Rental Registration

When many Pittsburghers think Oakland, they think about student rental – and often the worst aspects of student rental, which include overcrowding, poor trash containment, inadequate maintenance, and questionable safety. There is plenty of rental housing in Oakland that does not fit that description, of course, but these problems are notorious. For decades, Oakland residents have been advocating for better tools for code enforcement and communication with landlords – and finally, one of those tools has arrived.

City Council passed the revised rental registration ordinance in November of 2021, and the Department of Permits, Licenses and Inspections (PLI) will begin enforcing it starting May 29, 2022. At the Oakwatch meeting on March 16, Sarah Kinter, Director of PLI, explained what the new rental registration rules mean for renters, rental owners, and community members alike. (Check out the full meeting minutes here.)

Some key aspects of the ordinance:

• By December 31, 2022, no one may legally allow a rental unit in the City of Pittsburgh to be occupied without obtaining a permit from PLI. Permitting involves an inspection of the rental property and payment of a fee. There are exceptions only for owner-occupied dwellings – which in Oakland would include only legal two-unit properties, one unit of which is occupied by the property owner. Right now, accessory dwelling units are not legal in Oakland.

• Permits will require contact information for the owners, responsible local agents, and property managers of each rental property.

• Every multi-unit property must also provide a valid occupancy permit. Single-family houses are exempt, but by definition, a single-family house could not legally contain more than one dwelling unit.

• Structures built before 1978 also will be subject to a lead dust wipe inspection.

• Every permitted unit will have to pass a PLI inspection. Initial inspections are good for three years; after that, inspections may be required only once every five years provided the property has earned acceptable ratings on every inspection item.

If a landlord fails to register their property by the December 31 deadline, PLI is authorized to issue a warning and then register a complaint with the local magistrate. PLI is relying on public complaints from community members to identify rentals that aren’t registered.

Rental registration and inspection data will be public information, viewable on Civic Central, which is currently where building licenses and permits are found. PLI will also give its data monthly to the Western PA Regional Data Center.

The law includes a terrific innovation: PLI will offer permit applicants the opportunity to attend the Good Landlord Academy, a training program that explains the rental registration inspections program, relevant governmental resources, and enforcement. Registrants who have successfully completed the training and passed the evaluation will be eligible to cut their rental registration unit fee in half for the upcoming registration year. 

What does this mean for the future of Oakland’s rental market? For starters, communicating with Oakland’s landlords – and their tenants! – will be much, much easier; and that will make code enforcement and landlord-tenant disputes easier to navigate. If the law works as it’s intended to, inspections and occupancy permit requirements should ensure Oakland rental properties are safe, and will reduce over-occupancy. But we don’t want to get ahead of ourselves! For now, rental registration is a promising first step in improving the lives of Oakland’s tenants, and improving the quality of life for all Oakland’s residents.

Clutter for a Cause is back and ready for reuse

By Madalyn Jenkins - OPDC News Runner Intern, University of Pittsburgh Class of 2024 

Blue skies, final exams, Thursday night parties – all indications are that spring has arrived in Oakland, and it’s time to brace for move-out season. Every year, students leaving their Oakland apartments leave piles of unwanted stuff – some useable, some recyclable, a lot just trash – and the cumulative effect can be a little overwhelming. Clutter for a Cause is a collaborative program organized by OPDC and the University of Pittsburgh as a way to reduce student waste when moving in and out of their residences, whether they be on or off-campus. 

Clutter events allow students (and community members!) to dispose of unwanted useable items; OPDC and Pitt then work together to get those items into the hands of people who will give them a second life. Students can buy items donated on campus at the August Thriftsburgh sale. Any leftover items will go to donation centers throughout the Pittsburgh region.

Clutter for a Cause donation events occur during peak lease turnover times throughout the summer, with drop-off locations and curbside pick-up services available. The first of this year’s events will be Friday, April 29, at the Sennott Square parking lot, from 10:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. More events will take place throughout the summer into early August.

Maura McCampbell, OPDC’s community programs specialist, helped organize last year’s events (and she blogged about it here). McCampbell recommends students and residents take advantage of the easy and convenient curbside pick-up service. “You register via a google form, OPDC will contact you to confirm pick-up, and volunteers will come and collect your items.”

It’s also important not to wait until the last minute to figure out move-out logistics. OPDC’s neighborhood quality consultant, Lizabeth Gray, has learned from experience: “We have all been there, where we had the intention to donate something, but then your parents are there to pick you up, and you are still packing up your boxes.” Gray advises that students start getting things together to donate at least a month before moving out.

Acceptable items to donate include:

·       Hardwood furniture

·       Metal furniture

·       Bed frames

·       Dressers

·       Kitchen items, including dishes and silverware

·       Art and décor

·       Clothing

There are some items we cannot accept; these include:

·       Mattresses

·       Bedding

·       Upholstered furniture

·       Rugs

·       Open containers of food and cosmetics

McCampbell has a great way of picturing the impact of your waste, stating, “From a personal perspective, I think it’s useful to think and envision the scale of what we are talking about. Think about packing up your room. You have two to three boxes of things you will not take home with you. Think of those three boxes multiplied by 10,000. That is a substantial volume of material sent to the landfill every year.”

Please donate to help mitigate the damaging effects of the abundance of waste. Think thoughtfully about your environment and the lasting impacts of your decisions on this community.

If you have any questions about Clutter for a Cause, please contact OPDC’s Sam Gallagher at sgallagher@opdc.org or 412.621.7863 ext. 118. Please register via this form to sign up for the curbside pick-up service.

Mayor Gainey recommends important changes to Oakland Public Realm Subdistrict E (OPR-E)

This just in: the Planning Commission will review proposed OPR-E zoning legislation tomorrow as planned – but with substantial and transformative changes.

Mayor Gainey and his staff heard loud and clear from the Oakland community that the OPR-E zoning included harmful uses and inappropriate building heights, that it ignored neighborhood priorities such as affordable housing and the preservation of green space, and that it would create a hostile environment for Central Oakland homeowners in adjoining districts.

The mayor will therefore be requesting that the Planning Commission amend the legislation to omit McKee and Louisa, omit Zulema Park, create a subdistrict for Halket, add affordable housing to the bonus point system, eliminate inappropriate uses, and restore residential compatibility standards. Mayor Gainey and his staff worked hard to negotiate this compromise, which addresses many of the neighborhood’s concerns. 

OPDC encourages Oakland residents and allies to attend and testify at the Planning Commission hearing tomorrow, Tuesday, March 8 at 2:30 p.m. We are reviewing the amended legislation, which was just published this afternoon. (We are concerned that Oakland neighbors will not have had sufficient time to study the changes – and we intend to deliver those concerns to the Planning Commission tomorrow.)

OPDC and Oakland residents have worked hard over the past six months to make community concerns and priorities clear. Our task is far from over: the city will soon be moving ahead to recommend all of Oakland be covered by the Inclusionary Zoning Overlay District. Your support for IZ is crucial, and we hope you will join us in the fight for affordability and equitable housing opportunities in Oakland.

We also invite your input for the draft Oakland Plan, which will be released this week for public review and comment. Stay tuned!

PLEASE NOTE - The Planning Commission issued another continuance on the vote at their March 8 meeting. The proposal will return to the March 22 hearing.

Bad in five dimensions

Next month on Tuesday, February 8, the City of Pittsburgh Planning Commission gets to hear from Pittsburghers like you regarding Council Bill 2021-1906, “Oakland Crossings” – the proposed Oakland Public Realm District E. OPDC is asking the Planning Commission to issue a negative recommendation to City Council for this bill, for five main reasons:

1.       The process is bad. As we’ve written before, the usual process for a zoning change of this magnitude involves iterative public input meetings in which suggestions are incorporated, objections are addressed, competing interests are balanced, and compromises are offered. City Planning staff are professionals who can contextualize proposed zoning changes and analyze the impacts those changes could have on surrounding communities. They solicit and respond to public input – it’s what planners do. This bill skipped that public planning process entirely, and the public has had no opportunity to have meaningful input on the content or structure of the proposed zoning change. Furthermore, part of the point of this bill is to skip over the ongoing Oakland Plan process, which *has* involved those community-led conversations.

2.       The uses are bad. Leaving aside the question of whether mixed-use zoning is appropriate for a residential area, or whether rear-yard setbacks should be eliminated in order to accommodate more density in a multi-family zone – there is no good reason why parking garages, utilities, or college campus uses should be permitted in this area by right, and the bill offers no way to minimize or mitigate the negative impact those uses would have on surrounding residential zones.

3.       The purpose is bad. There is nothing wrong with residential density. Oakland has a lot of dense multi-family residential development – both old and new – and there’s no doubt it needs more: to relieve student rental pressure in single-family neighborhoods, provide affordable rental for low and moderate income families close to jobs, and invite professionals to live closer to work instead of commuting into Oakland by car. It’s understood that market-rate rental is a money-maker here, and developers need no public subsidies or other incentives to build it. What Oakland needs is a set of tools to capture some of the value of that market rate development, to fund the construction of more affordable units. But the purpose of this bill is to offer incentives to private developers to build market-rate residential units (including subsidy from the University of Pittsburgh, and height bonuses in the bill for the construction of hotels and apartment buildings), and to allow those developers to avoid any requirement to include affordable housing units in their projects.

OPR-E superimposed with current zoning map of Oakland.

4.       The district boundaries are bad. OPR-E is strangely and awkwardly shaped (a) because the district boundaries are drawn around where Walnut Capital owns or controls property, and (b) because zoning districts have to be contiguous. Wherever possible, zoning districts should not split two sides of a street into separate uses, but OPR-E does just that on McKee Place. The skinny bridge connecting Subdistrict A with Subdistricts B and C is city right-of-way on Louisa Street, and doesn’t include any of the properties on Louisa – why? Because Walnut Capital doesn’t own or control those properties. And in the context of the larger zoning map, OPR-E creates two enclaves on Coltart Street and Halket Place: small islands of single-family houses entirely surrounded by public realm districts.

5.       It’s just not necessary. All the possibly desirable things the bill’s sponsors are promising (such as improved public open space, safer pedestrian crossings at the Boulevard of the Allies, new opportunities for dense market-rate residential development, a grocery store, a thriving mixed-use development district, the removal of unloved down-market rental) are already possible in the Oakland Public Realm Subdistrict D without any zoning changes whatsoever. There’s no compelling reason why the public realm needs to be expanded into Oakland’s residential neighborhoods, when many parcels in the existing public realm are available for mixed-use redevelopment. Last but not least, the Oakland Plan will include recommendations for areas where greater density would be more appropriate; and it will include zoning guidelines that support the construction of affordable housing units.

We’d love to hear from you – what are your interests and concerns about this bill? Drop your comments below. If you’d like to provide testimony at the Planning Commission hearing on February 8, check out our summary and guidelines here.

* Please note - the Planning Commission hearing was originally scheduled for January 11, 2022. Mayor Gainey requested a 30-day continuation; this blog reflects the new hearing date of February 8, 2022.

There’s affordable, and then there’s “affordable.”

It’s well-understood that Oakland housing is hard to come by. Rents here are insane, and houses are in short supply – and for a lot of people who work here, there is no viable walk-to-work option. Thousands of people drive into Oakland every day, and the amount of local real estate given over to storing their cars only makes the housing problem worse.

 People talk a lot about the need for affordable housing in Oakland, but it’s important to be clear about what affordable actually means. Affordable to whom? Under what conditions?

 Inclusionary zoning (as we discussed a bit ago) is one strategy for ensuring that new development helps to increase the supply of units that are affordable to folks making less than 50% of the area median income. The Oakland Community Land Trust is another tool for guaranteeing the availability of affordable homeownership for buyers making less than 80% of area median income. OPDC and other public and non-profit organizations have built project-based affordable housing in Oakland in the past (many units for people making 20% - 60% of area median income), and we are actively looking for opportunities to build more. These initiatives are intended to serve people with low and moderate incomes, to ensure Oakland’s employment opportunities are accessible to Oakland residents, and to support an inclusive neighborhood with a high quality of life for all.

 On the other hand, the recently-introduced bill to re-zone some of Central and South Oakland has a different idea about what “affordable” means. The bill was amended before it was sent to the Planning Commission to include an allusion to affordability (without actually using that word) called “walk to work housing.” The bill defines this as follows:

 “Walk to Work Housing” shall mean a residential rental unit, within a multi-family building or structure, whose fair market rental has been reduced by a rental incentive  provided by either the building owner or a third party institution so that the rental rate of the unit does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the gross income of the occupants. This incentive shall be made primarily available to employees and/or independent contractors of the third party institution.

 A residential development that includes this “walk to work housing” would qualify for a bonus point worth 15’ of additional height under this proposed zoning law.

 It may seem a little confusing as to why any market rate residential unit that is affordable to its occupants – regardless of the incomes of those occupants – would consider that parody of “affordability” as an extra that should be rewarded with additional allowances for height or density. The way this clause is written, there is nothing to prevent a developer from claiming the point with a building rented entirely to people making 200% - 300% of area median income, paying $3,300 - $5,000 for 2-bedroom apartments. That’s absurd.

 Incentives are supposed to make it worthwhile for developers to include features or services that it might not otherwise be cost-effective to provide. But the market has no problem supplying high-end rental housing without any kind of subsidy – there have been 1,095 such units built in Oakland within the last five years. The real challenge is providing the right mix of interventions that will ensure that housing opportunities exist in Oakland for folks across the income spectrum, not just the wealthiest 30%.