Pittsburgh councilwoman expresses 'buyer's remorse' over $6M master plan

Pittsburgh City Council members on Monday lambasted city planners over a $6 million comprehensive plan meant to guide zoning and development through 2050.

“I think what you’re hearing is a lot of buyer’s remorse,” Councilwoman Theresa Kail-Smith, D-West End, said.

She was one of three members who voted against the measure last year. The other two were Anthony Coghill, D-Beechview, and Deb Gross, D-Highland Park.

“I don’t know that any of this is ever going to come to fruition,” Kail-Smith said. “It’s a lot of money wasted.”

Council members split last year on whether to support the proposal, which includes a $2.6 million contract with Pittsburgh-based Common Cause Consultants to cover community engagement and a $3.2 million deal with HR&A Advisors to prepare technical elements of the plan.

Opponents had questioned the wisdom of a city already under fiscal pressure paying millions of dollars for a planning document.

Detractors said the proposal was vague, its tangible results seemed murky and there would no guarantee of adopting the plan’s recommendations.

A draft master plan should be completed next summer, said Sharonda Whatley, the city’s assistant director of strategic planning.

Officials with the Department of City Planning, which is spearheading the effort, on Monday tried to paint a rosy picture of the initiative.

“This comprehensive plan, Pittsburgh 2050, is going to set our vision for the next 25 years,” City Planning Director Jamil Bey said.

He added that the plan aims to establish “a stable foundation of public policy” even as administrations change.

Mayor Ed Gainey is leaving office in January and will be replaced by Mayor-elect Corey O’Connor.

Engagement questions

The city has undertaken a community engagement process — including online surveys and meetings in various neighborhoods — and published online guides to topics identified as plan priorities.

They include housing, infrastructure and mobility.

Bey said the city and its partners have engaged with nearly 30,000 residents so far.

But Gross pointed out officials aren’t tracking whether those are unique individuals or the same people who may have completed multiple surveys or attended multiple meetings.

Council members questioned whether the community engagement is robust enough or bringing in people who don’t frequently interact with government.

Councilman Bob Charland, D-South Side, said he didn’t see any concerted effort to gather resident input at the various community meetings and events he attends throughout his district.

“I have not seen that happen once,” he said.

Councilwoman Barb Warwick, D-Greenfield, echoed his concerns.

“At least in my district, I haven’t seen the engagement,” she said.

She questioned how officials will craft a specific plan when much of the initial community engagement has been vague.

Officials already know that people want housing, transit and clean water, she said. The plan reiterates that, but doesn’t delve into details about how to improve those things for the city’s neediest residents.

$20 per resident

Council members rehashed their criticisms of the price tag.

Gross pointed out that other cities, on average, spend $1 to $2 per resident on similar master plans.

“I said it then and I’ll say it again — I cannot understand, I cannot fathom why we’re spending $20 per person on a comprehensive plan,” she said. “I just think that’s an outrage.”

Coghill questioned whether the city could break its ongoing contracts to get a partial reimbursement.

“I would be lying if I said I thought it was worth $6 million,” he said.

Bey bashing

During Monday’s meeting, council members also bashed Bey for an email he sent to registered community organizations in which he linked Kail-Smith to President Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again movement, which is largely loathed in a Democratic stronghold like Pittsburgh.

Kail-Smith introduced legislation that would have halted the city’s use of registered community organizations — grassroots neighborhood groups — to host meetings prior to certain developments occurring.

Bey in an email to those community groups wrote, “As many of you have likely seen or heard, Councilwoman Theresa Kail-Smith has introduced legislation to eliminate the Registered Community Organization (RCO) program — one of several proposals she and her allies have advanced under her ideas to Make Pittsburgh Great Again.”

Kail-Smith said she and Bey had discussed the message privately before Monday’s meeting.

“Hopefully in the future that’s a lesson for everyone, not to put those kinds of things in writing,” she said. “It’s not appropriate for a director to do.”

Bey acknowledged his email was a reference to Trump’s slogan.

“Yes, it’s a wink to Make America Great Again, and it’s a wink at what’s happening politically,” Bey said.

The program has come under scrutiny from some officials and residents who claim the organizations — many of which do not have elected boards — don’t necessarily represent the neighborhoods they serve.

The groups host meetings which developers must participate in as part of their application process, but only if they’re building in a neighborhood with a registered community organization.

Some neighborhoods have none. Others have multiple.

Kail-Smith has suggested temporarily pausing the organizations’ participation in development meetings until the city can implement reforms. The measure has not yet been put to a vote.

Councilman Bobby Wilson, D-North Side, grilled Bey on the email and said he could not trust a comprehensive plan led by someone who had written such a message about a council member.

“I just find this pretty unacceptable,” Wilson said. “I kind of question the whole thing going on here, based on this.”