Oxidizing Rust
Addressing the Affordable Housing Crisis in Pittsburgh
Matthew T. Shorraw,
Harvard University
Policy Analysis Capstone
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for an ALM in Government
May 2024
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks to Dr. Michael Miner and Don Parker for their guidance and support in helping me select this topic. Additional thanks to Jack Billings and Pro Housing Pittsburgh; Laura Zinski of Mon Valley Initiative and Phil Koch of the Pittsburgh Foundation for sharing their thoughts and knowledge on this subject.
NOTE No Part or parts of this content, including in its entirety may be reproduced without explicit written consent from the author
ABSTRACT
Housing affordability remains a pressing issue across the United States, a reality mirrored in the City of Pittsburgh. This paper delves into the intricate relationships between regulations, taxation policies, and insufficient measures contributing to a shortfall in housing development within Pittsburgh. This study aims to identify gaps and propose targeted solutions, after analyzing current and proposed policies that aim to address the housing crisis. Ultimately, this research aspires to provide the City of Pittsburgh government with informed policy recommendations, fostering efficient and equitable measures to alleviate its housing crisis, through a multifaceted approach.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Housing affordability is an issue that is being felt across the country. The cost of housing has hit unprecedented rates that impacts most Americans. It especially impacts marginalized communities that have historically felt left out of the housing market. These burdens have reached renters and homeowners alike. According to a January 2024 study from Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies called “America’s Rental Housing 2024”, almost half of renters nationwide are struggling to afford rent. 22.4 million renter households spent more than 30% of their income on rent in 2022. A figure that is likely to climb even higher by the end of 2024. The number of affordable units has also decreased from 9.3 million in 2012 to 7.2 million in 2022.[1]
Things are just as difficult for aspiring homeowners. Today, “median house prices are now 6 times the median income, up from 4–5 times 20 years ago.”[2] This affordability issue has only gotten worse since the pandemic sparked an increase in remote work, which has added to other factors impacting prices, such as complicated zoning regulations, a decline in new construction, inflation costs, and mortgage interest rate hikes. Housing affordability is even worse for black and minority Americans, who are still catching up from discriminatory practices from the Urban Renewal program and rampant redlining during the twentieth century. In 2022, the US Census Bureau estimates that the median household income was $74,580[3], while the average home price in the US was $431,000.[4]. In the third quarter of 2023, the national average for down payment and closing costs for homebuyers sat at 14.7%, up from 11% in 2020.[5] Based on this data, for most Americans, housing costs far exceed the yearly average salary. This instability in housing is a risk to vital and extremely important US National Interests[6]
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s General Assembly has taken a keen interest recently, in strengthening existing laws, and attempting to address the housing crisis in Pennsylvania. Some of these efforts include the creation of an Affordable Housing Database; Housing Planning for Municipalities[7], which would require municipalities in Pennsylvania to develop a “housing obligation plan that describes how the municipality plans to ensure local housing opportunities exist in or near its jurisdiction so that it can offer shelter to their own residents should they experience homelessness.”[8]; and the Housing Unit Variety Bill — HB 1257[9], which “will require a developer of a project with 30 or more residential units to reserve 25% of those units for very low to middle income housing”[10]
The focus of this research will be directed at the City of Pittsburgh, and its struggles for housing affordability. This paper explores the supply and demand issues driving the lack of affordable housing in Pittsburgh. This paper will also evaluate the current landscape of policy proposals and practices and steps being taken at the state and county level, as well as within Pittsburgh City government, that directly impact its ability to address the housing crisis locally. This research will also heavily analyze the zoning and taxation system in the City of Pittsburgh and determine if there is a better way forward for facilitating more affordable housing, by making different policy choices. While there are policy choices and funding opportunities that can and should be implemented by the Federal Government as well as the Pennsylvania State government, for the sake of research, this paper will focus on policy choices that can be implemented by the City of Pittsburgh.
This paper considers five policy options for the City of Pittsburgh to consider. The first policy option proposes that the City of Pittsburgh revise outdated Zoning and Land Usage codes in their entirety, to reflect modern housing needs. The second policy option proposes that the City of Pittsburgh consider advocating for a countywide tax reassessment and re-establishing a form of split rate tax or land value tax in the City of Pittsburgh, that takes into consideration the constraints from Pennsylvania’s Uniformity Clause. The third policy option proposes that the City of Pittsburgh establish new collaborative efforts and expand existing efforts by forging public-private partnerships with community development organizations, neighborhood groups, and advocacy organizations to learn what kind of housing and amenities best fit the fabric of already-existing residential neighborhoods. The fourth policy option proposes to develop a vacant property registry and inventory, and improve the cataloguing and inventory of current vacant, blighted, and tax delinquent properties in target areas of the City, and create a plan of use for identified properties. Lastly, the fifth policy option proposes bridging the gaps between public resources and community members and developing a holistic approach to addressing the city’s growing homelessness crisis.
This policy paper proposes solutions that could be implemented individually to help ameliorate the issue of housing affordability in Pittsburgh; however, since the problem is so systemic and complex, all options should be considered in the future, with each option building on the next. Pittsburgh has an opportunity to tackle its affordable housing crisis effectively, because the numbers are manageable, compared to other cities. By effectively addressing this issue in Pittsburgh, the City can pave a path for new innovative policies that can be implemented in other similar legacy cities throughout the country, all while helping its residents live in safety and security.
Introduction
“Housing is a Human right, not a commodity”[11], according to the United Nations’ Report of the Special Rapporteur on Housing. If housing is a human right, why then, do 38% of Pittsburghers qualify for affordable housing, and why is Pittsburgh seeing an increase of homelessness due to a spike in housing costs? All people have a right to have the ability to afford adequate housing and shelter, but today that is far from a reality for many.
Pittsburgh has been known by many as having a history of reinventing itself. It has gone from being the location of frontier forts; to an industrial powerhouse of Iron and Steel; to a hub of educational institutions, research facilities, and healthcare organizations. Is it time again for Pittsburgh to reinvent itself as the leader of solving the affordable housing crisis? By effectively addressing this issue in Pittsburgh, the City can pave a path for new innovative policies that can be implemented in other similar legacy cities throughout the country.
In general, Pittsburgh is considered more affordable than its peers; however, there is much room for improvement. In 2023, Pittsburgh was one of two of the most affordable cities for first time homebuyers.[12] In recent years, there has been an increased disparity between higher wage earners, versus lower wage earners.[13] Housing prices have continued to increase throughout much of the city, while the wages of many long-term permanent residents have not. This has caused many long-term residents to move elsewhere — typically to suburbs or cheaper communities away from the city proper. While this exodus of people from Pittsburgh could help neighboring communities with population issues, the City — and the region as a whole — are not equipped with proper mass transit infrastructure to account for what could be a long-term problem.
While Pittsburgh was lauded in 2023 for being one of the most affordable cities, 2024 is proving to be an even more challenging year for affordable housing in the city. The latest report by Redfin has Pittsburgh ranked as number one in their list of Top 10 Metros in the US with fastest growing housing prices.[14] According to the report, housing costs have increased by 22% in February 2024 compared to February 2023.[15] Other metro areas had much smaller increases, according to the report; such as Long Beach, CA at 14.6% and Toledo, OH sitting in the middle of the list at 17.0%.
Before beginning the research for this paper, I relied on my preconceived notions of housing and basic economics to devise my own assumptions on why we have an affordability problem. Why is luxury housing being built in some places when houses — and in some cases, nearly entire blocks, are abandoned in others? Why is it more difficult for us to collectively support fixing the houses that already exist than it is for new ones to be built? Should we not just build anything, anywhere? I have learned that the answer to all those questions is more complicated and convoluted than I imagined, yet at the same time, the solutions could be rather straightforward. This issue sits at the intersection of economics and policy.
The answer to clearing the path towards building enough affordable housing in Pittsburgh lies in the need to update archaic laws and zoning codes, provide incentives for developing affordable housing, and lobbying for state and federal support in tandem. It would also be beneficial to utilize data, by mobilizing Pittsburgh’s educational institutions, such as Carnegie Mellon University or The University of Pittsburgh, to ensure that the housing being built hits benchmarks and makes a tangible impact. It is a difficult task, but it is not impossible.
It may appear that Pittsburgh’s trajectory is on the downswing, if you solely look at surface level population numbers. Pittsburgh has been losing population for decades. Since at least 1950, Pittsburgh’s population has declined by 55.24% (Fig. 1); however, the city has still seen an influx in demand for housing in the last 15 years.
Pittsburgh has seen an increase of households, but the number of residents in each of those households is smaller than they were in the past. In 2015, Pittsburgh had a population of 304,224[16] with a median home price of $167,000[17], while in 2022, the City of Pittsburgh’s estimated population is 302,898[18] and median housing prices sit at about $269,000.[19]. The cost of housing has increased because demand exceeds supply. This may seem odd at first glance. How can population decrease, vacancy rates decrease, and housing demand increase? New households in Pittsburgh are smaller than in previous years. More households are being established with less people. According to local housing advocacy organization, Pro Housing Pittsburgh, “…supply increased — but demand increased more.”[20] The supply and demand chart below by Pro Housing Pittsburgh uses data from the City of Pittsburgh’s 2023 Housing Needs Assessment,[21] and showcases the years 2015 and 2019, in order to demonstrate the correlation between population, home prices, and supply and demand.
Other key findings of the 2023 Pittsburgh Housing needs assessment include the following key points that are worth noting, to paint a fuller picture of the current state of affairs in the city:
· “Pittsburgh Gaining Households, Mostly Upper Income. While Pittsburgh’s population is declining, there has been accelerating household growth in recent years, with an additional 5.2k households added between 2016 and 2019, outpacing the region and primarily driven by increases in high-income renter households.
· Low-Income Renters are Leaving Pittsburgh. The number of renter households earning less than 30% AMI decreased by over 3k between 2015 and 2019. Given that incomes for less educated households grew more slowly than more educated households, this suggests that many low-income renters are leaving the city.
· Greatest Housing Need for Low-Income Renters. Housing needs are greatest for renters earning less than 30% AMI — there is a supply gap of 8.2k housing units priced affordably to this group. The supply gap drops to 2.9k for renters earning less than 50% AMI, with a 4.6k surplus for renters earning less than 60% AMI.
· Shrinking Supply Gap Caused by Fewer Low-Income Renters, Higher Regional Incomes. While the supply gap remains high in 2019, this represents a decrease from the 14.1k gap in 2015, though this decrease does not indicate improving affordability, as it is primarily a driver by many low-income renters leaving the city and a large increase in regional incomes.
· Losing Existing Black Households. Black households were the only racial or ethnic group to experience a decline in the number of households in Pittsburgh since 2015. This decline is driven by the significant loss of existing middle-income and low-income Black households across both renters and homeowners.
· Black Homeownership Falling, Rising Elsewhere. Since 2015, Pittsburgh lost nearly 700 Black homeowners, a decline of 7%, greater than the proportional loss in black renters. In the same period, the number of homeowners has risen amongst nearly every other racial and ethnic group.”[22]
According to a 2016 study from Pittsburgh’s Affordable Housing Task Force, the city is short 17,000 affordable units.[23]It is almost certain that the number is significantly higher today, although there are no exact figures to date, yet. In addition to the inability to build enough housing, there has also been a net loss of affordable housing in Pittsburgh in recent years. Some affordable housing has sunset provisions that return the housing to market rate and are often bought by developers. Therefore, those houses are no longer affordable once developers purchase and “flip” them. “Likewise, on the local level, researchers note the tendency for powerful actors and institutions to favor growth-oriented policies that maximize returns on investment, with no concern for the human and social impacts. Pittsburgh’s decades-long trajectory of declining population has reduced the city’s overall tax base, and private interests promising to kick- start growth have thus been able to wield undue influence on policy priorities.”[24]
By ignoring the impacts of a lack of affordable housing, a long-term price increase in housing could upend the economic stability of the entire region — much of which is still fragile from de-industrialization, decades ago. This paper will explore policy options for the City of Pittsburgh to implement, in order to address the issue of housing affordability, as it relates to vacant, blighted, abandoned, and tax delinquent properties in neighborhoods within the City, as well as policies that impact zoning, taxation, and construction of new and existing housing.
PROBLEM IN CONTEXT — The US and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
The issue of affordable housing in America is a complex multifaceted issue. While this issue is a very local one whose nuances can and should be addressed differently at the municipal level, it is important to take a look at the problem of housing as a whole in the United States. In general, housing affordability is defined by the cost of housing to not exceed 30% of a person’s income. Today, “median house prices are now 6 times the median income, up from 4–5 times 20 years ago.”[25] This affordability issue has only gotten worse since the pandemic sparked an increase in remote work, which has added to other factors impacting prices, such as complicated zoning regulations, a decline in new construction, inflation costs, and mortgage interest rate hikes. Housing affordability is even worse for black and minority Americans, who are still catching up from discriminatory practices from the Urban Renewal program and rampant redlining during the twentieth century.
Even before the Urban Renewal program took off in the 1940s, the United States was facing a wave of anti-black sentiment, racism, and segregation. After the Civil War, Black Americans moved to many Northern cities in the US to get away from increasing violence and hostility in the South. It was not long until cities, out of fear, did not want black people in their communities. Some cities went so far as to force them to move altogether, either by legislation or by force. This climate led to the creation of zoning laws. These laws aimed to:
“prevent lower-income African Americans from living in neighborhoods where middle-class whites resided, local and federal officials began in the 1910s to promote zoning ordinances to reserve middle class neighborhoods for single-family homes that lower-income families of all races could not afford. Certainly, an important and perhaps primary motivation of zoning rules that kept apartment buildings out of single-family neighborhoods was a social class elitism that was not itself racially biased. But there was also enough open racial intent behind exclusionary zoning that it is integral to the story of de jure segregation. Such zoning was rare in the United States before World War I, but the Buchanan decision provoked urgent interest in zoning as a way to circumvent the ruling.”[26]
The Buchanan decision refers to the US Supreme Court Case Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917)[27], which determined that a City Ordinance in Louisville, Kentucky was unlawful because it violated to US Fourteenth Amendment. The ordinance codified racial segregation in housing by prohibiting the sale of property to black individuals in predominantly white neighborhoods. After the ruling, many cities circumvented or ignored the ruling altogether, until the concept of zoning ordinances took hold. On its face, zoning laws seemed less egregious than the Louisville ordinance, because they maintained the principle of “separate but equal” that became a keystone of Jim Crow laws.
Due to unfair zoning laws and the redlining that came from them, as well as banks refusing to lend to black families for business loans or mortgages, people of color have had a harder time catching up to their white counterparts when it comes to homeownership. An estimated 44% of Black Americans own homes, whereas 72% of White Americans are homeowners. Additionally, less than 10% of black renters can afford to buy a home.[28] In 2020, Black Americans and Hispanic Americans spent over 50% of their income on housing compared to their white counterparts who spent slightly above 40%[29]. Due to the cost burden on minority populations, coupled with historical trends that made it difficult for these populations to own a home, we see a very low rate of ownership among minority populations in America. Cost differences continue to exist today, where on average, blacks pay 3.6% more when they move to predominantly white areas.[30]
In addition to historical inequities and stagnant wages, interest rate hikes and inflation play a role in the struggle with housing affordability. The Federal Reserve Bank has continued to increase interest rates in order to curb inflation. The last interest rate hike was in July 2023, where the Fed raised its benchmark rate to a target range of 5.25–5.5 percent, which is a 23-year high.[31] The Fed has held these rates as of April 2024. Federal Reserve Bank Chair Jerome Powell acknowledged in a January 31, 2024, press conference that housing supply is also part of the issue.
“On top of that, we have longer-run problems with the availability of housing. You know, we have a, a built-up set of cities, and, and you know, people are moving further and further out. So there’s — there hasn’t been enough housing built. And these are not — these are not things that we have any tools to address. But, you know, where it comes into play very specifically in our work is inflation, which is a combination. It’s, it’s really rental inflation. You’re taking owners’ equivalent rent and then actual rent paid by tenants. And you’re, you’re running that through the CPI Calculation. Or the PCE [inflation] calculation — the one we look at. And what that’s telling you is that market rents are increasing at a much lower rate or even being flat and that that will show up in inflation over time. It has to as long as that remains the case.”[32]
This burden on everyday Americans is not only a risk to public health and safety, due to the rise of homelessness; but it is also a threat to the economic wellbeing of our country. Housing affordability is unattainable for half of all US Renter households, which equates to 22.4 million households.[33] First time homebuyers had a 32% share of the total market in 2023, which is up from 26% in 2022; however, that is still less than the historical average of 38%.[34] In 2022, the US Census Bureau estimates that the median household income is $74,580[35], while the average home price in the US is $431,000.[36]. In the third quarter of 2023, the national average for down payment and closing costs for homebuyers sat at 14.7%, up from 11% in 2020.[37] Based on this data, for most Americans, housing costs far exceed the yearly average salary. This instability in housing is a risk to vital and extremely important US National Interests[38], based on the July 2000 definitions of US National Interests, by the Commission on America’s National Interests. Housing unaffordability and the economic ramifications it could cause if kept unchecked could impact the United States’ Vital interest of “ensuring the viability and stability of major global systems” and the extremely important interest of “Promoting democracy, prosperity, and stability in the Western Hemisphere”. Americans’ lack of ability to pay for housing or other needs, and their lack of expendable income will continue to harm the US economy and could have implications on economies abroad, due to the interconnectedness of global trade.
Since there is a divided United States Congress at the moment, observers should not expect much to be accomplished in regard to federal legislation during the 118th Congress. One current bill to keep watch for is one that was referred to the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs in 2021, but that was reintroduced in March 2024 by Representative Ocasio-Cortez. The bill is called the Green New Deal for Public Housing Act[39] and was originally sponsored by Senator Sanders in the Senate. The bill would in part, facilitate “workforce development and high-income employment transition; conduct physical needs assessments and subsequent energy efficiency retrofits; and makeupgrades, replacements, and improvements for energy efficiency, building electrification, and water quality upgrades”[40], all focused on public housing and those who live in such housing.
While many nuanced approaches for addressing housing unaffordability rest on local municipalities and state governments, the federal government has a role to play in ensuring state and local jurisdictions have adequate tools at their disposal to address these issues in their own respective communities in just and equitable way.
Residents in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are also feeling the crunch from the national housing crisis. Pennsylvania has a nearly 100,000-unit shortfall according to a 2022 report.[41] Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, a democrat, has made it one of his administration’s budget priorities to invest $80M towards addressing the state’s housing crisis. The funding would go towards public legal defense against evictions and anti-homelessness initiatives, and restarting a popular home repair grant program, call the Whole Home Repair Program. This funding is needed in a state where 27% of renter households are extremely low income, and where 72% of those renters are severely cost burdened.[42]
In Pennsylvania, the Shapiro administration has begun tackling affordable housing with bipartisan support from the General Assembly.[43] The Pennsylvania Housing Affordability and Rehabilitation Enhancement (PHARE) Fund provides the mechanism by which certain allocated state or federal funds, as well as funds from other outside sources, would be used to assist with the creation, rehabilitation, and support of affordable housing throughout the Commonwealth.[44] In 2022, the funding for the Pennsylvania Housing Affordability and Rehabilitation Enhancement Fund was increased from $40M to $60M. This year, advocates are hoping that the fund will be increased to $100M to meet the present need. Currently, the program receives three times the number of applications than it can fund.
State funding would also be directed to the Whole Home Repairs Program, a popular state program that receives far more applicants than it is able to fund.[45] The program helps fund necessary repairs to homes owned by qualified applicants. Such repairs include weatherization and roofing. Governor Shapiro has pledged an additional $50M from the state budget to fund the program; however, funding is in limbo until the General Assembly enacts additional legislation.
One of the most impactful changes being discussed in Harrisburg, that could also have a positive impact in addressing Pittsburgh’s housing affordability crisis is that of zoning. Officials in Harrisburg are discussing updates to state building codes and zoning laws that could make it easier to build affordable housing in the state. “These include bills that would redevelop vacant shopping malls[46] or office parks[47] into mixed-use communities, add tiny homes[48] into the state’s construction codes, and allow multi-family homes in areas zoned for single-family residence.”[49] It can also be seen in pending legislation that would preempt local zoning policies to spur housing construction and protect tenants amid increased evictions post-pandemic.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s General Assembly has taken a keen interest recently, in strengthening existing laws, and attempting to address the housing crisis in Pennsylvania. Some of these efforts include the creation of an Affordable Housing Database. Such a database would keep track of existing affordable housing in Pennsylvania. This is a critical step in ensuring affordable housing efforts are successful. In Pittsburgh and across Pennsylvania, affordable housing properties often enter a sunset phase, where they transition to market rate. Often, these properties are bought by developers and are no longer affordable. Pennsylvania’s SB 616 will amend the state’s existing Housing Finance Law from 1959, to create the database.[50]
Additionally, the General Assembly is also considering HB 2098 — Housing Planning for Municipalities[51], which will amend the Pennsylvania Affordable Housing Act of 1992. The Bill would require municipalities in Pennsylvania to develop a “housing obligation plan that describes how the municipality plans to ensure local housing opportunities exist in or near its jurisdiction so that it can offer shelter to their own residents should they experience homelessness.”[52] PA House Bill 1386 goes together with HB 2098. HB1386 — Attainable Housing Designation[53] will allow municipalities to claim “Attainable Housing Community” designation. The bill will allow for this designation if the municipality works to update its zoning regulations, by doing the following: “Allow for accessory dwelling units in some of their municipal zoning ordinances; Provide adaptive solutions for “missing middle”, middle income, and workforce housing needs, and allow for mixed use commercial or retail and residential development, where appropriate.”[54]
Two other Pennsylvania House Bills are worth watching, as they progress. The first is the Housing Unit Variety Bill — HB 1257[55], which “will require a developer of a project with 30 or more residential units to reserve 25% of those units for very low to middle income housing. Under the bill, in lieu of requiring this construction, a municipality would be able to impose a fee equal to 30% of the project cost. The fees collected from the developer would be deposited into an affordable housing trust fund for the development of very low to middle income housing in the municipality or for the development of community centers.”[56] The second Bill is the Lease Home Purchase Act — HB 1922[57]. HB1922 would empower the Pennsylvania Finance Housing Agency to “administer a program which would specify the dates within which the option to purchase may be exercised, the amount of the purchase price, estimated closing costs, and the percentage of the purchase price needed for down payment. The bill also includes protections for lessor liability, prohibited contract provisions and a process for reinstating the agreement after default. Further, at least 30% of program funds would be allocated for lease-purchase housing projects that benefit households with incomes that are less than 80% of the median area income.”[58]
Harrisburg is making some strides in legislation to address the housing affordability issue. While there is bipartisan agreement that the issue needs addressed, legislation is bogged down by bureaucracy and politics, while affordability gets worse for Pennsylvanians. If passed, many of these bills would empower cities like Pittsburgh to take more direct action on affordable housing.
PROBLEM — The City of Pittsburgh
In Pittsburgh and throughout the country the cost of affordable housing has continued to increase, while wages mostly remain stagnant. Pittsburgh is not a unique case when it comes to affordable housing shortages; however, Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area have an opportunity to lead the country in innovative ways with affordable housing creation and retention. Pittsburgh’s need to create 17,000 affordable housing units is a manageable task, compared to other cities with larger units needed.
In order to understand how the state of housing in Pittsburgh got to this point, we must first know and understand important points in the history of Pittsburgh, and its geographical makeup. Pittsburgh is an interesting city, with an imposing geography of hills and valleys, surrounded by three major rivers and consisting of 90 individual neighborhoods. These neighborhoods have their own unique organizations and cultural fabric, but are connected under Pittsburgh City government, almost like a conglomeration of states. Some neighborhoods have seen exponential growth in the last decade, such as Lawrenceville — with its breweries and millennial-driven shops; Bakery Square, which houses tech offices such as Google; or Oakland, the home of the University of Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon University, and numerous museums and medical facilities. Other neighborhoods are just beginning to see development, like Hazelwood, and some are severely disadvantaged, like Lincoln-Larimer, California-Kirkbride, and the Hill District.[59]
In terms of population, the City of Pittsburgh has been losing population since the 1960 census. In 1950, the city’s population was 676,806 and by 1960 it had decreased 10.7% to 604,332[61]. It is during this time that steel production and industrial strength in the city and the region, that had been seen during WWII was declining. The “Arsenal of Democracy” as it was known, needed to find a way to reinvent itself as the steel industry primarily moved overseas. This reinvention led to Public-Private partnerships led by the City’s innovators and industry leaders, who saw the benefit in making sure Pittsburgh did not collapse from the loss of its major industries. This reinvention was known as the Renaissance, and later Renaissance II, which saw urban renewal projects and civic improvements in Downtown Pittsburgh’s “Golden Triangle”.[62]
In recent years, housing costs in Pittsburgh have continued to shift. In the City of Pittsburgh, housing costs based on the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency House Price Index, sat at $161.07 in Quarter 3 of 2009, immediately following the 2008 Recession. By Quarter 1 of 2020, the price index sat at $220.56, an increase of 36.93% between 2008 and 2020. By Quarter 4 of 2023, the index stood at $300.37, an increase of 36.19% in less than four years.[63]
This shift in housing prices could be traced back to a decrease in available housing supply, thus constraining the number of affordable units available for lower income households. Basically, we are simply not building enough housing, thus we have a constrained supply. Why, though, is there a lack of construction?
RECENT EFFORTS IN PITTSBURGH
Officials in City of Pittsburgh government have recognized the need for the city to rise to the moment and meet the need of creating 17,000 housing units within the City, and to further address systemic affordability issues. In recent months, there has been a flurry of activity from the City government, its Urban Redevelopment Authority, and other outside organizations, that have been focused on housing policy and implementation.
The City of Pittsburgh’s Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) created the OwnPgh program in 2023. The OwnPgh program partners with local banks and provides up to “$90,000 total in the form of a grant, for the purchase of a house within the City of Pittsburgh. The grant may be available for those with a household income of 80% of area median income (AMI) or below”.[64] The program is funded through the American Rescue Plan Act, and as of April 2024, the program saw 100 homes sold. According to the URA, it has given out $5.52 million in financing and 60% of borrowers were black.[65] This provides a significant opportunity for black Pittsburghers to build personal equity and generational wealth, while helping to stabilize city neighborhoods.
In other affordable housing efforts being undertaken by the URA, they recently entered a bond issue for $30 million. The URA recently unveiled its plan for spending the money. The plan is funded by the city’s first-ever bond for affordable housing and will go towards already existing programs within the URA’s jurisdiction, including a rental gap program and the Pittsburgh Downtown Conversion Program. Additionally, a revolving loan fund and financing toward for-sale programs for residential rehabilitation or construction will be created. The URA expects the programs to create or preserve 1,000 affordable units over three years. “Half of the funding will be used to create housing for families or individuals making at or below 30% the area median income; 25% will go toward people at or below 50% AMI; and 25% will go to people at or below 80% AMI. In Pittsburgh, the area median income for a family of four is $101,200, according to 2024 calculations from the U.S. Department Housing and Urban Development. Priority will be given to projects that have long-term affordability of 40 years or more, maximize other financing sources like tax credits, and to developments that offer larger units of three bedrooms or more.”[66]
One final effort of note on the URA’s affordable housing efforts is that of downtown office conversions. Like many other cities in the country, Downtown Pittsburgh has seen a decline in real estate values and a rise in office space vacancies since the onset of the pandemic and the increase in remote work. According to Pittsburgh City Councilman Bobby Wilson, downtown office vacancy rates currently sit at 38%, and if the current trajectory continues, vacancy rates could reach as high as 50% by 2028.[67] This has been a challenge to city and county budgets, who have seen an influx of tax reassessments that have been wreaking havoc on budgets. In April 2024, the URA approved $4.875 million in loans to convert vacant downtown office space into affordable housing.[68] The URA is using American Rescue Plan Act funds to issue the loans, which will create over 100 new affordable units at or below 80% of area median income. Area median income (AMI) levels vary county to county and depend on household size. The area median income for a two-person household in Allegheny County is currently $64,250.[69]
Allegheny County has highlighted housing as a countywide priority in the County’s new plan. Some points in the plan will help the City of Pittsburgh address its housing crisis. Some highlights in the plan include, “Launching a significant new program that will make hundreds of permanent, deeply affordable housing units available to people exiting homelessness; Invest in targeted rental assistance; Introduce and scale model zoning ordinances; Develop a countywide Land Bank; and purchase existing affordable housing units with expiring affordability requirements and convert them into affordable housing”.[70]
ZONING
There is a housing supply and demand issue in Pittsburgh, because of the City’s outdated zoning laws.[71] Pittsburgh’s zoning code has retained many 1950s standards and has not fully been updated in decades. There is a new push from Pittsburgh officials to change that. The city is finally taking an active look at the zoning code, so it does not inhibit the type of development the city needs, especially in older neighborhoods with smaller parcels and more involved variances. Councilman Bobby Wilson, who is leading the charge on City Council with the revision of the Zoning Code has stated that the code as it exists has already delayed a recent project by the nonprofit, City of Bridges Community Land Trust to build affordable housing townhouses in a single-family detached residential district.[72] The zoning code as it exists is hamstringing the City from developing the needed units at an appropriate level of density; because as it stands, too many variances would be needed to build similar structures to what is already in existence in Pittsburgh neighborhoods prior to the City’s first zoning code in 1923. Most old houses in Pittsburgh today, and the architecture that the city is known for, would be illegal to build by current standards.
The code has been added onto over the years, making regulations cumbersome. Restrictions that complicate development include, Parking minimum mandates for new or repurposed structures; minimum lot sizes, based on square footage per unit; setback requirements; height restrictions; unit restrictions — meaning you cannot have mixed types (only single family in R-1, single family, or duplexes in R-2, etc.); and single-use zones (no mixed use).
TAXATION
As I mentioned earlier, prior to my research, some of my assumptions on building affordable housing, or even just building any kind of development were skewed. I had not taken into consideration the concept that even though there is a need or demand, that there is a fiscal component that comes into play, separate from the cost of materials and construction. Property taxation has a great impact on how and where a developer chooses to build; especially in Pennsylvania, where reassessment and taxation regulations and processes are sometimes inconsistent, political, bogged down, and even archaic.[73]
Pennsylvania has a broad clause in its Constitution regulating the levying of taxes, that makes it difficult for municipalities and counties to find new solutions to addressing any taxation issue. The 1874 clause states that “all taxes shall be uniform, upon the same class of subjects, within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax and shall be levied and collected under general laws.”[74] Municipalities in Pennsylvania, most notably Philadelphia have tried repeatedly to update their own taxation regulations, but it is difficult to do unless such updates reflect existing exceptions or amendments to the constitutional clause. Some examples are by excluding a portion of everyone’s wages from the tax; or, to establish different property tax rates based on categories of usage (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.).[75] This taxation arrangement is common in other places throughout the country. The Pennsylvania Uniformity Clause prohibits such arrangements and was challenged and stricken by rulings by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.[76] This clause makes it more difficult for Pittsburgh to enact innovative, long term legislative solutions to address housing affordability. Until the General Assembly of Pennsylvania enacts further amendments, Pittsburgh will need to find ways that do not violate the Uniformity Clause, but that still address systemic issues.
TAX ASSESSMENTS
Pennsylvania lags as compared to other states in completing property reassessments. Many counties have not undergone reassessment in decades. Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh is located, has not done a reassessment since 2012.[77] That reassessment is very recent compared to neighboring Westmoreland County, who has not had a countywide reassessment since 1973.[78] This disparity occurs, because in Pennsylvania, it is up to each individual county to determine when to do reassessments. Most counties, especially the smaller and poorer ones choose not to, since it is such a time consuming and costly endeavor. As each year passes, disparities grow between property owners, municipalities, and counties, and along with them, the cost continues to grow as well. The reassessment of a property could be triggered when it is sold or renovated, but this is not always the case. Properties often fall through the cracks, especially in areas that have less of a tax base, with lower property values. There are also ways around reassessment. There is a local industrial facility in the Pittsburgh area that will remain nameless, that has repeatedly dodged property reassessment for decades, even after making improvements and having been bought out at least twice. This was accomplished, because the facility’s deed was not transferred to the new owners — instead, stock shares were traded and used as the currency for the purchase of the property. In doing this, a reassessment being triggered by a property transfer is avoided, and therefore, taxes on the property remain suppressed.
In a conversation with Pro Housing Pittsburgh member Jack Billings, it was made clear to me in simple terms. According to Billings, Pennsylvania makes it profitable to be a slumlord. “The longer you hold a property and slowly run it into the ground, the less you’ll pay in taxes.” Billings continued to explain further that since standard property tax assessment is used, if something new and upscale is built on a piece of land, taxes go up. This disincentivizes new construction and incentivizes holding on to a piece of vacant land, a surface parking lot, or a blighted structure, because the tax burden is lower. Allegheny County uses a tax assessment process tied to something called the common level ratio. The common level ratio could enlarge taxation disparities each year a county chooses to not institute a countywide tax reassessment. Like in other counties, this common level ratio process in Allegheny County calculates property assessments to a common level ratio percentage rate that is released each year, based off the assessed value of a property, dated back to the last countywide reassessment. In this case, in Allegheny County, that date is 2012, and this year’s common level ratio (CLR) is 54.5%, down from 63.5% in 2022 and 2023.[79] The CLR has been declining due to the economic strain and lessening of land values, due to the impacts left from the pandemic. Many property owners in Allegheny County have been filing for property tax assessment appeals recently, in order to lower their taxes. This is being driven by reassessment of large buildings in Downtown Pittsburgh, and the appeals are threatening the stability of school districts throughout the county. This influx of reassessments also threatens the long-term financial stability of the City of Pittsburgh’s budget.[80]
Downtown Pittsburgh’s office vacancies are the driving force behind the recent reduction in property tax revenue in Allegheny County. “In January 2024, three large downtown property owners — the Tower at PNC Plaza, the U.S. Steel Tower, and Three Gateway Center — each won their assessment appeals, representing a combined $200 million in reduced tax revenues across all tax bodies.[81] In April 2024, Pittsburgh Public Schools filed a lawsuit against Allegheny County, in order to compel the county to conduct a property reassessment. Pittsburgh Public Schools is concerned that the lack of a countywide reassessment and the influx of individual assessment appeals is driving the school district into a financial crisis.[82] Taxing bodies, such as the school district, are being forced to pay millions of dollars in refunds, due to the assessment appeals. Pittsburgh Public Schools is suing the county, claiming that the county is violating the state’s Uniformity Clause due to the lack of a countywide reassessment, because it is creating an uneven taxing structure. The lack of a countywide reassessment “has also created a situation where the lower valued properties are over assessed, and higher valued properties are underassessed. This means those at the lower end of the spectrum pay more taxes than they should and those at the higher end pay less than they should. That is simply illegal and unfair”. Allegheny County Executive Sara Innamorato says that “any reassessment must be revenue neutral and not a backdoor tax hike for the people of Allegheny County … Ideally reassessments would be state-mandated, mundane, regular occurrences and not once per decade shocks to the system.”[83] As this lawsuit plays out, the City of Pittsburgh will find itself in the middle of it, while it continues to be required to refund millions of dollars for tax assessment appeals. This will continue to make it more challenging for the City to find creative, effective, and expedient ways to address its affordable housing shortage.
The County has been repeatedly sued over the years, due to its lack of frequent countywide reassessments. In the 1970s, the county reassessed each property every three years, unlike today’s practice of base-year values altered by appeals. The county, which oversees assessments that impact itself, the city, and school district, began a process to develop a software to make reassessments more efficient. Ultimately, the software was purchased, but the required database was never built due to political pressure and cost constraints. “Instead, Allegheny County mostly continued past assessment practices. Properties continued to be assessed by individual assessors, often with incomplete or out-of-date data. New lawsuits against the county were filed after newly elected county commissioners Larry Dunn and Bob Cranmer froze assessments and laid off all the assessors in 1996. The cases were consolidated under Court of Common Pleas Judge Stanton Wettick, who ordered county assessments to restart, and a contract was awarded to Sabre Systems, an Ohio-based firm, to manage the system.”[84] In addition to issues with the Common Level Ratio method of taxation and the lack of regular countywide reassessments, there is more to consider. If only the land value is taxed, it removes the lack of desire to build that exists with current taxation structures. Rather, it incentivizes building more supply.
SPLIT RATE TAXATION
The City of Pittsburgh implemented a Split Rate Tax from 1913 to 2001, where land value was taxed at a higher rate compared to building value. This taxing system promoted development, because of the higher inventive to build. It was more expensive to sit on vacant land that was valuable. The Split Rate Tax system was discontinued in 2001, after an issue with tax reassessments in the 1990s.
“In the case of the city of Pittsburgh, where the split rate was employed, there were two millage rates, one for the land value and one for the building value in which, since the law of 1913, the land value rate had to be twice that of the building value rate regardless of the level at which the rate was set. This lasted until 1979, when the ratio was increased. Property values could be ‘real’, ‘assessed’ or ‘fractional’, and so it is not too difficult to imagine how this complexity, combined with the millage-rate system, could result in a situation susceptible to manipulation and political interference.”[86]
“Pennsylvania is the only state government in the US to enable split-rate property taxation among its local governments. Since 1913, Pennsylvania has produced a body of sustained outcomes across 33 municipalities: 16 that have current split rates, 5 that have rescinded split rates and 12 that have considered but never implemented split rates.”[87] In 1913, after the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted a law that allowed municipalities to adopt a split rate tax on property, two municipalities that were eligible to do so, quickly adopted their own ordinances — Pittsburgh and Scranton. There was fervent and continued opposition to such a tax in the state government, but the City of Pittsburgh supported the concept of such a tax, through much of the twentieth century. The beginning of the slow end to the split rate taxing system in Pittsburgh appears to be the transitions from the city controlling its own assessments, to Allegheny County taking over such assessments in 1942.[88]
The flashpoint came to a head in the 1990s, when assessments were frozen and court cases against the county were consolidated. There was much political upheaval in Pittsburgh at this time, and the County also changed forms of government from a commission form to a County Executive/County Council form. There were many opinions on how to address the assessment issue, which at that point were well known. Assessments were inconsistent and unfair; however, no politician wanted to promise a reassessment that could create a shock to the system and raise taxes for constituents. That would be political death to anyone responsible.
In 1996, a court ruling unfroze reassessments, and an assessor was appointed to handle the work. When initial reports came out, they showed that land values were higher than assessors anticipated. “In the year 2000–2001 the assessments for land value increased by 81% and for building value by 43%. These higher-than-expected tax demands caused much confusion and resentment and led to the eventual rescission” to the split rate land value tax that Pittsburgh had in place since 1913. “Although everyone accepted that the defective assessment system was the main problem, the majority view was that the existence of the graded tax itself was to blame…‘After less than three and a half weeks of public debate, the venerable split-rate tax was gone.’”[89] After the Split Rate tax was rescinded, “Pittsburgh suffered a 19.5% decline (adjusted for inflation) in private new construction in the three years after rescission as compared to the three years before.[90]
FILTERING
Would zoning reform, tax assessments, and land value taxes increase the housing supply in Pittsburgh? Based on the information here, it is likely that there would be an increased interest in building housing, because it would be easier and more efficient to do so. It is likely that certain developers would continue building the luxury-style housing that has been built across the city in recent years, while others would be incentivized to build smaller scale affordable units. Some would argue that the continued construction of pricier, “luxury” houses would defeat the purpose of building affordable housing; however, the two go together.
In general, the concept of “Filtering” in terms of housing economics comes into play with the new luxury construction, the new construction of affordable units, and the existing older housing stock within the City of Pittsburgh. In general, Filtering is when housing becomes more affordable and attainable for lower income peoples are the houses age, and as new construction becomes available. In theory, the richer people move into the new construction and luxury housing, leaving their former housing available, with the middle-income people moving into those, all the way down the market, to where you see more affordable housing units become available. This concept does not always work in markets like Los Angeles and New York City, but Pittsburgh is small enough, with enough variety of housing stock that it could work.
In a recent study by Jonathan Spader, entitled, Has Housing Filtering Stalled? Heterogeneous Outcomes in the American Housing Survey, 1985–2021[91] it was found that significant differences existing “in filtering dynamics between high-appreciation metropolitan areas on the West Coast and metropolitan areas with lower appreciation and lower growth in housing units. Spader concludes that filtering may not always be a reliable source of lower-cost rental housing and that affordable housing subsidies might be necessary in markets that experience periods of upward filtering. He further concludes that the variation observed in filtering outcomes might warrant federal policies that are more sensitive to local conditions…While filtering in the low-appreciation, low housing-unit-growth metropolitan areas remained relatively constant, the high-appreciation metropolitan areas on the West Coast showed significant shifts between downward and upward filtering over time. Periods of upward filtering appeared to coincide with strong housing demand and rising prices, while a pronounced period of downward filtering appeared to coincide with the Great Recession.”[92]
Relying on filtering alone will not fix the affordable housing crisis, nor will its effects be felt immediately. Filtering should be allowed to happen, as the housing market adjusts itself to an increased number of higher value housing units, as well as more affordable and subsidized units. All of these must work in tandem to balance out the market. This is essential so the market is not flooded with luxury units, and so lower income residents are not priced out of their communities. Evan Mast, in his piece for Journal of Urban Economics, notes that filtering works in chains, which take several months to clear; therefore, a new luxury building creates more affordable housing in six months from its completion, and full effects of the chains are felt in under four years.
Mast further notes that not all markets can be impacted by filtering, due to new construction. Some markets are already at their lowest value. “The most important may be in the lowest-cost and most rent-burdened submarkets. Census tracts that are in both the bottom quintile of median household income and the top quintile of rent burden have an average vacancy rate of 12.8%, compared to 8.1 in the rest of my sample. Given that rents are generally already low in such neighborhoods, this suggests that reducing demand through the migration chain mechanism is unlikely to lower costs further, perhaps because rents have reached the minimum cost of providing housing. In addition to potentially small price effects, there may also be important amenity effects reduced population in these areas, such as reduced retail options, school closures, or increased crime.”[93]
CONSTRAINED SUPPLY
One of the primary drivers to housing unaffordability in Pittsburgh is constrained supply within the housing market. Typically, there is concern that when new construction is built in low-income neighborhoods, the cost of rents increase. This concept could be generalized as “gentrification”, or more formally, the “amenity effect”. A recent study from 2023 finds those claims unfounded. The research found a correlation between rising rents and new construction, but only because most new construction is built in neighborhoods that are already changing, or ones that have higher rents. “When these new buildings are completed, they actually slow rent increases in the nearby area: the average new building lowers nearby rents by 5% to 7% relative to trend, translating into a savings of $100 to $159 per month. In addition, we find that new buildings increase low-income in-migration, implying that this improved affordability can foster more integrated, economically diverse neighborhoods that may improve economic mobility.”[94]
As neighborhoods see new housing being constructed, they see an increased level of amenities. There are caveats, however, and the authors suggest that their research leads to a correlation between an increase in housing supply and a decrease in cost and an increase in availability for some affordable units. Land use regulations and other building policies that make it difficult to build play a role, as well. Housing production is more likely incentivized when regulations are more streamlined and clearer.
It is important to understand the complex nature of housing affordability in Pittsburgh, and how reliant the city is on Allegheny County government and Pennsylvania State government’s leadership in some policy measures. Housing continues to be expensive in Pittsburgh because demand exceeds supply, and supply is constrained because zoning and tax policy are antiquated and inefficient. Pittsburgh must take innovative leadership on the topic of housing affordability. It is a crucial policy goal that intersects with so many other policy topics, such as climate justice, social and criminal justice, homelessness, infrastructure, land use policy, financial and tax policy, and so much more. Recent efforts in Pittsburgh, amongst city and county officials reflect a concerted effort alongside various public and private organizations to address housing affordability and supply in the city. There are institutional, historic, and systemic barriers that officials are working through, in order to achieve their long-term goals. The City’s focus on long term affordability, maximization of financing sources, desire to make necessary changes to land use regulations, and the conversion of downtown office spaces into affordable housing units highlight the beginning of an innovation approach to tackling the housing crisis.
While there is a solid start to reforms, challenges continue to persist, most notably in outdated zoning laws and complex and archaic taxation systems, which hinder and dampen efficient development, all while exacerbating disparities in property assessments. The ongoing lawsuits regarding property reassessments, and the increased number of assessment appeals underscores an urgent need for systemic reforms that uphold state uniformity laws and provide stability and security in the city’s housing market.
Although concepts like filtering offer potential benefits, such concepts alone cannot solely address the complex policy changes needed to address the affordable housing crisis. A comprehensive solution requires collaboration between community members, policymakers, homeowners, renters, developers, and other stakeholders to streamline regulations, incentivize construction, and foster inclusive and equitable growth. I propose five policy options for the City of Pittsburgh’s policymakers to consider.
POLICY OPTIONS
Zoning Code and Land Use Reform
The city government should revise outdated Zoning and Land Usage codes for the City of Pittsburgh in their entirety, to reflect modern housing needs. There is a housing supply and demand issue in Pittsburgh, because of the City’s outdated zoning laws.[95] Pittsburgh’s zoning code has retained many 1950s standards and has not fully been updated in decades. While officials have begun to fix the zoning code in a piecemeal way, the entire zoning code should be rewritten to reflect modern needs and desire for the city.
The zoning code as it exists is hamstringing the city from developing the needed units at an appropriate level of density; because as it stands, too many variances would be needed to build similar structures to what is already in existence in Pittsburgh neighborhoods prior to the City’s first zoning code in 1923. Most old houses in Pittsburgh today, and the architecture that the city is known for would be illegal to build by current standards.
The City Council and Mayor should establish a commission to review the existing code. Such a commission should include members of the community, as well as members in the fields of zoning, building, housing, economics, and community development, who could analyze best practices and provide professional insight. A collaborative process should be undertaken to ensure the code is adequate for the long term. The zoning code should reflect the way stakeholders want the future of the city to look like and should keep in mind regulations that foster the construction of housing.
Re-Establishing a Split Rate Tax for the City of Pittsburgh
The City of Pittsburgh should consider re-establishing a form of split rate tax or land value tax, that takes into consideration the constraints from Pennsylvania’s Uniformity Clause.
In order for the split rate land value tax to not be in violation of Pennsylvania’s Uniformity Clause, it must not create an undue burden on any resident or group of residents and must be applied equally. The tax system should be modeled after the original system that operated in Pittsburgh from 1913 to 2001, while taking into consideration any amendments to the uniformity clause in the state constitution or related case law. The implementation should also take into consideration any issues that existed prior to recission, as mentioned in this paper. A change in the taxation structure should not cause a shock to the system, which could cause financial burdens for taxpayers. Rather, such a reimplementation should be rolled out in phases, with benchmark dates made clear to the public.
Results from a 2014 study show “that capital/land ratio increases in those municipalities that switch from the conventional property tax to the two-rate tax and those that have a higher tax differential between the land tax and the tax rate on structures.” Establishing a split rate tax system in a municipality appears to impact land development by creating more densely developed housing rather than building larger houses.[96] This is beneficial for a city that is attempting to build an increased number of affordable housing units in a city with smaller, unconventional parcel sizes and shapes.
In order to implement such a tax system, the Allegheny County Office of Property Assessments will need to be in favor of such a change. The City of Pittsburgh will need to either advocate for the county to make such a change, or the city will need to take over its own assessment duties, as it had done in the past. The Allegheny County Council and the County Executive will need to be in favor of such decisions, in addition to Pittsburgh Mayor and City Council. The reimplementation of a split rate taxing system in the City of Pittsburgh is a possible policy decision; although, it will take a lot of public support, political willpower, and a very well thought out, trustworthy, and transparent process.
Expand Community Development and Collaborative Efforts
Establish new collaborative efforts and expand existing efforts by forging public-private partnerships with community development organizations, neighborhood groups, and advocacy organizations to learn what kind of housing and amenities best fit the fabric of already-existing residential neighborhoods.
The city could work with new and existing partners to help facilitate community dialogue, by meeting members of the community where they are. By creating networks between neighbors, advocacy groups, community development organizations, foundations, and educational institutions, the city will be able to learn from residents, and residents would likewise be able to learn about the affordable housing development process in a symbiotic relationship. This relationship could lead to the empowerment of residents and the eventual acquisition of properties within their neighborhoods. Properties could be acquired by local individuals and organizations that commit to renovating the properties and investing in them for the benefit of their communities. This could be facilitated by funding through public-private partnerships. These properties would remain at a low to moderate income rate, and ideally should be owner-occupied. Upon completion of the investment and renovations, these properties have the ability to provide generational wealth and security to residents in Pittsburgh who have been most impacted by the housing affordability crisis, and by poor policy choices at the City level in the past several decades. A more robust community program like this would have the ability to create lasting socio-economic outcomes for minority residents. Affordable housing is one piece of the puzzle. Policymakers should take into consideration the needs at a neighborhood level, and approach solutions with a community development lens.
In taking this approach, the program could help poorer neighborhoods that have not seen an economic boom. This program would especially help poor people, families, people of color and immigrants acquire and own housing. This would help them with all the stability that comes with owning a home and would also allow them to build generational wealth. Additionally, this approach would help stabilize neighborhoods, and provide a historically conscience and sustainable way to improve existing housing. Those who are acquiring properties would be required to participate in a housing counseling program, which would be implemented by a local community development corporation. In Pittsburgh, there is a lot of opportunity to fund such programs. Funders such as the Heinz Endowments, the RK Mellon Foundation, the Grable Foundation, and other local companies are keen on funding housing and social justice programs within the city. Additionally, local organizations such as the Mon Valley Initiative, the Allegheny Conference on Community Development, Action Housing, Pittsburgh United, and the Pittsburgh Community Reinvestment Group to name a few, could collaborate with the City of Pittsburgh, as well as other funders, to make this a reality.
Developing a Vacant Property Registry and Inventory
The city should improve the cataloguing and inventory of current vacant, blighted, and tax delinquent properties in target areas of the city, and create a plan to either demolish the structures, refurbish existing structures, rebuild on existing lots, or salvage existing materials. By formally identifying the status and location of vacant and dilapidated properties, the City of Pittsburgh can more effectively plan for future development. This development could be by traditional means, such as developer-lead projects, or through collaborative community-based projects.
The City should pull together a team who is knowledgeable in housing and property issues, by utilizing city employees, as well as interns from local universities, who have a focus in public policy, land use, or GIS Mapping. Such an undertaking could be done by various teams, appointed to each neighborhood, beginning with the highest concentration of blight. Such mapping would be put online on an interactive GIS mapping site, where each individual property would have its information displayed. The properties would be categorized by the status of their condition; owner information; zoning information; and whether they are tax delinquent. Photos of the property would also be included.
Simultaneously, the City would adopt an ordinance establishing a vacant property registry. This ordinance would require owners of vacant and abandoned properties in the City of Pittsburgh to register their properties with the city for an annual fee. This process will formally create a registry of vacant properties within the city. The ordinance would also provide for updated maintenance and security requirements, based on applicable building codes. Those who fail to register or maintain their properties can be taken to court, and if convicted, could be subject to daily fines at a fixed rate. This ordinance is to hold absentee property owners; especially LLCs and other business entities accountable for nuisance properties that could otherwise be developed.
Providing Holistic Opportunities for the City’s Unhoused Population
The city should bridge the gaps between public resources and community members and develop a holistic approach to addressing the city’s growing homelessness crisis.
Despite the growth Pittsburgh has seen, vacant and blighted properties still exist throughout the City, and economic and racial disparities continue to persist. Additionally, Pittsburgh has seen an increase in homelessness populations in recent years[97]; especially since the start of the pandemic. City officials have discussed options on how to address the homelessness population, which is primarily centered in Downtown Pittsburgh. Recently, city officials discussed constructing tiny homes to provide temporary housing. The city should partner with local social service agencies, and collaborating on seeking funding to establish at new shelters that provide job coaching, healthcare, shelter, and connections to assistance. Such shelters should take a holistic approach and should be driven by the mission to get individuals the help they need, in order to get them back to normal lives.
Furthermore, the city should support and encourage research from its educational institutions to develop products and systems to build housing more efficiently and cost-effectively for the homeless population, by using 3D printing technology. If successful, a process such as this could revolutionize the creation of attractive, cost-efficient affordable housing.
POLICY RECOMMENDATION
Zoning Code and Land Use Reform
I recommend that the City update its zoning code and land use policies, by crafting an entirely new code, and adopting it at the City council level. The City’s zoning code will drive future development and the way housing supply can be addressed. However, I do not believe that this policy is the sole solution to the housing affordability problem in Pittsburgh. Certainly, this policy option may be adopted on its own; however, there must be a multifaceted and comprehensive approach to addressing the housing affordability issue. It is in this same spirit that I advise that all five policy options in this paper be undertaken in the long term, but for the short term, the initial focus should be on zoning reform through this recommendation.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the issue of affordable housing in Pittsburgh highlights systemic challenges facing not just the city, but also those in urban areas across the United States. While the United Nations declares housing a human right, housing is unreachable for so many. The reality is so different from the ideal. The rise in housing unaffordability, coupled with rising homelessness rates and spikes in inflation demand urgent action from policymakers, to address long term, systemic issues.
Pittsburgh’s history of renaissance and resurgence puts it in a unique position to find innovative solutions to this crisis. Just as Pittsburgh has navigated itself through difficult eras of uncertainty, the city has an opportunity once again, to navigate this crisis and become a policy leader on affordable housing. This work demands an approach the brings a coalition of thought leaders, policy makers and community members together, to tackle systemic issues and immediate needs.
In Pittsburgh and beyond, it is critical to address underlying socio-economic and racial disparities exacerbated by the pandemic, inflation, and the housing crisis. The disproportionate impact that past policy choices, housing supply chain issues, and economic factors have on low-income renters, homeowners and communities of color shows a great need for equitable policy.
The failure to address housing unaffordability through policy choices that change major laws and long-term systems and practices threatens the economic vitality of Pittsburgh and its region. Pittsburgh has an opportunity to set an example for other cities across the country, who are grappling with the same issues. Pittsburgh could set an example for equitable housing policy that serves immediate needs and provides lasting, long-term impacts. The task ahead is a difficult one; however, ensuring that everyone has fair access to affordable housing will take collective action and political will, and is worth the fighting for.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Joint Center for Housing Studies. “America’s Rental Housing 2024”. Harvard University. January 2024. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/reports/files/Harvard_JCHS_Americas_Rental_Housing_2024.pdf
[2] Bhasin, Karen; Loungani, Prakash, Sunderji, Aziz. The EconoFact Network. March 14, 2024. https://econofact.org/hitting-home-housing-affordability-in-the-u-s
[3] US Census Bureau. Current Population Survey, 2022 and 2023 Annual Social and Economic Supplements (CPS ASEC). https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps.html
[4] US Census Bureau and US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Median Sales Price of Houses Sold for the United States. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS
[5] Jones, Hannah. Down Payments Climb as Buyers Contend with Limited Inventory and High Mortgage Rates. November 15, 2023. https://www.realtor.com/research/down-payment-report-oct-2023/
[6] The Commission on America’s National Interests. “America’s National Interests”. July 2000. https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/amernatinter.pdf
[7] The General Assembly of Pennsylvania. “House Bill №2098”. 2024. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2023&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=2098&pn=2682
[8] Rep. Nelson, Napoleon J. MEMORANDUM — “Combatting Homelessness Across Municipalities in PA (CHAMP) Act. August 24, 2023. https://www.legis.state.pa.us//cfdocs/Legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?chamber=H&SPick=20230&cosponId=41309
[9] The General Assembly of Pennsylvania. House Bill №1257. 2023. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2023&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=1257&pn=1367
[10] Rep. Kinsey, Stephen and Rep. Khan, Tarik. MEMORANDUM — “Inclusionary Housing for New Developments”. May 5, 2023. https://www.legis.state.pa.us//cfdocs/Legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?chamber=H&SPick=20230&cosponId=40689
[11] UN Human Rights Council. “Access to justice for the right of housing: Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context”. 2019. https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-housing/human-right-adequate-housing
[12] De Visé, Daniel. March 17, 2023. “Only two large US cities are affordable for new home buyers.” https://thehill.com/business/housing/3905717-only-two-large-us-cities-are-affordable-for-new-home-buyers/
[13] Wolfson, Charlie. April 5, 2022. “Pay Gaps Remained As Pittsburgh Lost Workers in 2021.” https://www.publicsource.org/pittsburgh-salary-wage-gap-peduto-labor-2021/
[14] Grant, Tim. April 3, 2024. “Pittsburgh Surge: Home prices here are rising faster than anywhere else in the country”. https://www.post-gazette.com/business/development/2024/04/02/pittsburgh-home-prices-redfin-bidding-war/stories/202404030018
[15] Redfin. February 2024. “United States Housing Market Overview”. https://www.redfin.com/us-housing-market
[16] United States Census Bureau. 2015.
[17] Billings, Jack. Pro Housing Pittsburgh. March 17, 2024. https://www.prohousingpgh.org/blog/does-pittsburgh-really-need-more-housing
[18] United States Census Bureau, 2022.
[19] U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency, All-Transactions House Price Index for Pittsburgh, PA. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. 2022. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS38300Q
[20] Billings, Jack. Pro Housing Pittsburgh. March 17, 2024. https://www.prohousingpgh.org/blog/does-pittsburgh-really-need-more-housing
[21] City of Pittsburgh. Housing Needs Assessment — Final Report. January 2022. https://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/redtail/images/21887_Pittsburgh_HNA_Final_Report.pdf
[22] City of Pittsburgh. Housing Needs Assessment — Final Report. January 2022. https://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/redtail/images/21887_Pittsburgh_HNA_Final_Report.pdf
[23] Affordable Housing Task Force of the City of Pittsburgh. “Findings and Recommendations to Mayor William Peduto and the Pittsburgh City Council”. May 2016. https://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/mayorpeduto/FinalReport_5_31_16.pdf
[24] McClymonds, Daniel; Smith, PhD, Jackie; Chapman, Connor, Taylor, Randall. “Pittsburgh’s Affordable Housing Crisis: Is Privatization the Solution?”. University Center for Social and Urban Research (UCSUR) Report. University of Pittsburgh. February 2022. https://ucsur.pitt.edu/files/center/UCSUR_White_Paper_Privatization_Housing_2022.pdf
[25] Bhasin, Karen; Loungani, Prakash, Sunderji, Aziz. The EconoFact Network. March 14, 2024. https://econofact.org/hitting-home-housing-affordability-in-the-u-s
[26] Rothstein, Richard. “The Color of Law”. Ch. 3 Racial Zoning, Sec. V. Pg. 48. 2017.
[27] United States Supreme Court. Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60. 1917.
[28] National Association of Realtors. “More Americans Own Their Homes, but Black-White Homeownership Rate Gap is Biggest in Decade, NAP Report Finds.” March 2, 2023. https://www.nar.realtor/newsroom/more-americans-own-their-homes-but-black-white-homeownership-rate-gap-is-biggest-in-a-decade-nar#:~:text=While%20the%20U.S.%20homeownership%20rate,rate%20gap%20in%20a%20decade.
[29] Wedeen, Sophia. “Black and Hispanic Renters Face Greatest Threat of Eviction In Pandemic. Joint Center for Housing Studies. Harvard University. January 11, 2021. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/black-and-hispanic-renters-face-greatest-threat-eviction-pandemic
[30] Early, Carrillo, and Olsen. “Racial Rent Differences in U.S. Housing Markets. June 18, 2018. https://tinyurl.com/w5x7dp66
[31] Foster, Sarah. Bankrate. “Fed Remains on Hold, Keeps Forecast for Three Rate Cuts in 2024”. March 20, 2024. https://www.bankrate.com/banking/federal-reserve/fomc-meeting-recap-march-2024/
[32] Powell, Jerome. Transcript of Chair Powell’s Press Conference. January 31, 2024. https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20240131.pdf
[33] Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. “America’s Rental Housing”. 2024. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/reports/files/Harvard_JCHS_Americas_Rental_Housing_2024.pdf
[34] National Association of Realtors. “2023 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers”. 2023. https://cdn.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/2023-profile-of-home-buyers-and-sellers-highlights-11-13-2023.pdf
[35] US Census Bureau. Current Population Survey, 2022 and 2023 Annual Social and Economic Supplements (CPS ASEC). https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps.html
[36] US Census Bureau and US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Median Sales Price of Houses Sold for the United States. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS
[37] Jones, Hannah. Down Payments Climb as Buyers Contend with Limited Inventory and High Mortgage Rates. November 15, 2023. https://www.realtor.com/research/down-payment-report-oct-2023/
[38] The Commission on America’s National Interests. “America’s National Interests”. July 2000. https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/amernatinter.pdf
[39] U.S. House of Representatives. “H.B. Green New Deal for Public Housing Act”. 118th Congress. 2nd Session. March 21, 2024. https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Green%20New%20Deal%20For%20Public%20Housing%20Bill%20Text.pdf
[40] U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. “S. 1218, Green New Deal for Public Housing Act”. 117thCongress. 1st sess. April 19, 2021. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1218/text
[41] Up For Growth. 2022 Housing Underproduction in the U.S. 2022. https://upforgrowth.org/apply-the-vision/housing-underproduction/
[42] National Low Income Housing Coalition. “Housing Needs By State — Pennsylvania”. 2024. https://nlihc.org/housing-needs-by-state/pennsylvania
[43] Caruso, Stephen. “Gov. Josh Shapiro wants to spend $80M to attack Pennsylvania’s Housing Crisis”. March 18, 2024. https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2024/03/housing-shortage-rent-homeless-shapiro-budget-legislature-harrisburg-bipartisan/
[44] PA Housing Finance Agency. “PHARE Program” Pennsylvania Housing Affordability and Rehabilitation Enhancement Fund. 2024. https://www.phfa.org/legislation/act105.aspx
[45] Keith, Charlotte. “Demand for Pennsylvania’s Whole-Home Repairs Program has been overwhelming, but more funding is on hold.”
[46] Rep. Siegel, Joshua. MEMORANDUM — “Investing in the Future Redevelopment of Shopping Malls”. May 12, 2023. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?chamber=H&SPick=20230&cosponId=40761
[47] Rep. Siegel, Joshua, Rep. Guzman, Jr., Manuel, Rep. Khan, Tarik. MEMORANDUM — “Multi-Family Housing in Areas Zoned for Office Space. February 16, 2024. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?chamber=H&SPick=20230&cosponId=42138
[48] The General Assembly of Pennsylvania. “House Bill №2052”. 2024. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2023&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=2052&pn=2619
[49] The General Assembly of Pennsylvania. “House Bill №2045”. 2024. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2023&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=2045&pn=2611
[50] The General Assembly of Pennsylvania. “Senate Bill №619”. 2023. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2023&sessInd=0&billBody=S&billTyp=B&billNbr=0616&pn=0628
[51] The General Assembly of Pennsylvania. “House Bill №2098”. 2024. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2023&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=2098&pn=2682
[52] Rep. Nelson, Napoleon J. MEMORANDUM — “Combatting Homelessness Across Municipalities in PA (CHAMP) Act. August 24, 2023. https://www.legis.state.pa.us//cfdocs/Legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?chamber=H&SPick=20230&cosponId=41309
[53] The General Assembly of Pennsylvania. “House Bill №1386. 2023. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2023&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=1386&pn=2723
[54] Rep. Kutz, Thomas H. and Rep. Siegel, Joshua. MEMORANDUM — “Attainable Housing Community Delegation for Municipalities”. March 16, 2023. https://www.legis.state.pa.us//cfdocs/Legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?chamber=H&SPick=20230&cosponId=40194
[55] The General Assembly of Pennsylvania. House Bill №1257. 2023. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2023&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=1257&pn=1367
[56] Rep. Kinsey, Stephen and Rep. Khan, Tarik. MEMORANDUM — “Inclusionary Housing for New Developments”. May 5, 2023. https://www.legis.state.pa.us//cfdocs/Legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?chamber=H&SPick=20230&cosponId=40689
[57] The General Assembly of Pennsylvania. House Bill №1922. 2023. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2023&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=1922&pn=2454
[58] Rep. Freeman, Robert. MEMORANDUM — “Lease Purchase Option Home Ownership Program”. October 23, 2023. https://www.legis.state.pa.us//cfdocs/Legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?chamber=H&SPick=20230&cosponId=41642
[59] Pittsburgh Neighborhood Project. “Pittsburgh Neighborhood Disadvantage Map.” June 2020. https://alcogis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=460afe0c1e9d4f96b1aa8324358a94c7&fbclid=IwAR2AN8fHQpcJ6wSD_qHO5r74Y22CyvA8_NrfBe7r2W5PgHB8Lk-J4dXeJBY
[60] Visit Pittsburgh. “Neighborhoods”. 2024. https://www.visitpittsburgh.com/neighborhoods/
[61] United States Census Bureau. Number of Inhabitants. Pennsylvania. Table 5. Population of Incorporated Place of 10,000 or more from earliest census to 1960. https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/17216604v1p40ch02.pdf
[62] Muller, Edward K. “Downtown Pittsburgh: Renaissance and Renewal”. University of Pittsburgh Press. 2019. https://upittpress.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/9780822942825exr.pdf
[63] U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency. All-Transactions House Price Index for Pittsburgh, PA (MSA). Retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Band of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS3800Q. April 1, 2024.
[64] Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh. “OwnPgh Homeownership Program”. 2024. https://www.ura.org/pages/OwnPGH
[65] Giammarise, Kate. “Pittsburgh URA closes on 100th sale of affordable homeownership program”. April 29, 2024. https://www.wesa.fm/development-transportation/2024-04-29/pittsburgh-ura-affordable-homeownership-program-milestone
[66] Lauer, Hallie. “URA outlines spending plan for $30 million affordable housing bond”. May 2, 2024. https://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2024/05/01/pittsburgh-affordable-housing-bond-spending/stories/202405010117
[67] Mayo, Bob. “Tax breaks proposed to encourage conversion of downtown Pittsburgh office buildings to residential.” March 11, 2024. https://www.wtae.com/article/downtown-pittsburgh-office-residential-tax-break/60168214
[68] Giammarise, Kate. “Pittsburgh URA approves loans for two downtown office-to-affordable housing conversions”. April 11, 2024. https://www.wesa.fm/development-transportation/2024-04-11/pittsburgh-ura-loans-downtown-office-apartment-conversions
[69] Pennsylvania Department Human Services. “2023 AMI Tables”. June 2023. https://www.dhs.pa.gov/ERAP/Documents/ERAP_2020-2023-AMI-Tables_June2023.pdf
[70] County Executive Sara Innamorato. “All In Allegheny Action Plan”. Housing For All, Pg. 33. April 2024. https://www.alleghenycounty.us/files/assets/county/v/1/government/county-executive/all-in-allegheny-action-plan.pdf
[71] City of Pittsburgh, Title Nine: Zoning Code.
[72] Schooley, Tim. Pittsburgh Business Times. “Bobby Wilson and Pittsburgh Council majority tout new zoning revision legislation”. January 24, 2024. https://www.wpxi.com/news/local/bobby-wilson-pittsburgh-council-majority-tout-new-zoning-revision-legislation/4PSMVGVIKVDE7ENENIC3UCHS7A/
[73] Pennsylvania Municipal League and Pennsylvania Economy League. “It’s Not 1965 Anymore — State Tax Laws Fail to Meet Municipal Revenue Needs.” October 2022. https://www.pml.org/advocacy/pel-report-local-taxation-study/
[74] Pennsylvania. “Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania”. Article VIII, Sec. §1. 1874. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=00&div=0&chpt=8
[75] Pew Charitable Trusts. “How Pennsylvania Uniformity Clause Affects Property and Wage Taxes in Philadelphia.” March 9, 2022. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2022/03/how-pennsylvanias-uniformity-clause-affects-property-and-wage-taxes-in-philadelphia
[76] Pennsylvania Supreme Court. “Clifton v. Allegheny County 969 A.2d 1197, 1211 (PA. 2009)”. April 29, 2009. https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/commonwealth-court/2011/1779cd10-6-2-11.html
[77] Zenkevich, Julia. “Allegheny County Council aims to trim property reassessment appeals timelines”. WESA/NPR. January 24, 2024. https://www.wesa.fm/politics-government/2024-01-24/allegheny-county-council-aims-to-trim-property-reassessment-appeals-timelines#
[78] Varine, Patrick. “Time to change antiquated PA. tax system, municipal league says”. January 17, 2023. https://triblive.com/local/westmoreland/time-to-change-antiquated-pa-tax-system-municipal-league-says/
[79] Deto, Ryan. “’Perfect Storm’: Property Tax Crisis threatens suburban Allegheny County School Districts. April 28, 2024. https://triblive.com/news/education-classroom/perfect-storm-property-tax-crisis-threatens-suburban-allegheny-county-school-districts/
[80] Wolfson, Charlie and Lord, Rich. “Property Tax Appeals Erode Budgets as Assessment Burden Shifts.” February 1, 2024. https://www.publicsource.org/property-tax-reassessment-appeals-allegheny-county-assessments-innamorato-fitzgerald/
[81] Forstadt, Jillian. “Pittsburgh Public Schools considers steps to legally compel countywide property reassessment.” March 14, 2024. https://www.wesa.fm/education/2024-03-14/pittsburgh-public-schools-considers-steps-to-legally-compel-countywide-property-reassessment
[82] Bortz, Shelley. “Pittsburgh Public Schools solicitor wants to sue to force property reassessment.” March 14, 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/pittsburgh-public-schools-sue-allegheny-county-property-reassessment/
[83] Schiller, Meghan and Bartos, Madeline. “Pittsburgh Public Schools files lawsuit to force reassessment in Allegheny County”. April 9, 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/pittsburgh-public-schools-lawsuit-allegheny-county-reassessment/#
[84] Briem, Christopher. “Maybe it is rocket science: Before Allegheny County stopped reassessing property, it was almost a pioneer”. July 19, 2022. https://www.publicsource.org/allegheny-county-property-tax-assessments-unbalanced-history-chris-briem/
[85] Briem, Christopher. “From Atrophy to Rocket Science (and back): A Brief History of Property Assessments in Allegheny County (Unabridged)”. July 18, 2022. https://briem.medium.com/from-atrophy-to-rocket-science-and-back-a-brief-history-of-property-assessments-in-allegheny-988a1278be79
[86] Hopton, Ian. “Land Value Tax Guide”. The Pittsburgh Experience. Section 1. Box 1. https://landvaluetaxguide.com/the-pittsburgh-experience/?fbclid=IwAR2EkCY_pfByiVxPDNyB6Wi0rJkrKBXP_UasMevg-JH37RqtbwzxhYAgX4s_aem_AXEbZIxgrVUSeBt3PGPJMh2Zgwzdg3DyOMAIjSxn0RCB9Bt_vXv0ZiqJ4i0xw5aKqR98u0XVWiwxYJ9LTmZPi9EX
[87] Hughes, Mark Alan. “Why So Little Georgism in America?”. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. July 2006. https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/1275_hughes_final.pdf
[88] Hopton, Ian. “Land Value Tax Guide”. The Pittsburgh Experience. Section 2. https://landvaluetaxguide.com/the-pittsburgh-experience/?fbclid=IwAR2EkCY_pfByiVxPDNyB6Wi0rJkrKBXP_UasMevg-JH37RqtbwzxhYAgX4s_aem_AXEbZIxgrVUSeBt3PGPJMh2Zgwzdg3DyOMAIjSxn0RCB9Bt_vXv0ZiqJ4i0xw5aKqR98u0XVWiwxYJ9LTmZPi9EX
[89] Hopton, Ian. “Land Value Tax Guide”. The Pittsburgh Experience. Section 1. Box 2, “Fractional Value Assessments”. . https://landvaluetaxguide.com/the-pittsburgh-experience/?fbclid=IwAR2EkCY_pfByiVxPDNyB6Wi0rJkrKBXP_UasMevg-JH37RqtbwzxhYAgX4s_aem_AXEbZIxgrVUSeBt3PGPJMh2Zgwzdg3DyOMAIjSxn0RCB9Bt_vXv0ZiqJ4i0xw5aKqR98u0XVWiwxYJ9LTmZPi9EX
[90] Cord, Stephen B. “The 238 Report”. Box 238, Paragraph 4. http://savingcommunities.org/docs/cord.steven/238.html
[91] Spader, Jonathan. “Has Housing Filtering Stalled? Heterogeneous Outcomes in the American Housing Survey”. Housing Policy Debate. March 31, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2023.2298256
[92] National Low Income Housing Coalition. “New Study Examines Filtering Dynamics in U.S. Housing Supply”. February 12, 2024. https://nlihc.org/resource/new-study-examines-filtering-dynamics-us-housing-supply
[93] Mast, Evan. “The Effect of new market-rate housing construction on the low-income housing market.” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 133. January 2023. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119021000656#sec0018
[94] Asquith, Brian J.; Mast, Evan; Reed, Davin. “Local Effects of Large New Apartment Buildings in Low-Income Areas”. The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 105(2), p. 359–375. March 2023. https://tinyurl.com/mtxz2mph
[95] City of Pittsburgh, Title Nine: Zoning Code. https://library.municode.com/pa/pittsburgh/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PIZOCO_TITNINEZOCO
[96] Yang, Zhou. The Effects of the Two-Rate Property Tax: What Can We Learn from the Pennsylvania Experience?”. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 2014. https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/yang_wp14zy1.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0ik1kKcRrjBqweBgqfk3lb0ftj275Qnl8RLXG31v34SF70MWK7qtUZO0o_aem_AXFE8ie4xtVITQTp49888huLInDAqkZV27xKy-504Tmex1hX6EagyxZdoBCMp9P2-ZZV7kmXXsjTO-PXFrBzMNJV
[97] Vellucci, Justin. November 7, 2023. “There’s nowhere to go’: Pittsburgh Clears Homeless Camp.” https://triblive.com/local/theres-nowhere-to-go-pittsburgh-clears-homeless-camp/
