PITTSBURGH — In Pittsburgh, a contentious legal battle is underway over inclusionary zoning and affordable housing requirements.
Developers behind a proposed apartment complex called “The Caroline,” planned for McKee Place in Oakland, recently filed a federal lawsuit. They argue that the city’s mandate — that new developments of 20 or more units must set aside at least 10 percent of those units as affordable housing — is unconstitutional.
The Builders Association of Metropolitan Pittsburgh, which represents Walnut Capital, claims that being forced to include below-market-rate units will cause developers to lose money.
Attorney Jonathan Kamin, who represents the Builders Association, explained the group’s position, saying, “BAMP is for affordable housing, but you have to pay for it. The city can’t take from a developer and not pay for what is taken.”
He argued that when the Caroline project was first approved, Walnut Capital was aware of the mandate but believed they were exempt from inclusionary zoning rules.
“At the time that this project was approved, there was a requirement for inclusionary zoning for all of Oakland, but the project did not need to do inclusionary zoning because of the fact that it met all its other bonus requirements,” Kamin said.
Under Pittsburgh’s ordinance, inclusionary zoning is currently required in Oakland, Lawrenceville, Bloomfield and Polish Hill. New developments in those neighborhoods must designate a portion of units as affordable, and in return, developers are offered incentives such as tax abatements and relaxed height requirements.
For the Caroline project, which is planned to include 180 units of student housing, that requirement would apply.
The Oakland Planning and Development Corporation, a nonprofit working to expand affordable housing in the area, strongly disagrees with the lawsuit.
“We had been given no indication that there was going to be any problems complying with the inclusionary zoning requirement. It was very clear,” said Executive Director Andrea Boykowycz.
She added that the lawsuit came as a surprise, especially given the progress being made in expanding housing options.
“There are close to a hundred new units of affordability if all of the projects that are currently entitled to go through over the next couple of years, and then there are additional projects in the pipeline.”
Boykowycz warned that, if the lawsuit succeeds, it could jeopardize that growth.
“This is delivering meaningful change for the city. It allows us to take advantage of development to produce affordability,” she said.
Developers, however, argue that the financial incentives are inadequate.
“The amount of tax abatement that comes from the city doesn’t come close to filling the gap that is created,” Kamin said. “It only covers city tax dollars, and it’s only for ten years. The affordability requirement is a minimum of 35 years.”
For a project like the Caroline, the financial differences are significant. Developers could charge an estimated $1,500 per bed, or $4,500 per unit, at market rate.
Boykowycz countered, saying that cooperation with private developers is critical.
“It’s incredibly difficult in Oakland, in a tight market like Oakland, to build affordable units. It’s so much easier if we are partners with the for-profit developers here in Oakland,” she said.
Despite the legal challenge, Kamin confirmed that Walnut Capital intends to complete the Caroline regardless of the outcome.
“Walnut Capital, in this case, is going forward with this development whether it’s there or not,” he said.
Download the FREE WPXI News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Channel 11 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch WPXI NOW
©2025 Cox Media Group
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/cmg/XCUXZC2XYZHCRGNNGKFEX6U3LQ.png)
