Joseph Sabino Mistick: Gainey's inclusionary zoning plan may hinder development

When Pittsburgh Mayor Ed Gainey spoke at a planning commission hearing last week, he emphasized his “get tough on developers” version of an inclusionary zoning ordinance to develop affordable housing. Gainey wants to shift the responsibility for providing affordable housing away from his government — where it belongs — and put it on private developers.

But his performance at the planning commission was certainly not about making an evidence-based public policy case for his proposal. He made none. Perhaps he was just ginning up his base of supporters for his reelection bid.

Gainey’s position that he is “anti-developer but pro-development” makes about as much sense as “defund the police.” Of course, he has done that, too.

In every new residential project with 20 or more units, Gainey wants to use inclusionary zoning to force developers to set aside 10% of the units for affordable housing. But inclusionary zoning — envisioned as the mayor proposes — is a huge stop sign for development because it makes projects un-bankable.

Gainey’s version of inclusionary zoning has already failed in the four city neighborhoods where it has been given a trial run. And it has failed in other cities that have taken his approach.

Even the liberal city of Portland, Ore., has realized that it must be more cooperative with developers if it wants affordable housing. The Portland planning commission recently recommended a “regulatory relief” package that would increase existing subsidies and tax breaks and repeal other zoning obstacles to make it easier for developers to develop.

That’s very different from Pittsburgh, where the mayor makes the development of housing harder and harder. Gainey justified his consistent refusal to help developers build affordable housing in Pittsburgh by saying that it would be like “writing a blank check to corporate developers.”

But times have changed. Developers are no longer bound to their communities. If Pittsburgh makes it too hard or too expensive to develop housing here, it is easier to invest someplace else. As one developer told me, “Cleveland is wide open. And it’s just up the road.”

There was another zoning ordinance before the planning commission at the same time as Gainey’s. This one, sponsored by Councilman Bob Charland, would leave it to each of the neighborhoods to decide if they wanted inclusionary zoning.

And it would require the city to fill the gap that a developer would face by including affordable units in a project. Charland would use a carrot; Gainey continues to think that a stick will work.

Although Charland’s proposal is far from perfect, it is an attempt to address a serious problem. But the planning commission refused to let him make his presentation and call his expert witnesses. As one Downtown resident said, “They were silenced.” And then they voted him down.

After that, the planning commissioners — all Gainey appointees — passed Gainey’s version of inclusionary zoning by a vote of 8-0-1, recommending it favorably to city council, where there will be hearings and a final vote.

Charland should eventually get his fair chance to argue his case before city council. There should be talks of compromise and deliberation. And, considering that this is a major public policy decision, council should delay a final decision until after the election.

When Gainey was selling his proposal to the planning commission, urging them to act, he said, “When do we change the tide? The time to change the tide is now.” But even the most powerful elected officials cannot change the tides. Un-bankable projects are un-buildable projects.