A proposal to change a program that allows property owners to buy neighboring vacant lots at a discounted price sparked debate at Pittsburgh City Council Wednesday.
The city’s side yard sale program makes it possible to purchase City-owned vacant lots for around $200. It’s intended to move vacant lots back on the tax rolls and off the city’s plate — and to allow residents to acquire green space and yards.
But legislation sponsored by Councilor Deb Gross only grant that bargain price to people who actually live next to the lot — a change that would prevent landlords and absentee owners from purchasing lots at the discounted price.
Gross told WESA the change would help stop out-of-town speculators from scooping up lots for cheap.
“The original intent of City Council in creating the side yard program … was to allow residents to [purchase] an abandoned lot next to them at a lower cost,” she said.
A parcel sold through the side-lot program comes with deed restrictions that prevents the purchaser from putting a new building on that property: They are limited to making non-structure improvements like creating a garden, green space, a pool or a deck. Bur Gross said that as the real estate market has heated up, “We now see speculators, even out of state speculators, acquiring city property —, not living in it, not doing anything, just squatting on property, and then also trying to get a discount on the lots next to their property that they’re just speculating on. And that’s not the intent.”
Requiring landlords to pay the full price could help recoup some of the losses the city incurs by selling the lots to neighbors at a discount, supporters of the bill said.
Council President Dan Lavelle said the side lot program gives homeowners an opportunity to maintain the land beside their home.
“I think it’s a good program,” he said. “I think it’s also a benefit to longstanding homeowners who may have had a home [next door] demolished, or just want to be able to take care of city land that otherwise we would struggle to take care of ourselves,” he said.
The rule change would help those homeowners not have to compete with deep-pocketed speculators, he said.
But during Wednesday’s meeting, some council members expressed concern that the restriction could unfairly impede landlords from maintaining adjacent property.
“The side lot program is an incentive to move properties from city ownership into ownership of neighboring properties,” said Councilmember Bob Charland, who represents the South Side. “And this legislation would restrict landlords from being able to purchase that property.
“Well over 60% of my district is landlords,” Charland added. “So, I don’t want to see this restriction stop us from cycling property from the city’s ownership to responsible ownership in the district.”
The city’s maintenance of empty lots is inefficient, he said, and the side lot program is a way to get that property into the hands of someone else.
“I want to see these properties moved to someone … we can hold accountable for this,” Charland said. “My district is filthy, and I need help on moving properties through, getting someone who we can hold accountable and someone that we can do something with this land.”
Council members Bobby Wilson and Anthony Coghill also expressed misgivings about the proposal. And at the Wednesday meeting, council members discussed possible alternative changes, such as increasing the price of the side lot program purchase so that the city wouldn’t lose as much money on each sale, or giving the adjacent owner-occupant the right of first refusal.
At the end of a half-hour discussion, Council took no formal action on the bill, but decided to revisit it in two weeks.
Councilmember Khari Mosley told WESA that he looks forward to further discussion on the proposed changes. He noted that raising the price could make the lots too expensive for owner-occupants who are living next door.
And he said there’s also a difference between landlords who own a few properties in the area and out-of-state companies that may hold a number of parcels..
“I think we all agreed that we do want the owner-occupant to have some advantage” in the process, Mosley said. But he noted that “side yards can also improve the quality of life for renters and a rental property.”
“We have a lot of things to wrestle with over the next couple of weeks, and I look forward to those conversations,” he added.
After the meeting, Councilmember Barb Warwick agreed there were a number of factors to consider.
“We want to make sure that when we’re giving very low cost property to folks, that they are using it for side yards, to expand their lawn or their pool or to put a deck…and that they are not being taken at a very low cost by speculators,” she said. “But members did raise some good questions about what does that mean for landlords and otherwise.”
