Thanks! Going to be a really good or really disappointing July 😂

www.wesa.fm/politics-gov...

This "compromise" is a rebranded version of Councilperson Charland's amendment that was *also* pushed last minute to a vote.

From a funding perspective, the 2-year timeline to gauge whether IZ is successfully delivering units is absurd and clearly shows the people writing the amendment either don't care or don't understand how development works and should not be writing policy.

We do not "lose units" when they are not built. They are simply not built. We do, however, lose residents, and subsequently, lose affordable units, when residents are priced out of their homes and communities.

Assuming in Pittsburgh and just your standard construction cost (trying to not add too much info to see what people think)

Add it to the list of things they don't understand.

These guys have absolutely no values. They do not care about the community.

About a month ago, I was told our YIMBYs have a stance of "good policy or no IZ", yet here they are, once again, supporting bad policy. You cannot have it both ways. This proves that their stance has nothing to do with affordability, but rather, has everything to do with power.

They truly would not survive if they worked for a typical nonprofit.

That would require them to want to engage in good faith and not just "win"

That's not to say this kind of stuff doesn't happen at community meetings, but framing it from a "everyone who does this is stupid and shouldn't be allowed outside" instead of a desire to engage with them is why a lot of people despise YIMBYs.

Not a "pro-NIMBY" stance, this is a "if devs want to build, they need to do the bare minimum and engage with communities they want to build in" stance.

Accountability feels like an attack to those unfamiliar with it.

The question I have is did the developer attempt to interact with the community before this meeting? If not, this is completely avoidable.