Yes, but the "article" is ridiculously thin on details, so we don't know if inflation has anything to do with it. I don't know anything about the process, but just looking at the way things have gone in other areas of the city (a major example being the water and sewage system), I'd put a little bit of money down saying that the zoning review office has kept its rates the same for decades because the old people ... dare I say, boomers ... who apply for reviews came to expect cheap zoning reviews as a birthright.

Now we look around and realize that the city is way behind where it should be on those fees, and we have to make a huge jump. Just like we looked around after the flood on Washington Blvd and said "oh crap, we're not charging anywhere NEAR enough to do necessary maintenance and we haven't been for decades, better raise rates 300% overnight." The mismanagement of the past is making today's administrators look bad in the case of PWSA. Again, I would bet something similar is happening with zoning reviews.

https://www.wesa.fm/podcast/land-power

^ highly recommended

But...nary a word about "affordability covenants", which I think it's important to understand when you're talking about affordable housing.

WatkinsGlennDanzig is a next-level user handle

Thanks for the info!

We shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good. Speed humps have been extremely beneficial in some parts of the city. Sure, a restructuring of our built environment would be a preferable solution. But that's extremely complicated and rarely succeeds. So while we continue pursuit of a better city structure, I am in favor of using speed humps.

1. The primary factor here is the yield projects command, which influences the financing a project can gather and the rates with which that financing matures. These fees have no impact on a project moving forward, period. There is still considerable demand that allows for prime yields (10%+), even with an increase in this fee.

2)These new fees are not fixed, they are variable based upon project costs, which means they will not have an outsized impact on smaller developers.

I do not need to be condescended to on this issue. I am telling you the reality of the situation. There are plenty of things that are insanely expensive and non-refundable in this process, this is a drop in the bucket. It’s only a concern for developers because it will help the city adequately staff DCP and hold proposed designs more accountable than we are today— which is ultimately a good thing.

An ugly, sticky, itchy, obstructive, annoying, wasteful, and noisy band aid. Compared to alternative solutions, the speed bumps needlessly create more fossil fuel and other emissions, increase road noise, and don't increase safety more than other traffic calming measures.

They also increase wear on vehicles, obstruct emergency vehicles, and make suburbanites less likely to patronize city businesses.

Probably the worst "solution" possible IMO. Lane narrowing and chicanes does the same thing, but that is harder to implement. Gainey took the easy but shitty road here.

Not a pro here, but I think the biggest issue at hand isn't the ratio of the zoning review cost to the overall project cost, but rather the fact that developers (in this case) could invest $250k to get a zoning review, have it denied, get nothing in return, and be out $250k.

Even as an investor/developer with deep pockets, $250k is a lot of money to put forward if one of the outcomes is that you will a.) get denied and b.) lose your $250k.

I think it's safe to say not many people would make that investment.

Now, the reality is, there is a chance it'll get accepted and Walnut Capital (a company with deep pockets) will have an opportunity to build a big, money making development. However, I think you can see how the exorbitant fees, in the future, will limit other, smaller developers from submitting plans. This will then reduce competition, slow down development in Pittsburgh, and only allow the big boys developers to have a seat at the development table.

It probably causes a regulatory capture that favors larger developers who cut their teeth on suburban projects, and then bring their strip mall design process to the city. Sucks man.

I represent developers in the City. I know bring, the hate. There is absolutely no way they will be able to justify the increase in court. The zoning and development review is on top of the 0.7% fee charge for the technical review of building permits by PLI. That review fee is justified because it involves engineering review of technical construction documents. For a 10 million dollar project, that's 70k in building permit fees alone.

The zoning and development fee is essentially just staff and planning commission review for compliance with the zoning code. That involves verifying setbacks, lot area, open space, and some traffic/planning studies. There is no way on earth that costs the City another 30kish in review time for the same project. That single project review would pay half the annual salary of a City Planner, of which there are only 5 or 6.

The best way to ensure that the actually cost is recouped legally (and which is how almost all other municipalities handle land development review) is to require that an escrow amount be posted by the developer and have the review staff bill their actual time and costs to that account. That way, the City is reimbursed for actual review costs, which is all they're permitted to recoup by law.

If its challenged, the City's new structure will be struck down pretty quickly. It's pretty apparent that the percentage was arbitrarily chosen to generate revenue. According to my contacts in the City, this was never run past the City law department for their opinion, which is not at all surprising.

Hells yeah, more places to ride without getting murdered by cars.

The speed bumps slow traffic and make the city more livable. They are a ban-aid on decades of car centric design baked into the fabric of the city.

You're 100% correct.

Exactly what burdensome fees, abysmal zoning, unpredictable government response, and a regulatory quagmire of a review process tends to do.

Pittsburgh's relatively low housing prices also limit potential profit, so along with the fees and unpredictable review process, the only way to reliably profit is to go very large scale and exploit local political connections.

Just because the numbers are large does not mean the money is unlimited. Fees and regulatory process have a huge impact on whether projects not only move forward, but also whether they are proposed in the first place. Especially when the fees are levied in percentages and non-refundable.

Demand and prices in Pgh (or even much more expensive cities) aren't nearly high enough for developers to build with no regard for costs.

Your impression of the business likely comes from memes, TV, and a certain orange tinted ex-president.

Also, higher fees affect smaller and mid sized developers the most. Want to make sure only big developers can build? Jack the fees up and make the review process an unpredictable quagmire without a reasonable time frame.

I watched a documentary once that claimed native american mound building started in the northeast and over time migrated south. The further south you go the more impressive the mounds get (Mesoamerican aztec pyramids).

Not sure if it was true but it sounded like it made sense.

Holy crap I hadn’t seen this version, thanks for that.

But what about the landlords in butler? Why wont you think of the unfortunate landlords

For the most part it seems, folk that post edge lord stuff seem to just want to stir the pot, not actually engage in a reasonable discussion.

While I could be wrong with this user, odds are I am not.

These projects are, in all cases, more than $100 million, if not $200 million in cost. This has no impact whatsoever on any project moving forward.

DCP has been chronically understaffed and has been in the red for a long time in this city. I believe this has had a concretely negative impact on city master plans (like the Oakland Plan), as well as on review for major projects. It has been a triage situation for too long. These projects being discussed are more than $100 million in total cost. The fact that review by the city was ever as low as ~$15,000 for something of this magnitude is ridiculous. The developers can and should pay, they just do not want to because they benefit from the DCP process being as bare-bones as possible.

The overall success rate of appeals is between 7%-20% depending on the year. Proven innocent is lower I'm sure, but not zero.

Yeah Moreno would have been way worse than Gainey, but Gainey still wasn't an upgrade from Peduto either.

Lots of places. Vancouver was a shining example until the landlords fought back.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajes.12218

I totally agree. He never seemed to particularly excel in Harrisburg or do much above the bare minimum there, so I was always skeptical about him as mayor.