Mass resignation of board members for Oakland Planning & Development Corp (Pittsburgh: apartment, renters)

[tyovan4]

Several board members of an influential community development group in Pittsburgh’s Oakland neighborhood resigned Thursday, citing differences with the group’s executive director, according to a letter obtained by the Tribune-Review.

In the letter to Pittsburgh Mayor Ed Gainey, Jake Oresick, the now-former board president of the Oakland Planning and Development Corporation, announced his resignation and claimed six other board members joined him in resigning.

https://triblive.com/local/oakland-p...with-director/

I dont know enough about the topic to formulate an opinion one way or another based on the article, but I thought the article would be of interest to other posters here so I just wanted to share.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by tyovan4

I dont know enough about the topic to formulate an opinion one way or another based on the article, but I thought the article would be of interest to other posters here so I just wanted to share.

There's been weird **** going on in Oakland for awhile now, and OPDC has been in the middle of it.

Oakland is of course effectively the second business district for the city, with roughly 50,000 jobs, two major and one smaller university, and several UPMC hospitals. It's also a neighborhood which is overwhelmingly dominated by renters (like 75%) with the bulk of the population transient students. Greater density in Oakland is a no-brainer, because expanding student slum negatively impacts the remainder of the East End as not enough apartment units have been built in Oakland.

However, Oakland NIMBYs have insisted that future development take into account their own needs - the small minority of long-term homeowners - as the most important thing to consider. So every new development which gets suggested gets griped about by people who in many cases live blocks away as being "too dense for Oakland" or "not fitting with neighborhood character" or "contributing to the neighborhood parking crisis." OPDC has facilitated this, not just by mobilizing the most NIMBY of homeowners, but also because they operate a lot of the affordable housing in South Oakland and actively organize their tenants to oppose new projects.

It has been alleged by some that a lot of the Oakland NIMBYs are not actually homeowners, but are small-time slumlord renters, who have the most to stand from more units of housing, as their own rents would start to fall. I don't know if this is true, but I do know that I've listened to community meetings where individuals identify themselves as "property owners" but not residents.

I think the city's exasperation with the intransigent attitude of OPDC in particular started a few years back when they shook down Walnut Capital for money when they wanted to build the new office tower on Fifth (which is still a vacant hole in the ground). The "community benefits agreement" really directly involved Walnut Capital giving money to OPDC. Then they tried to do the same with another developer on Forbes, asked for even more money, and blocked it for years until a few stories were shaved off the building (IIRC they got a payoff here as well).

Then in the rezoning process, the city bent over backwards to take into account the needs of the OPDC and the Oakland NIMBYs. The new plan does allow for taller buildings , cuts parking minimums for residential structures in half, and allows more of a mix of residential and commercial across much of Oakland. However, it also (stupidly IMHO) bans new residential buildings (unless 100% affordable) from the core of Oakland along Fifth/Forbes, and was repeatedly tweaked to address neighborhood concerns. OPDC kept on nitpicking and attempting to get densities lowered. The Planning Commission gave them a couple more toothless sops, and it looks like it's going to pass.

[SteelCityRising]

NIMBY's suck. Just look at the same few entitled Boomers with too much time on their hands who fight EVERY new multi-unit development as being "too dense for Shadyside".

[Moby Hick]

Someone might destroy the character of Oakland by picking up the trash on Atwood.

[Tony_Soprano]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

NIMBY's suck. Just look at the same few entitled Boomers with too much time on their hands who fight EVERY new multi-unit development as being "too dense for Shadyside".

Yes, they do. The NIMBYs chased out a potential Amazon development in Churchill, which is a shame. NIMBYs usually stifle positive development.

[anthony_c55]

Originally Posted by eschaton

There's been weird **** going on in Oakland for awhile now, and OPDC has been in the middle of it.

Oakland is of course effectively the second business district for the city, with roughly 50,000 jobs, two major and one smaller university, and several UPMC hospitals. It's also a neighborhood which is overwhelmingly dominated by renters (like 75%) with the bulk of the population transient students. Greater density in Oakland is a no-brainer, because expanding student slum negatively impacts the remainder of the East End as not enough apartment units have been built in Oakland.

However, Oakland NIMBYs have insisted that future development take into account their own needs - the small minority of long-term homeowners - as the most important thing to consider. So every new development which gets suggested gets griped about by people who in many cases live blocks away as being "too dense for Oakland" or "not fitting with neighborhood character" or "contributing to the neighborhood parking crisis." OPDC has facilitated this, not just by mobilizing the most NIMBY of homeowners, but also because they operate a lot of the affordable housing in South Oakland and actively organize their tenants to oppose new projects.

It has been alleged by some that a lot of the Oakland NIMBYs are not actually homeowners, but are small-time slumlord renters, who have the most to stand from more units of housing, as their own rents would start to fall. I don't know if this is true, but I do know that I've listened to community meetings where individuals identify themselves as "property owners" but not residents.

I think the city's exasperation with the intransigent attitude of OPDC in particular started a few years back when they shook down Walnut Capital for money when they wanted to build the new office tower on Fifth (which is still a vacant hole in the ground). The "community benefits agreement" really directly involved Walnut Capital giving money to OPDC. Then they tried to do the same with another developer on Forbes, asked for even more money, and blocked it for years until a few stories were shaved off the building (IIRC they got a payoff here as well).

Then in the rezoning process, the city bent over backwards to take into account the needs of the OPDC and the Oakland NIMBYs. The new plan does allow for taller buildings , cuts parking minimums for residential structures in half, and allows more of a mix of residential and commercial across much of Oakland. However, it also (stupidly IMHO) bans new residential buildings (unless 100% affordable) from the core of Oakland along Fifth/Forbes, and was repeatedly tweaked to address neighborhood concerns. OPDC kept on nitpicking and attempting to get densities lowered. The Planning Commission gave them a couple more toothless sops, and it looks like it's going to pass.

Agreed. It's ridiculous that Oakland is held back like it is.

[Independentthinking83]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

NIMBY's suck. Just look at the same few entitled Boomers with too much time on their hands who fight EVERY new multi-unit development as being "too dense for Shadyside".

What don’t the boomers fight? The old farts are the ones constantly complaining on this board. Soon they won’t be here to complain and I have a feeling the youngest generation is going to help push them aside.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by Independentthinking83

What don’t the boomers fight? The old farts are the ones constantly complaining on this board. Soon they won’t be here to complain and I have a feeling the youngest generation is going to help push them aside.

I don’t recall anyone complaining about this here…and you’re hoping the youngest generation is going to push them aside…and putting your eggs in the younger generations basket isn’t working out so well. Gotta get them to work which is obviously a problem hence so many job openings since so many boomers retired due to shutting it down, which also lowers the tax base…and cutting ones nose to spite their face doesn’t work out well.

[svband76]

The youngest generation? Ha, don't get me started.

[Moby Hick]

Death stalks us all and the younger generation is all of value we leave behind, especially considering the way we ****ed the climate.