The Choice is Yours
You can get with this, or you can get with that... how a zoning fight is a proxy battle over differing visions for Pittsburgh's future
If you're even somewhat politically or civically aware in Pittsburgh you may have heard about the epic 11 hour planning commission meeting last week.
Without getting into the minutiae of Mayor Gainey’s and Councilman Charland’s dueling zoning bills (which you can read about here and here) or even the merits (or not) of inclusionary zoning, what I noticed were the stark differences between the supporters of each side and the vision for the future of Pittsburgh they represented.
The most obvious observation was that supporters of Charland's bill were overwhelmingly white. But they were in contrast to supporters of Gainey’s in other notable ways. As the hour got late, a few of them ordered food for themselves. Supporters of Gainey’s bill ordered pizzas, snacks, and water earlier in the day for anyone who wanted to share - including with Republican mayoral candidate Tony Moreno who grabbed a slice and who was there to support a “none of the above” approach to the proposed changes.
There were at least 8 long standing community groups and nonprofits and several more individuals all working together in support of Gainey’s bill. Charland’s support seemed to be limited to Pro Housing Pittsburgh, who had a hand in drafting the legislation, the pro business Allegheny Conference, and the NAIOP, an association of commercial real estate developers. Gainey’s supporters greeted each other with hugs and familiarity and at times, the meeting felt more like a family reunion than a planning commission meeting.
Because what some last week cynically called “the activism-industrial complex” is actually just Community showing up for each other.
The Pro Housing Pittsburgh camp opted to characterize the debate as an election year stunt by Gainey. They were half right: it was definitely a stunt but not by Gainey. Gainey’s proposed amendments are all very much in line with the platform that he ran on in 2021 and his administration’s priorities. Charland is an O’Connor ally (giving $1k personally to O’Connor’s mayoral committee) as are the developers who both had a hand in crafting Charland's bill and who dictate Pro Housing Pittsburgh’s agenda. Charland introduced this legislation after less than a year in office as a stunt to try to weaken Gainey’s support in order to give O’Connor a boost in his challenge.
After someone used their public comment to point out that Charland's uncontested council campaign was largely funded by landlords & developers, members of Pro Housing Pittsburgh began passing around a piece of paper saying Gainey took approximately $30,000 from the same cohort during his contested 2021 mayoral race. What's funny though is that Gainey isn't doing their bidding! In fact that's largely why they're so pissed and have been propping up O'Connor's run since last summer. As a longtime campaign professional I've always advised my candidates that the biggest flex is to take everyone's money - after all campaigns are expensive and until we have real campaign finance reform, every dollar counts - and then do what you're gonna do once you get in office anyway. All that the folks passing around that little piece of paper proved was that Gainey couldn't be bought for 30k but Charland was up for sale for just half that amount. 😬
It was clear that this debate over zoning bills wasn’t just a disagreement over housing: it is a proxy fight over both the mayor's race and the future that Pittsburghers want for their city.
As an aside, I only watched a few minutes of the 14th Ward Independent Democratic Club’s Barbara Daly Danko event yesterday with the two mayoral candidates. In a coincidence I did not need, I caught O’Connor’s chat with Ann Belzer about zoning. He seems to be running to the right of Charland’s bill probably in an effort to ride the fence between conservative NIMBYs who don’t want change at all and his developer funders who want to build with no limitations or consideration for affordability. But what I noticed the most was how entitled and petulant he sounded - just like Charland on Wednesday night. These guys are not interested in earning your support. They are irritated that its not just being handed to them because they actually think they are entitled to it by right. It’s insulting as hell and wild to watch, but it unfortunately mirrors the attitudes of a lot of white Pittsburgh whose panties are in a twist that other populations are getting opportunities and their chance to be heard by the Gainey administration. If nothing else, these bratty white boys need to get media training immediately to at least attempt to hide their contempt for having to actually work for your support.
But back to those two visions for the city’s future…
Mayor Gainey’s vision and those that support it want a future that prioritizes inclusivity, opportunity for all, community, integration, self determination for Black, Brown and other historically marginalized groups in the whitest city in America, and government for and by the people.
The O’Connor/Charland future is a reversion to putting the loudest, best funded white voices first, continued segregation - Charland’s bill even had a provision that would allow neighborhoods who didn’t want affordable housing to opt out, continuing Pittsburgh’s history of division via racial and economic stratification, telling the Black community what they should be happy to accept, individualism, and putting corporations and wealthy individuals first. This is a vision of the future that is also a snapshot of the past that got us here - decades of leadership continually putting the most well off among us at the front of the line, and leaving everyone else with a stunning lack of opportunity that lead to Pittsburgh being the worst city in American for Black people.
These are the two visions of the future Pittsburgh’s mayoral candidates are offering you. At a time when our national leaders are attacking our rights in more egregious ways every day, consider whether you want a mayor who is going to work in community to protect the vulnerable or a mayor who is going to work with the developers and other corporate interests who are in the process of trying to buy him the office to serve their agendas first.