Dan Shaffer

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.

If you support affordable housing and believe that inclusion should be mandatory, not voluntary, show up tomorrow morning to oppose Councilperson Strassburger's IZ amendment. It's nothing more than another attempt to let developers have their way at the cost of existing residents

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

Without looking anything up, approx. how much do you think it costs to build a single unit of housing?

Inclusionary zoning fight erupts in Pittsburgh City Council, dispute with Gainey looms As Pittsburgh Mayor Ed Gainey’s term enters its final three months, a battle over one of his administration’s signature affordable-housing initiatives — mandatory inclusionary zoning — boiled over in ...

Yesterday, Pittsburgh City Council Member Erika Strassburger tried to gut the inclusionary zoning bill by sneaking in amendments that no one in the public nor her fellow council members had been given sufficient time to review or read.

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.

For the second time this year, Pittsburgh YIMBYs have introduced new data at the last minute to circumvent public feedback to try and kill Inclusionary Zoning, all while talking about wanting to discuss the future of housing in "good faith". Shame on them.

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

If you didn't think the foundations were bad before, they're all now supporting some form of "ethical" AI use and encouraging it for nonprofits. Meanwhile some are funding environmental preservation. What a fucking joke.

Pro-Housing Pittsburgh is once again bashing Inclusionary Zoning. They've spent more time complaining and mocking social justice groups than coming up with a solution.

Never trust an "advocacy group" that is predominantly white men that mocks groups led predominantly by people of color/women.

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

Abundance YIMBYs have started a new publication with the most libertarians I've ever seen in one place. They're trying to claim this is for "the left" yet have clear references to race science in part of what they hope to accomplish. (Don't worry, they walked back the transphobia last night!)

I've said it before and I'll continue to say it: Anyone who thinks the community is a burden should not be involved with housing or any form of community development work.

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.

Twitter user Brad Hargreaves writes "every community meeting on housing I've attended" with a screenshot from an article that says "The community meeting starts at 6pm. After a few housekeeping items, the architect shuffles to the podium and begins presenting. Two-hundred thirty two units, a hundred sixty parking spaces, breaking up the massing, set back, twenty percent affordable...Jeers follow. One by one, local residents share their concerns. Several believe it's too tall. Others agree it's too tall, but also believe it's too wide. More are concerned about overcapacity at the local school, which recent hit its lowest enrollment since opening in 1973 and had to lay off three specialty teachers due to a lack of students. Another commenter is concerned the project does not end capitalism. Every attendee is opposed."

This does not build trust and is why people don't like YIMBYs.

Me saving all the cans of anything I drink because I rediscovered pinhole photography.

That and making sure we go to illegal war through the proper methods

Confirmed 🧊 in Market Square

Attorney General James Condemns ICE Arrest of New York City Comptroller Brad Lander NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today released the following statement after New York City Comptroller Brad Lander was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the federal courthouse at 26 Federal Plaza: “This is profoundly unacceptable. Arresting Comptroller Lander for the simple act of standing up for immigrants and their civil rights is a shocking abuse of power. No one should face fear and intimidation in a courthouse, and this is a grotesque escalation of tensions. The administration’s rampant targeting of New Yorkers only makes our communities less safe.”

NEW statement from NY Attorney General Tish James on Brad Lander's arrest, calling it a "grotesque escalation of tensions."

The correct number is 412-736-7167

ICE spotted on the Southside in Pittsburgh (Wharton St. Giant Eagle)

If you're out today, be smart, be safe.

Just so we're all clear: It's not a coincidence that the first senator they've used physical force against is Sen. Alex Padilla, a Latino man representing California.