IZ is just another requirement the prevents building housing. It's exclusionary.

Except, parking mandates in areas seeing development are already waived through zoning or through a ZBA hearing. So again, are you in support of those reforms or are you only in support of them to pass mandatory iz?

Are you saying that IZ is an opt-in system that provides zoning relief in exchange of IZ units? Or that parking minimums, lot size minimums, ADUs, and TOD are tied to IZ and you do not support them without IZ?

There is not ample subsidy from the government or else that would be happening without a mandate. And is the 2 for every 20 based on any research? We need about 11k affordable units. So what's the plan to build 100,000 housing units quickly?

And that zoning reform is, for the most part, great. Until the part that we mandate something without paying or adding relief. Inclusionary zoning doesn't fix what is exclusionary about exclusionary zoning.

That could be 1 factor but I think the much larger factor is that IZ makes smaller developments much harder to pencil financially. This is the conclusion of other IZ studies. We obviously don't have enough data to see if that's the case in Pittsburgh.

Also, I did not work on the study that was released.

I'm confused as to why the firms size should be included?

As for your project taking 5 years, that's why we need zoning and permitting reform. For financing, the city should help pay for affordable units instead of the other renters of the building.

Are you saying IZ makes it easier for smaller developers? I would not think that would be the case because of the scale needed to overcome the financial setback.

You can't blame the pandemic when projects in similar neighborhoods were completed. And this just something local to Pittsburgh, it's seen across the nation.

I disagree. People don't live in hypothetical, not completed buildings.