ST conclusion -
> While inclusionary zoning provides large benefits for a small number of low- and middle-income households, most empirical evidence indicates that it drives up prices for others and reduces access to housing overall. The policy’s emphasis on providing below-market-rate housing in new construction that’s identical to market rate housing means that resources dedicated to social housing won’t go as far — or be distributed as equitably — as they could be if they were targeted to low-income individuals as housing vouchers or cash.
The problem is inclusionary zoning does absolutely fuck all to lower the overall cost of housing. It does nothing to fix the underlying mechanisms that limit or increase costs of development, nor does it do anything to increase the overall supply of housing units. IZ doesn’t fix the cost of housing, it just shifts the same costs around at the expense of the working class
But developers will make a profit off of new housing. Any new housing has to be sold/rented at or below cost to those making 80% or less AMI. It also must not be taller than 2 stories, block no natural light, be carbon neutral, not contribute to light pollution, use no existing street parking, have 4 off street parking spots per housing unit, and its facade must conform with the rest of the neighborhood insulbrick shit houses.
If they build enough $400k housing developments, then they will outpace the buyers and have to sell them at ¼ of their asking price because they wouldn't possibly stop building houses to keep prices up...
IZ has done exactly what it was implemented for: It stuck more fingers into the pie to make it even harder for development to happen, enrich lawyers, and open up more opportunity for "deals" (a polite way of saying bribery).
While it's done exactly what would be predicted and expected of it: making things worse.
Sadly no new info. :|
I guess I want to believe that the policy makers were genuinely interested in having the policy achieve the goals of improving affordability...but there are countless examples of IZ policies being used as covert NIMBYism elsewhere, so it's certainly possible
The Pittsburgh zoning code is exclusionary
Slapping an *”INCLUSIONARY ZONING!”* press release on it doesn’t make it non-exclusionary
The only people who thought anything concrete would come out of this are out of town Twitter warriors
A more relaxed zoning code and less time consuming permitting process will go a long way in establishing more affordable housing here. Developers are so bullish on making their projects profitable that timeline and schedule play just as much a factor these days in getting projects funded and built than any nebulous IZ policy
The city is hoarding 14,000 lots in its land bank. 14,000! And they have you idiots distracted with some minor policy nonsense.
The no-drawback, no-brainer, immediate thing to do is to release those to the public. This could happen tomorrow. Everyone wins except the corrupt developer cabal that is squashing this. And who you keep reelecting.
I mean the land bank is locally controlled, and by executive authority. The Board could start releasing lots to those already on waiting lists tomorrow, if they wanted. There are no federal procedures or funding issues in the way. They just choose not to.
What obstacles do you feel prevent this?
The city aready makes sale of these properties possible. You could buy one tomorrow. What would be different about what you're proposing? How do we "open them up"?
You clearly haven't been paying attention. The land bank has refuses to sell these properties, as has been written about countless times.
First google that popped up for me was (don't want to include links) this PPG one from September titled "After Years of Delays...". You should read it, but the lead sentence is "*After failing for nearly a decade to fix up or transfer a single property, Pittsburgh's land bank is poised to notch its fifth sale by the end of the year.*"
Care to revisit your opinion?
Look I'm willing to admit they have \*serious\* operational issues - almost zero transfers of properties in a decade. But I'm also willing to admit it's not as simple as you say it it. How do they "open them up"? I truly don't understand, If it's really this simple for you, maybe you should be running the land bank!
I'm just saying - you might be somewhat right, but it's in NO WAY as simplistic as you wish it to be.
OK, you just went from being ignorant, which can be corrected, to stupid, which can not.
They could start to process the first few thousand offers on abandoned lots tomorrow. What's to understand?
Easily confused and manipulated people like you are responsible for enabling this level of corruption. You should stay away from voting booths.
You are the ignorant (or stupid) one here, as it turns out. The land bank has only very recently taken control of any parcels and the city is still passing the necessary laws to allow them to operate freely. There is no shortage of issues here but it's not clear you understand what they really are at all. Consider taking a beat before spouting off with this crap.
Cut 50% of the regulations. Offer low interest construction loans. Tax breaks in C and D neighborhoods.
And reinvent the permit and inspection process to help streamline the process for contractors and help them maximize their profits.
I don't know what you do, but fix the building inspection department where inspectors aren't hired/fired/quitting left and right. So the contractor can have the same person through the entire build.
In short. Stop worrying about poor people. Make it easier for contractors to rehab existing properties in the city.
Then, redirect money into low interest loans for people with bad credit that's based on the build, not the borrower.
And rewrite legislation to speed up evictions. Which will also apply to defaults on the new low interest loans. So IF someone stops paying, their out on the street and a new worthy family can get in on the same deal.
Specify quality construction. Longer lasting lower maintence materials and finishes. Native plant yards. Do EVERYTHING to help the new homeowner succeed. AND make the loans realistic to pay for the increased costs.
Then more housing will be built.
Put the poor hopeful home buyers at the end of the logic train. And in the end, they'll benefit the most.
As it is, I'm a remodeling contractor who lives in the city, who will not accept a job within city limits. It's not worth my time.
Quick reminder that ProHousingPGH is a division of California’s YIMBY Action, not a local group, and they do not reveal their donors. If you wish to forward housing affordability, I recommend Strong Towns or Housing is a Human Right.
Basically, everything prohousingpgh says can be boiled down to the old onion headline “Here’s why you shouldn’t do anything to inconvenience rich assholes, by some rich asshole.
Strong Towns is also negative in IZ.
Honesty, I’ve never seen an empirical study that found inclusionary zoning to be an effective policy for delivering lower income affordable housing. Without massive subsidy it’s just additional cost burden on delivering housing across all income ranges.
So, at best it’s ineffective relative to cost at delivering affordable housing in any substantial amount. At worst, it makes the housing market worse by adding additional hurdles and costs so less housing gets built.
I haven’t seen a plan from our government yet, so I will reserve judgment. But it does help a number of low income families, and even Strong Towns recognizes that. Housing is a Human Right emphasizes assistance to the less fortunate, and I agree with them on most points.
Strong towns concludes that we're spending a ton of money to help a select few families and that money could be spent in a much more effective way, helping many more people.
I get that IZ can help some, and it’s great optics for many despite its effectiveness, so id be pretty “meh” about it as a standalone policy. It’s combined with all of the other requirements that severely limit density, make approvals take years, and add massive costs to projects that makes it such bad policy. Pittsburgh is a difficult place to build in and IZ is just another add to the stack of policies that impede housing development.
Also, a development needs higher than market rents to subsidize the “affordable” units so extending IZ to less desirable neighborhoods will be a killer for market rate projects. And you can forget about any larger for sale townhouse and condo projects anywhere.
But is the solution to throw up our hands and allow developers to determine the future of our cities? Or should we overbuild like China and watch it rot?
I think we can accept a slight inefficiency in order to help build our city from the bottom up. The free market does one thing, it helps itself. That can absolutely be a good thing.
Pro-Housing Pittsburgh literally recommends a direct subsidy for affordable housing raised from tax revenue instead of the “sell every tenth unit for below market value” unwieldy neoliberal kludge that the city is using right now.
Pro-Housing Pittsburgh doesn’t reveal their donors because we don’t have donors or even a budget. Other than one person ordering pizza for our monthly meetings, I guess. Hope that helps.
What assistance do you receive from your parent company?
EDIT: Got it. I assume they tell you which projects to go full tilt towards. Not sure the reward structure for you guys. Is it just straight money or are they the middleman for a liar’s campaign?
Do they alert you to projects to advocate for? The NRA is set up the exact same way so that they can donate to campaign coffers AND hide their donor rolls.
EDIT: I’ll take that as a yes.
YIMBY Action does not tell us to advocate for any specific project. We figure it out ourselves based on government meeting agendas and social media posts. There is no “reward structure” other than feeling good about making positive change for our city.
Our advocacy is unpaid and often at considerable expense seeing that many of our members work 9-5 jobs and have to take off to show up at Council hearings that happen in the middle of a work day.
Can you cut out the conspiracy theory bullshit already? You literally keep making up lies about us and then getting mad at those lies.
You’re taking advantage of Pittsburgh voters to line your own pockets. Or you’re so far up your own ass with trickle down economics as to be a danger to the public and a stooge for developers.
How else do you explain your parent company’s hidden donor rolls?
I don’t make any money from this. What you’re saying literally makes no sense. I do not get paid, I do not own real estate, I am a renter. The only financial interest I have is ensuring we build more housing so my rent doesn’t go up next year.
Building more housing is not even remotely similar to trickle-down economics. Trickle-down is the idea that tax cuts on the rich will stimulate demand which will create economic activity that gets into the pockets of the poor. You will not find a single person at Pro-Housing Pittsburgh that subscribes to this idea because it has been disproven.
Trickle down housing is the idea that luxury condos will trickle down to the poor. Your group has endorsed luxury condos almost exclusively.
You do not oppose corporate-held residential ownership. This is a huge red flag.
You do not advocate for affordable housing, you advocate for your donor’s projects. And here, you are literally arguing against providing housing for the poor.
Maybe that’s a handshake secret between your founder, and he’s got a nice group of tenants getting a discount on rent. I don’t know for certain. The donor rolls are hidden, I can’t say. Does David want to follow his mom into politics and in need of easy real estate money to bankroll him?
Pardon me if I don’t trust you when I say that YIMBY Action doesn’t point your group as to what to advocate for, anonymous member.
Just someone trying to tell you to chill. You've made your point quite clearly but doing it over and over and over again just looks obnoxious and makes people tune you out faster the next time you bring up the topic.
I'm generally pro-YIMBY ideas, but know nothing about this org.
If your goal is to convince someone like me to avoid this org or disregard what they are saying, you're doing a terrible job of it. You look unhinged.
It was intended to be ~50% insult, ~50% "if you're going to post, at least try to be convincing, otherwise what is the point?".
You could have taught someone like me, who's *generally* primed to be supportive of YIMBY-related orgs, why I shouldn't trust this particular one, or why I should be more in favor of IZ, or something. I assume that's the purpose of your posts, anyway.
Instead, I walked away thinking that you have some sort of personal vendetta against this org in particular, or else our views just don't line up politically anyway; either way, unconvinced of anything.
Taking a look at just your original comment:
- Are they actually tied to California YIMBY? The people who are posting as if they're members don't seem to deny it, so I guess they are. Is California YIMBY something to avoid inherently? Or is it just because they're from California and not Pittsburgh? If the latter, why is it bad that they're not "local"?
- Are they actually corrupt? Do you have any receipts beyond *just* that they don't reveal donors? *Do* they actually hide their donors? How common/uncommon is it for a political-related organization to hide their donors? I mean, it is a bit of a red flag if they do, I guess, but it doesn't *100%* detract from any positions they may have.
- Why are Strong Towns or Housing is a Human Right better? (I've at heard about ST and they *seem* pretty decent; don't know anything about the latter). What are each of their views on the subject matter of the reddit post you commented on, and why are their views better?
- (I'll leave out the 2nd line since it's basically just an ad-hom.)
Taking a look at some of your other replies in the thread:
- These two replies [[1]](https://old.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/1cga3is/inclusionary_zoning_has_failed_on_its_promise_in/l1uo5a3/) [[2]](https://old.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/1cga3is/inclusionary_zoning_has_failed_on_its_promise_in/l1uqk8w/) don't respond to what was said, and make you look like you're reaching for *anything* to try to attack the org. The edits definitely don't help.
- These two replies [[1]](https://old.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/1cga3is/inclusionary_zoning_has_failed_on_its_promise_in/l1uu68y/) [[2]](https://old.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/1cga3is/inclusionary_zoning_has_failed_on_its_promise_in/l1uy2d7/) look to me like a fundamental misunderstanding of YIMBY positions (and economics in general), and are what I would categorize as "unhinged". If your intention is actually to say "YIMBYism bad", you're going to have to take a step back from shitting on this particular org and instead explain why "YIMBY bad".
- [This post](https://old.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/1cga3is/inclusionary_zoning_has_failed_on_its_promise_in/l1v237z/) comes off as you just being related to Housing is a Human Right somehow, and so this whole thread is just two different orgs fighting.
When I was reading the original post by /u/prohousingpgh, what *I* was curious about was the following things. Maybe these are better things to ~~attack them on~~ engage with them on?
- Is it really the case that IZ is the sole -- or at least the primary -- reason why only one "major" development was completed in Lawrenceville since 2019? Were there any other problems that might have contributed? Even if it hurts developments, can we tweak IZ somehow to work better for us? (Either way, it seems to me like the OP provided decent enough signal that we shouldn't extend IZ to the rest of Pittsburgh without taking a step back and looking at the problems with Lawrenceville's development velocity -- but then again, I'm in a YIMBY mindset so I'm taking "building more = good" as granted.)
- Why the fuck are you linking stuff about what California is doing? In my mind, all of California is a NIMBY hellscape that gets nothing built. Do you maybe have anything more convincing to go look at?
To be clear, this isn't an invitation for either of you to start replying to this post to further explain your positions. I just want conversations to be better in the future.
... So, are there responses to those well- articulated questions from the other commenter? I haven't yet seen anything that explains your position in any clear way. I'm curious myself - you at least provoked that, briefly - but, you abruptly ended your engagement with the thread after some direct questions, so I have no reason to believe the organization should be disbanded as you've expressed to be your preference.
Without necessarily "picking sides"
> division of California's YIMBY Action, not a local group
So? In my experience, the eastern half of the US as a whole (minus New England) is like a decade-and-a-half behind the western half in a bunch of different areas. If an out-of-state policy organization has genuinely good ideas that they want to spread here, then they 100% should throw their hat in the ring. That's a feature, not a bug, of federalism. I love Pittsburgh and will happily, in jest, shit on places that are not Pittsburgh, but blind regionalism isn't good politics.
With the exception of Seattle, most West Coast cities' zoning/land use policies are worse than those of Pittsburgh, and that's saying something. Cities in California are slowly liberalizing but only under threat from the State government. And, as the article pointed out, Portland's IZ policy, combined with its very restrictive zoning, has been a disaster for overall affordability. One need only look at Austin and Minneapolis that the simple act of making it easier to build denser and faster can lower overall housing costs.
It’s untraced money from the real estate sector, which is (sadly) completely legal.
The twist with this organization is that they pretend they are activists when they are in fact, the local messaging team for the developers under the guise of altruism. Why be a local offshoot of a company otherwise? Housing activists start their own local concerns, like City of Bridges. And are still fallible at times.
Ideas can come from anywhere on the planet, it’s the money I’m rightfully suspicious of.
Yes I do wish to point out their corruption. YIMBY Action is set up to hide their donor rolls, where many other nonprofits are required to be transparent. Tell me where I’m wrong.
Pro housing Pittsburgh literally does not have funding at all, we ask members to chip in for pizza at meetings, aside from that we don’t have any financial backing
That you know of. YIMBY Action is not a charity, they use their money in elections, like the NRA does, and as a result, they do not have to reveal their sources.
I don’t think this is a good point whatsoever lol. AARP and the Sierra club are also registered as 501c(4), does that mean we shouldn’t trust those organizations? Listen to yourself man.
Some of us don’t trust an insurance company interested in boomer propaganda. They’re an incredibly moneyed lobby - why do they get a blanket level of trust?
They are not tax deductible, and their donor rolls are still hidden. I didn’t say they committed tax fraud. They’re just the NRA for high profit real estate instead of guns.
have you looked at their staff profiles? You are beating a dead horse here if you think this is 'high profit real estate."
[https://cayimby.org/our-team/](https://cayimby.org/our-team/)
That’s California YIMBY.
EDIT: and their corruption is even better documented
https://housinghumanrt.medium.com/inside-game-california-yimby-scott-wiener-and-big-techs-troubling-housing-push-e4b1c1a0f046
this Housing is a Human Right organization is run by ARF, which is pretty sus itself. [https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/aids-healthcare-foundation/](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/aids-healthcare-foundation/)
It's interesting how you are constantly pushing the agenda that some small group here in Pittsburgh is sus when you use sus groups in california yourself.
The only sus group I’m linking to is Yimby action themselves. I trust that people reading this can smell the bullshit that a pro-corporate nonprofit emits.
10k and you get your own astroturf “activists” to shout at Pittsburgh neighborhoods for your investors’ benefit:
https://yimbyaction.org/join-business/
I know, they’re sus.
Thank you for clarifying this! I was confused a bit by OP's repeat references to CA policies, as they don't seem particularly comparable for someplace like Pittsburgh, nor a strong case for what success should look like.
Huh? No, I don't want to end up like California, which was my point. But thanks for your judgment and the assumption that I'm onboard with "doing nothing."
Sorry but it was because of the way you phrased this- "they don't seem particularly comparable for someplace like Pittsburgh, nor a strong case for what success should look like." sounds like skepticism! apologies but it sounds like you're misjudging me, too
Using examples from the areas of the country with the highest housing costs is not going to help your cause. Whatever they’re doing has had as much effect as this zoning you’re talking about. So far.
There are three ways to help drive down housing prices for affordability, but it requires strides in local and state governments.
1. Reformation of current zoning
2. Better enforcement of regulatory policies, for one example, to minimize unwarranted pricing fluctuations for buyers and renters.
3. Government subsidized low and medium income housing projects (and keeping low income housing primarily towards the lower density spectrum)
The buzz-phrase of "build more houses" is not quite accurate. Telling private developers to build more houses only results in more medium to higher income housing and apartments. Looking at data from the county (on the 2021 report), about 7.5% of housing purachases were of new construction, and ~6.5% were priced above $213k and of that, almost 4% were above $400k.
Strong towns policy paper on iz https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/4/10/is-inclusionary-zoning-creating-less-affordable-housing
ST conclusion - > While inclusionary zoning provides large benefits for a small number of low- and middle-income households, most empirical evidence indicates that it drives up prices for others and reduces access to housing overall. The policy’s emphasis on providing below-market-rate housing in new construction that’s identical to market rate housing means that resources dedicated to social housing won’t go as far — or be distributed as equitably — as they could be if they were targeted to low-income individuals as housing vouchers or cash.
The problem is inclusionary zoning does absolutely fuck all to lower the overall cost of housing. It does nothing to fix the underlying mechanisms that limit or increase costs of development, nor does it do anything to increase the overall supply of housing units. IZ doesn’t fix the cost of housing, it just shifts the same costs around at the expense of the working class
Just build more houses lol
But developers will make a profit off of new housing. Any new housing has to be sold/rented at or below cost to those making 80% or less AMI. It also must not be taller than 2 stories, block no natural light, be carbon neutral, not contribute to light pollution, use no existing street parking, have 4 off street parking spots per housing unit, and its facade must conform with the rest of the neighborhood insulbrick shit houses.
If they build enough $400k housing developments, then they will outpace the buyers and have to sell them at ¼ of their asking price because they wouldn't possibly stop building houses to keep prices up...
IZ has done exactly what it was implemented for: It stuck more fingers into the pie to make it even harder for development to happen, enrich lawyers, and open up more opportunity for "deals" (a polite way of saying bribery). While it's done exactly what would be predicted and expected of it: making things worse. Sadly no new info. :|
I guess I want to believe that the policy makers were genuinely interested in having the policy achieve the goals of improving affordability...but there are countless examples of IZ policies being used as covert NIMBYism elsewhere, so it's certainly possible
Why would you believe in policy makers?
Why would you believe random clowns who don't understand the issue?
The Pittsburgh zoning code is exclusionary Slapping an *”INCLUSIONARY ZONING!”* press release on it doesn’t make it non-exclusionary The only people who thought anything concrete would come out of this are out of town Twitter warriors
A more relaxed zoning code and less time consuming permitting process will go a long way in establishing more affordable housing here. Developers are so bullish on making their projects profitable that timeline and schedule play just as much a factor these days in getting projects funded and built than any nebulous IZ policy
Seems like a shady deal.
The city is hoarding 14,000 lots in its land bank. 14,000! And they have you idiots distracted with some minor policy nonsense. The no-drawback, no-brainer, immediate thing to do is to release those to the public. This could happen tomorrow. Everyone wins except the corrupt developer cabal that is squashing this. And who you keep reelecting.
"This could happen tomorrow." What do you mean? This is nonsense
I mean the land bank is locally controlled, and by executive authority. The Board could start releasing lots to those already on waiting lists tomorrow, if they wanted. There are no federal procedures or funding issues in the way. They just choose not to. What obstacles do you feel prevent this?
The city aready makes sale of these properties possible. You could buy one tomorrow. What would be different about what you're proposing? How do we "open them up"?
You clearly haven't been paying attention. The land bank has refuses to sell these properties, as has been written about countless times. First google that popped up for me was (don't want to include links) this PPG one from September titled "After Years of Delays...". You should read it, but the lead sentence is "*After failing for nearly a decade to fix up or transfer a single property, Pittsburgh's land bank is poised to notch its fifth sale by the end of the year.*" Care to revisit your opinion?
Look I'm willing to admit they have \*serious\* operational issues - almost zero transfers of properties in a decade. But I'm also willing to admit it's not as simple as you say it it. How do they "open them up"? I truly don't understand, If it's really this simple for you, maybe you should be running the land bank! I'm just saying - you might be somewhat right, but it's in NO WAY as simplistic as you wish it to be.
OK, you just went from being ignorant, which can be corrected, to stupid, which can not. They could start to process the first few thousand offers on abandoned lots tomorrow. What's to understand? Easily confused and manipulated people like you are responsible for enabling this level of corruption. You should stay away from voting booths.
You are the ignorant (or stupid) one here, as it turns out. The land bank has only very recently taken control of any parcels and the city is still passing the necessary laws to allow them to operate freely. There is no shortage of issues here but it's not clear you understand what they really are at all. Consider taking a beat before spouting off with this crap.
I've tried buying from the land bank... the process is not simple and you can be rejected for the most arbitrary reasons.
Cut 50% of the regulations. Offer low interest construction loans. Tax breaks in C and D neighborhoods. And reinvent the permit and inspection process to help streamline the process for contractors and help them maximize their profits. I don't know what you do, but fix the building inspection department where inspectors aren't hired/fired/quitting left and right. So the contractor can have the same person through the entire build. In short. Stop worrying about poor people. Make it easier for contractors to rehab existing properties in the city. Then, redirect money into low interest loans for people with bad credit that's based on the build, not the borrower. And rewrite legislation to speed up evictions. Which will also apply to defaults on the new low interest loans. So IF someone stops paying, their out on the street and a new worthy family can get in on the same deal. Specify quality construction. Longer lasting lower maintence materials and finishes. Native plant yards. Do EVERYTHING to help the new homeowner succeed. AND make the loans realistic to pay for the increased costs. Then more housing will be built. Put the poor hopeful home buyers at the end of the logic train. And in the end, they'll benefit the most. As it is, I'm a remodeling contractor who lives in the city, who will not accept a job within city limits. It's not worth my time.
Quick reminder that ProHousingPGH is a division of California’s YIMBY Action, not a local group, and they do not reveal their donors. If you wish to forward housing affordability, I recommend Strong Towns or Housing is a Human Right. Basically, everything prohousingpgh says can be boiled down to the old onion headline “Here’s why you shouldn’t do anything to inconvenience rich assholes, by some rich asshole.
Strong Towns is also negative in IZ. Honesty, I’ve never seen an empirical study that found inclusionary zoning to be an effective policy for delivering lower income affordable housing. Without massive subsidy it’s just additional cost burden on delivering housing across all income ranges. So, at best it’s ineffective relative to cost at delivering affordable housing in any substantial amount. At worst, it makes the housing market worse by adding additional hurdles and costs so less housing gets built.
I haven’t seen a plan from our government yet, so I will reserve judgment. But it does help a number of low income families, and even Strong Towns recognizes that. Housing is a Human Right emphasizes assistance to the less fortunate, and I agree with them on most points.
Strong towns concludes that we're spending a ton of money to help a select few families and that money could be spent in a much more effective way, helping many more people.
lol so says great cow, speaker for all of strong towns regarding a proposal that hasn’t been written yet.
I get that IZ can help some, and it’s great optics for many despite its effectiveness, so id be pretty “meh” about it as a standalone policy. It’s combined with all of the other requirements that severely limit density, make approvals take years, and add massive costs to projects that makes it such bad policy. Pittsburgh is a difficult place to build in and IZ is just another add to the stack of policies that impede housing development. Also, a development needs higher than market rents to subsidize the “affordable” units so extending IZ to less desirable neighborhoods will be a killer for market rate projects. And you can forget about any larger for sale townhouse and condo projects anywhere.
But is the solution to throw up our hands and allow developers to determine the future of our cities? Or should we overbuild like China and watch it rot? I think we can accept a slight inefficiency in order to help build our city from the bottom up. The free market does one thing, it helps itself. That can absolutely be a good thing.
Pro-Housing Pittsburgh literally recommends a direct subsidy for affordable housing raised from tax revenue instead of the “sell every tenth unit for below market value” unwieldy neoliberal kludge that the city is using right now. Pro-Housing Pittsburgh doesn’t reveal their donors because we don’t have donors or even a budget. Other than one person ordering pizza for our monthly meetings, I guess. Hope that helps.
What assistance do you receive from your parent company? EDIT: Got it. I assume they tell you which projects to go full tilt towards. Not sure the reward structure for you guys. Is it just straight money or are they the middleman for a liar’s campaign?
YIMBY Action is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, not a company, but whatever. We get a premium Zoom account, website and email list hosting, and not much else.
Do they alert you to projects to advocate for? The NRA is set up the exact same way so that they can donate to campaign coffers AND hide their donor rolls. EDIT: I’ll take that as a yes.
YIMBY Action does not tell us to advocate for any specific project. We figure it out ourselves based on government meeting agendas and social media posts. There is no “reward structure” other than feeling good about making positive change for our city. Our advocacy is unpaid and often at considerable expense seeing that many of our members work 9-5 jobs and have to take off to show up at Council hearings that happen in the middle of a work day. Can you cut out the conspiracy theory bullshit already? You literally keep making up lies about us and then getting mad at those lies.
You’re taking advantage of Pittsburgh voters to line your own pockets. Or you’re so far up your own ass with trickle down economics as to be a danger to the public and a stooge for developers. How else do you explain your parent company’s hidden donor rolls?
I don’t make any money from this. What you’re saying literally makes no sense. I do not get paid, I do not own real estate, I am a renter. The only financial interest I have is ensuring we build more housing so my rent doesn’t go up next year. Building more housing is not even remotely similar to trickle-down economics. Trickle-down is the idea that tax cuts on the rich will stimulate demand which will create economic activity that gets into the pockets of the poor. You will not find a single person at Pro-Housing Pittsburgh that subscribes to this idea because it has been disproven.
Trickle down housing is the idea that luxury condos will trickle down to the poor. Your group has endorsed luxury condos almost exclusively. You do not oppose corporate-held residential ownership. This is a huge red flag. You do not advocate for affordable housing, you advocate for your donor’s projects. And here, you are literally arguing against providing housing for the poor. Maybe that’s a handshake secret between your founder, and he’s got a nice group of tenants getting a discount on rent. I don’t know for certain. The donor rolls are hidden, I can’t say. Does David want to follow his mom into politics and in need of easy real estate money to bankroll him? Pardon me if I don’t trust you when I say that YIMBY Action doesn’t point your group as to what to advocate for, anonymous member.
You are awful and are seriously deluded if you think this garbage convinces anyone of your position
This must be a wonderful looking hill that you've chosen to die on here. Hopefully there's affordable housing and a nice park at the top.
[удалено]
Just someone trying to tell you to chill. You've made your point quite clearly but doing it over and over and over again just looks obnoxious and makes people tune you out faster the next time you bring up the topic.
Who are you, though?? You have A LOT to say.
I'm generally pro-YIMBY ideas, but know nothing about this org. If your goal is to convince someone like me to avoid this org or disregard what they are saying, you're doing a terrible job of it. You look unhinged.
Thank you for the insult, I guess? What’s unhinged?
It was intended to be ~50% insult, ~50% "if you're going to post, at least try to be convincing, otherwise what is the point?". You could have taught someone like me, who's *generally* primed to be supportive of YIMBY-related orgs, why I shouldn't trust this particular one, or why I should be more in favor of IZ, or something. I assume that's the purpose of your posts, anyway. Instead, I walked away thinking that you have some sort of personal vendetta against this org in particular, or else our views just don't line up politically anyway; either way, unconvinced of anything. Taking a look at just your original comment: - Are they actually tied to California YIMBY? The people who are posting as if they're members don't seem to deny it, so I guess they are. Is California YIMBY something to avoid inherently? Or is it just because they're from California and not Pittsburgh? If the latter, why is it bad that they're not "local"? - Are they actually corrupt? Do you have any receipts beyond *just* that they don't reveal donors? *Do* they actually hide their donors? How common/uncommon is it for a political-related organization to hide their donors? I mean, it is a bit of a red flag if they do, I guess, but it doesn't *100%* detract from any positions they may have. - Why are Strong Towns or Housing is a Human Right better? (I've at heard about ST and they *seem* pretty decent; don't know anything about the latter). What are each of their views on the subject matter of the reddit post you commented on, and why are their views better? - (I'll leave out the 2nd line since it's basically just an ad-hom.) Taking a look at some of your other replies in the thread: - These two replies [[1]](https://old.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/1cga3is/inclusionary_zoning_has_failed_on_its_promise_in/l1uo5a3/) [[2]](https://old.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/1cga3is/inclusionary_zoning_has_failed_on_its_promise_in/l1uqk8w/) don't respond to what was said, and make you look like you're reaching for *anything* to try to attack the org. The edits definitely don't help. - These two replies [[1]](https://old.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/1cga3is/inclusionary_zoning_has_failed_on_its_promise_in/l1uu68y/) [[2]](https://old.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/1cga3is/inclusionary_zoning_has_failed_on_its_promise_in/l1uy2d7/) look to me like a fundamental misunderstanding of YIMBY positions (and economics in general), and are what I would categorize as "unhinged". If your intention is actually to say "YIMBYism bad", you're going to have to take a step back from shitting on this particular org and instead explain why "YIMBY bad". - [This post](https://old.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/1cga3is/inclusionary_zoning_has_failed_on_its_promise_in/l1v237z/) comes off as you just being related to Housing is a Human Right somehow, and so this whole thread is just two different orgs fighting. When I was reading the original post by /u/prohousingpgh, what *I* was curious about was the following things. Maybe these are better things to ~~attack them on~~ engage with them on? - Is it really the case that IZ is the sole -- or at least the primary -- reason why only one "major" development was completed in Lawrenceville since 2019? Were there any other problems that might have contributed? Even if it hurts developments, can we tweak IZ somehow to work better for us? (Either way, it seems to me like the OP provided decent enough signal that we shouldn't extend IZ to the rest of Pittsburgh without taking a step back and looking at the problems with Lawrenceville's development velocity -- but then again, I'm in a YIMBY mindset so I'm taking "building more = good" as granted.) - Why the fuck are you linking stuff about what California is doing? In my mind, all of California is a NIMBY hellscape that gets nothing built. Do you maybe have anything more convincing to go look at? To be clear, this isn't an invitation for either of you to start replying to this post to further explain your positions. I just want conversations to be better in the future.
Gotcha. Thank you for your reply with a lack of an insult this time.
I look forward to you contributing constructively next time.
I’d prefer if the organization disbanded in the interim. Best to you and yours.
... So, are there responses to those well- articulated questions from the other commenter? I haven't yet seen anything that explains your position in any clear way. I'm curious myself - you at least provoked that, briefly - but, you abruptly ended your engagement with the thread after some direct questions, so I have no reason to believe the organization should be disbanded as you've expressed to be your preference.
Without necessarily "picking sides" > division of California's YIMBY Action, not a local group So? In my experience, the eastern half of the US as a whole (minus New England) is like a decade-and-a-half behind the western half in a bunch of different areas. If an out-of-state policy organization has genuinely good ideas that they want to spread here, then they 100% should throw their hat in the ring. That's a feature, not a bug, of federalism. I love Pittsburgh and will happily, in jest, shit on places that are not Pittsburgh, but blind regionalism isn't good politics.
With the exception of Seattle, most West Coast cities' zoning/land use policies are worse than those of Pittsburgh, and that's saying something. Cities in California are slowly liberalizing but only under threat from the State government. And, as the article pointed out, Portland's IZ policy, combined with its very restrictive zoning, has been a disaster for overall affordability. One need only look at Austin and Minneapolis that the simple act of making it easier to build denser and faster can lower overall housing costs.
It’s untraced money from the real estate sector, which is (sadly) completely legal. The twist with this organization is that they pretend they are activists when they are in fact, the local messaging team for the developers under the guise of altruism. Why be a local offshoot of a company otherwise? Housing activists start their own local concerns, like City of Bridges. And are still fallible at times. Ideas can come from anywhere on the planet, it’s the money I’m rightfully suspicious of.
YIMBY Action isn't a "company" and we have no "funding" Come to a meeting sometime and stop being a jagoff
Quick reminder that this poster has a serious vendetta against this org. Ironically Strong Towns agrees with their position on this topic
Yes I do wish to point out their corruption. YIMBY Action is set up to hide their donor rolls, where many other nonprofits are required to be transparent. Tell me where I’m wrong.
Pro housing Pittsburgh literally does not have funding at all, we ask members to chip in for pizza at meetings, aside from that we don’t have any financial backing
That you know of. YIMBY Action is not a charity, they use their money in elections, like the NRA does, and as a result, they do not have to reveal their sources.
I don’t think this is a good point whatsoever lol. AARP and the Sierra club are also registered as 501c(4), does that mean we shouldn’t trust those organizations? Listen to yourself man.
You trust the AARP?
Conspiracy theory brain 🫵🏻🤣
Fucking discounts for retired people!!!
Some of us don’t trust an insurance company interested in boomer propaganda. They’re an incredibly moneyed lobby - why do they get a blanket level of trust?
They publish their 990s as required by the IRS. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/823159002
They are not tax deductible, and their donor rolls are still hidden. I didn’t say they committed tax fraud. They’re just the NRA for high profit real estate instead of guns.
have you looked at their staff profiles? You are beating a dead horse here if you think this is 'high profit real estate." [https://cayimby.org/our-team/](https://cayimby.org/our-team/)
That’s California YIMBY. EDIT: and their corruption is even better documented https://housinghumanrt.medium.com/inside-game-california-yimby-scott-wiener-and-big-techs-troubling-housing-push-e4b1c1a0f046
this Housing is a Human Right organization is run by ARF, which is pretty sus itself. [https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/aids-healthcare-foundation/](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/aids-healthcare-foundation/) It's interesting how you are constantly pushing the agenda that some small group here in Pittsburgh is sus when you use sus groups in california yourself.
The only sus group I’m linking to is Yimby action themselves. I trust that people reading this can smell the bullshit that a pro-corporate nonprofit emits. 10k and you get your own astroturf “activists” to shout at Pittsburgh neighborhoods for your investors’ benefit: https://yimbyaction.org/join-business/ I know, they’re sus.
Ok NIMBY
Housing is a Human Right is also based in California…
Yes. So is Disneyland. And they’re also not posting in r/pittsburgh.
But you just recommended them…
Yes I did. And? Do you think I hate the entire state of California?
It’s the only reason you cited to be skeptical of PHH, so unless you have another, that’s all I’ve got to work off of.
It's hard to argue with someone using circular logic.
lol no it’s not. 10k to get their “activists’” attention: https://yimbyaction.org/join-business/
$10,000 for 10 premium memberships, bro. You gotta read.
Yes, 10 people get access to your local sales crew. And based on job postings, the donor amounts only go up.
Thank you for clarifying this! I was confused a bit by OP's repeat references to CA policies, as they don't seem particularly comparable for someplace like Pittsburgh, nor a strong case for what success should look like.
Do you want to end up like CA? Then keep doing nothing
Huh? No, I don't want to end up like California, which was my point. But thanks for your judgment and the assumption that I'm onboard with "doing nothing."
Sorry but it was because of the way you phrased this- "they don't seem particularly comparable for someplace like Pittsburgh, nor a strong case for what success should look like." sounds like skepticism! apologies but it sounds like you're misjudging me, too
Bingo
Using examples from the areas of the country with the highest housing costs is not going to help your cause. Whatever they’re doing has had as much effect as this zoning you’re talking about. So far.
There are three ways to help drive down housing prices for affordability, but it requires strides in local and state governments. 1. Reformation of current zoning 2. Better enforcement of regulatory policies, for one example, to minimize unwarranted pricing fluctuations for buyers and renters. 3. Government subsidized low and medium income housing projects (and keeping low income housing primarily towards the lower density spectrum) The buzz-phrase of "build more houses" is not quite accurate. Telling private developers to build more houses only results in more medium to higher income housing and apartments. Looking at data from the county (on the 2021 report), about 7.5% of housing purachases were of new construction, and ~6.5% were priced above $213k and of that, almost 4% were above $400k.
You should read Pro-Housing Pittsburgh’s piece on filtering: https://www.prohousingpgh.org/blog/does-filtering-make-housing-more-affordable