Peduto questions Oakland settlement
For the Oakland Planning and Development Corporation, a recent settlement involving a Forbes Avenue office tower represented a victory that offered “substantial benefits” to the neighborhood.
But don’t count Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto among its supporters. In a recent interview, he criticized part of the deal involving a payment to OPDC, saying, “That should never occur.”
It’s a settlement that has raised some concerns about the control that community groups have over development under Mr. Peduto. The mayor, while objecting to part of the deal, has no qualms about the voice he has given such groups, though he did question whether some Oakland residents in the office tower dispute had standing.
The OPDC settlement with Wexford Science and
Technology came in January after the community group fought the Baltimore developer over the size of its proposed office tower at 3440 Forbes Ave. The group had argued that the original structure was far too big and was not in context with other buildings in that section of Oakland, and that the site was too small for such a big development.
To get a deal, Wexford agreed to drop the height of the building to 153 feet and 10 stories from 188 feet and 13 stories.
The settlement also came with a community benefits agreement that the Oakland Planning and Development Corporation had been trying to get from the developer for more than a year.
It included a grant of $400,000 that would be paid to the group at the completion of construction. There’s also an agreement for an annual outlay estimated at up to $35,000 based on the building’s leased square footage. The money would go into the Oakland Community Land Trust.
And Wexford agreed to contribute $100,000 to a program to help senior residents with home repairs and to put $2,500 a year toward residential permit parking enforcement.
The agreement caught the eye of Mr. Peduto, who questioned the “idea that any neighborhood group would ask for financial assistance to pay their operations” — an apparent reference to the $400,000 grant.
“That should never occur. Ever. There should never be a requirement on a developer in order to get community support that involves cash,” he said.
“And if that is or continues, we will engage and we will take action against any organization that attempts to demand cash for their own operations as a community request. That only aids the organization itself and not the greater community, and it is something I am adamantly opposed to.”
Wanda Wilson, Oakland Planning and Development Corporation executive director, said Mr. Peduto is off-base in his criticism.
“That is absolutely not what the agreement states,” she said. “OPDC would steward the funds, in a distinct account separate from our operations, and engage the community in a public input process to determine the use of the funds for community projects.”
The community benefits agreement says the $400,000 grant would be used for neighborhood amenities and public improvements, as well as youth programming at School to Career and in south and west Oakland.
It also would be funneled to economic and mobility services for residents, such as employment counseling, local hiring, small-business development, access to and subsidies for affordable home ownership, and financial coaching.
All were identified as community priorities at community meetings, Ms. Wilson said.
Mr. Peduto was unmoved by the OPDC explanation.
“No approvals to community organizations should be contingent on any type of cash payouts, unless that group owns the property to be developed,” he said.
In its own statement, Wexford said it “makes similar investments as part of many of our projects.”
“Our [ community benefits agreement] with OPDC does not provide any direct operating support to OPDC, but allows for investment in important neighborhood projects, including housing preservation, affordable housing, workforce training, support for minority and woman- owned businesses, neighborhood amenities and public space improvements, and community engagement,” it said.
“OPDC has committed to steward these investments in an inclusive and transparent fashion, seeking community input, supporting appropriate providers that meet the CBA objectives, and reporting on outcomes annually to ensure accountability.”
According to Wexford, the settlement — and the community benefits agreement — came about after extensive legal analysis and “recognition of the negative impacts of litigation.”
Some developers have complained privately about the agreement, pointing to it as an example of Mr. Peduto giving too much leeway to community groups over development in their neighborhoods or not exerting enough leadership on controversial projects.
But while Mr. Peduto assailed some aspects of the Oakland Planning and Development Corporation settlement, he made no apologies for his attempts to give groups and residents more say in what happens in their communities.
Under a 2018 ordinance, for example, developers are required to meet with the registered community organization before a project goes to the city planning commission for a hearing.
“In the past, developers would be able to walk into a neighborhood and see their own private vision occur without a say of the people who actually call that area home,” the mayor said.
“We’ve turned that around and changed the paradigm so that now it all begins with the community vision.”
Mr. Peduto cited as the basis for that strategy his years on City Council when, he said, neighborhoods he represented — Shadyside, Friendship, Bloomfield, East Liberty, and parts of Oakland, Squirrel Hill and Point Breeze — experienced a rebirth.
The revitalization occurred, he insisted, because of the same type of community-based development he now has made a priority for city neighborhoods. That means working with neighborhood organizations to get things done.
“And it didn’t deter development. It simply brought better development. So while the rest of the city was continuing to die during the late ’90s and early 2000s, the areas I represented grew,” Mr. Peduto said.
“So when people say it’s a burden to work with the community and it stops development, I would argue that I have empirical data that shows that is completely incorrect. It only makes development better and it holds all developers to the same standards.”
Despite the settlement between Wexford and OPDC, the office project still hasn’t cleared all hurdles.
Several other Oakland neighborhood groups and several residents have an appeal pending in the state’s Commonwealth Court after they were denied the right to intervene in the case at the lower court level.
Yet in this instance Mr. Peduto questioned whether some of the residents had standing, saying they lived more than a mile from the development site.
“So some of the voices who opposed it and tried to stop it from being built were not those who were most immediately impacted,” he said.