Pittsburgh council meeting dominated by debate over housing package, inclusionary zoning

PITTSBURGH — Public comment on Oct. 8 centered on Council Bill 20‑25‑15‑45, an omnibus housing package that would remove parking minimums, permit accessory dwelling units and change how the city requires or incentivizes affordable housing. The meeting’s public speakers included neighborhood residents, nonprofit housing advocates, builders and transit advocates who sharply disagreed over whether any inclusionary zoning (IZ) requirement should be mandatory or voluntary.

Supporters of a mandatory, citywide IZ told the committee the approach is necessary to retain socioeconomic diversity and protect renters. "A mandatory policy has been repeatedly shown in the national literature to be better at achieving the goal of producing more affordable housing," said Dave Brangan, executive director of Lawrenceville United. "Mandatory, not voluntary, IZ has been recommended by a variety of local experts and reports for a decade," he said.

Housing advocates also pressed for related reforms in the bill, including eliminating parking minimums and enabling ADUs. "Eliminating parking minimums, allowing ADUs, and incorporating density bonuses into mandatory IZ are a holistic approach," said John Rhodes, a board member of City of Bridges Community Land Trust, who cited research showing parking requirements raise housing costs.

Developers and some housing‑industry speakers said a voluntary, incentivized approach would produce more housing and avoid reducing total supply. "A voluntary incentivized affordable housing bonus program is exactly the kind of innovative and practical policy our city needs," said Chris Bean, thanking Councilmember Strassburger for the version of an incentivized program she circulated this week. Jack Billings, representing Pro Housing Pittsburgh, said the amended language allowing opt‑in bonuses addressed earlier supply concerns.

The standing committee did not take a final vote on the full housing package during this meeting. Members attempted earlier in the session to add a bill (Bill 15‑45) to the agenda but the motion to amend the agenda failed in a roll‑call vote and the bill was not added. Later, after arriving late, Councilman Coghill registered a yes vote and members discussed a motion to reconsider; the law department advised that it could not immediately recommend moving forward without additional research. Counsel told the table the issue implicates notice requirements in Pennsylvania’s open‑meetings (Sunshine) law.

Councilmembers and speakers repeatedly urged more time for public review after citywide changes circulated the week of the meeting. "At a minimum, give us a week to evaluate this legislation and see if we can't negotiate a real solution after months of negotiations," said Laura Chu Wiens, executive director of Pittsburghers for Public Transit, arguing the amendments had been circulated in limited form.

Several speakers warned that a mandatory program without adequate incentives or funding could reduce new building. Others, including residents and disability advocates, urged that mandatory provisions include accessibility and anti‑displacement protections. "By not having inclusionary zoning mandatory everywhere, it's basically saying it's optionally okay to discriminate against folks," said Alyssa Grishman, who urged mandatory IZ and stronger accessibility provisions.

What happened next: The committee left the bill in committee rather than voting on final passage. Members discussed options for reconsideration and asked the law department for a memo on whether a late agenda change and rapid vote would meet legal notice requirements. Councilmembers said they would continue negotiations and that the public will have an opportunity for additional comment when/if the bill is placed on a final agenda.

Why it matters: The measure touches housing supply, affordability and neighborhood change across Pittsburgh. The bill’s approach to mandatory versus voluntary IZ — and how the city pairs any mandate with density bonuses, tax abatement or direct public funding — will influence whether new development includes below‑market units or discourages projects from moving forward.

Speakers quoted above: Dave Brangan, executive director, Lawrenceville United; John Rhodes, board member, City of Bridges Community Land Trust; Chris Bean, commenter (supporter of the incentivized approach); Jack Billings, Pro Housing Pittsburgh; Laura Chu Wiens, executive director, Pittsburghers for Public Transit; Alyssa Grishman (housing accessibility advocate).