A federal judge this week dismissed a lawsuit challenging Pittsburgh’s inclusionary zoning policy.
Inclusionary zoning — which is in effect in the Lawrenceville, Bloomfield, Polish Hill and Oakland neighborhoods — requires developers building 20 or more units to earmark at least 10% for low-income residents.
The Builders Association of Metropolitan Pittsburgh in May 2022 sued the city 10 days after Mayor Ed Gainey signed a bill expanding the program to Bloomfield and Polish Hill.
The suit alleged the zoning bill violates constitutional due process and Pittsburgh’s Home Rule Charter. The association argued the measure caused potential economic harm to developers by mandating some units be sold or rented below market rate.
Inclusionary zoning is intended to bolster the city’s supply of affordable housing, though some officials have raised concerns the policy would deter development.
U.S. District Judge Robert J. Colville this week ruled the association did not have proper standing to move ahead with the lawsuit.
According to Colville, the group failed to prove its members had suffered financial harm or received a final decision from the city on whether they could skirt the inclusionary zoning rules, as they had not attempted to seek variances or exceptions.
“Plaintiffs have failed to present evidence of anything more than hypothetical injury,” the judge wrote in his 37-page decision.
The dismissal came after Gainey spent more than a year advocating for a citywide expansion of mandatory inclusionary zoning.
Gainey’s proposal to implement the rule citywide was met with skepticism by some City Council members, who overhauled the zoning package last month.
A sweeping amendment authored by Councilwoman Erika Strassburger would make inclusionary zoning optional and offer incentives to encourage developers to voluntarily build affordable housing.
Gainey is expected to veto the amended bill if it reaches his desk before he leaves office in January. Gainey lost his reelection bid to Mayor-elect Corey O’Connor, who has said he would not support a blanket inclusionary zoning mandate in all city neighborhoods.
“The court’s decision to dismiss means that protections against displacement and gentrification can continue in neighborhoods facing the greatest development pressure,” Olga George, a spokeswoman for Gainey, said in a statement Friday.
“We hope it can serve as a starting point for conversations between City Council and the incoming administration around the expansion of inclusionary zoning.”
