exacerbate our current issue, where affordable housing is concentrated in certain neighborhoods,\u201d Breingan said. <\/p>\n