Pittsburgh council adds past or present housing status to conduct code as protected class

PITTSBURGH — Pittsburgh City Council voted unanimously on Sept. 30 to amend the city code to add “past or present housing status” as a protected class in the city’s housing-discrimination rules.

The ordinance (Council bill 22-42) changes Title 6 of the Code of Ordinances to add the new protected class and to simplify the code’s anti-discrimination language, council members said during the discussion before the roll-call vote, which recorded nine ayes, zero nos.

Council members and other speakers said the change is intended to make it unlawful to discriminate in housing against people because they were previously homeless, used a shelter or otherwise lacked housing. Supporters said putting the protection in the code provides a local remedy that residents and advocates can point to when they believe discrimination has occurred.

At the committee hearing some members expressed frustration with the Commission on Human Relations, which had spoken to council earlier in the process. Councilman Anthony Coghill said he had voted against the proposal in committee because a representative of the commission had made what he described as an unsubstantiated claim — singling out neighborhoods — without presenting supporting evidence. Coghill said that diminished his confidence in the commission as a neutral fact-finding body. “I lost faith in the commission,” he said, while also saying he would support the ordinance in the spirit of protecting people against discrimination.

Councilwoman Theresa Kale Smith and others echoed concerns about the commission’s communications and recommended a follow-up conversation. Councilwoman Strasburger offered to convene council members and commission representatives to clarify the commission’s role and the factual basis for public statements made at prior meetings.

Councilwoman Barbara Ward described the commission’s role as primarily reactive: residents file complaints with the commission, which evaluates them and, when a complaint is found to have merit, may open an investigation and pursue remedies. Ward said the commission lacks the staffing capacity to proactively seek out violations but provides an avenue for local enforcement that residents would not otherwise have.

The ordinance passed on a 9-0 vote. The clerk recorded the ayes as: Charland, Coghill, Gross, Mosley, Kale Smith, Strasburger, Warwick, Wilson and Council President Lavelle.

Council members said they expect follow-up conversations about the commission’s procedures, communications and capacity, and some asked for a review of ways to strengthen enforcement and public trust while preserving the new statutory protection.

The ordinance as passed updates the city’s language to include housing status; it does not itself create a separate enforcement office or direct new funding for the commission. Council members who raised enforcement questions said any changes to the commission’s staffing or procedures would require additional legislative or budgetary steps.

The bill now becomes part of the city code; details of implementation and any next steps from council or the commission were left for future meetings.