Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Funding Residency Preference topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident asks Pittsburgh commission to require local residency for city-funded housing loan
Summary
A public speaker at the March 11 meeting urged the commission to require that city-provided funds for a Visino Group housing project be restricted to Crawford County or Pittsburgh residents; commissioners said program rules and federal funding could limit such requirements.
At the March 11, 2025, Pittsburgh City Commission meeting, resident Roger Longcheck urged commissioners to require that recipients of city funding for a Visino Group low-income housing project be local residents of Crawford County or the city of Pittsburg.
Longcheck told the commission the city had agreed to provide funding to a Visino Group project and asked that the commission stipulate any city money be used to benefit local-area residents rather than anyone who applies. He proposed a residency preference that would require applicants to have been a housed resident of Crawford County for at least six months, citing utility bills or other records as proof.
“Is it unreasonable to say that it should at least be people from this county that we are helping?” Longcheck asked. He said the project plans call initially for 12 units and later for 42 units, and noted the commission had allocated $170,000 toward the project; he also said the original city request for support had been $300,000 before it was reduced.
Commissioners and staff responded that whether residency preferences can be applied depends on the funding sources and program rules. One commissioner noted the project will likely be HUD-eligible and subject to Section 8 and other federal requirements; another said federal and state funds can impose limitations on residency preferences. Staff and elected officials cautioned the commission might not be able to impose local residency limits if the housing provider also receives state and federal funds.
A city official also described the city’s prior vote to approve funding and said it may be premature to add conditions now because the project still requires grant submission and other approvals; the commission did not take formal action on a residency requirement at the March 11 meeting.
A second public speaker, identified as Dr. Seager, said the matter should be revisited at a future meeting. Commissioners did not set a date for further discussion and made no changes to the commission’s earlier allocation during the session.
