The Pittsburgh zoning code requires landlords to discriminate based on familial status. The zoning code prohibits more than three unrelated people from living together. Therefore it is legal for me to live with my wife and two children because we’re related. However, an unmarried couple, each with a child from a previous marriage, could not legally live together. Nor could four adult friends who want to be housemates. The only difference between my household and these others is their family status.
The following zoning code language mandates this discrimination. The Pittsburgh zoning code specifies the number of dwelling units that are allowed to be constructed by right on a parcel of land. Article IX, chapter 926, definition 72 defines a dwelling unit as follows:
Dwelling Unit means a building or portion thereof designed and used for residential occupancy by a single family and that includes exclusive sleeping, cooking, eating and sanitation facilities. Buildings with more than one (1) set of cooking facilities are considered to contain multiple dwelling units unless the additional cooking facilities are clearly accessory, such as an outdoor grill.
Article IX, chapter 926, definition 76 of the zoning code defines family as:
Family means:
(a) An individual, or two (2) or more persons related by blood or marriage or adoption, living together in a dwelling unit; or
(b) A group of not more than three (3) persons who need not be related by blood or marriage or adoption, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, and shared common facilities as considered reasonably appropriate for a family related by blood, marriage or adoption; in either case exclusive of usual servants;
This zoning ordinance has led to absurd actions like three of six roommates being evicted from a six bedroom house. This ordinance harms almost everyone, not just people who want to live in a prohibited housing arrangement.
This zoning rule artificially constrains the housing supply, making housing less affordable for everyone. As an example, suppose 12 single adults are living in four single family homes right now who would live four to a home if it were legal. If the zoning restriction were repealed they would only require 3 houses, freeing up a home. Landlords of the vacant houses would need to lower rents to attract tenants due to the newly increased housing supply, and landlords of occupied houses would need to lower rents to compete. So rents for families, or people who want to live with 3 people to a home would also see a rent reduction. People who are comfortable with more housemates would save even more.
Eliminating this ordinance would have a similar reducing effect on home prices. This is obviously a benefit to prospective homeowners. Existing homeowners, myself included, would also benefit from eliminating this ordinance.
Homeowners should care about housing affordability for at least three reasons:
- The whole population benefits when all its members can afford to meet their basic needs. I want low income people to be able to afford to live in my neighborhood.
- High housing costs affect the cost of other products. When housing costs in an area are high, higher wages are needed to attract workers. These higher wages are then factored into the cost of everything that requires local labor.
- Homeowners with children will benefit from the children being able to afford their own housing when they’re older.
In addition, eliminating this ordinance would allow homeowners who want to, to rent out a spare bedroom.
The only people who clearly benefit from this ordinance are landlords who own a large number of properties and who enjoy larger rents due to the constrained housing supply. In most markets, producers struggle to constrain supply to prop up prices. In cases such as OPEC or DeBeers where producers have successfully formed cartels to collude and constrain prices, members of the cartel often become ‘cheaters’ who sell more than their quota. These ‘cheaters’ have strong market incentive to sell more because prices have been driven above cost and doing so benefits consumers.
In Pittsburgh, landlords don’t need to form a cartel because the zoning ordinance constrains the supply for them. Zoning enforcement then expends taxpayer resources to prosecute landlords who act in their tenants’ interest by renting out more than their three bedroom per household quota. Zoning enforcement thus benefits the larger number of landlords who are not caught in violation by constraining supply without the landlords having to collude.
This ordinance has societal harms beyond raising housing prices. For example, the reduced population density caused by this ordinance makes it more challenging to support good transit and walkable business districts. Additionally, because the ordinance prohibits a housing arrangement that is in the self interest of so many tenants, the rule is often flouted. This is done by people living in a home without being on the lease. Therefore vulnerable people are forced by this ordinance to forgo lease protections if they want affordable market rate housing.
Others have written about the problems of occupancy limits. Alan Durning writes about how this zoning ordinance is often used by neighbors to keep demographics like low income people and students out of certain neighborhoods. This is exemplified by the fact that it is common for zoning codes, including Pittsburgh’s, to exempt live in servants while prohibiting rent paying housemates. Alan also explains why the flimsy justifications for discriminating based on family status don’t have merit. This Pitt News article explains how the Pittsburgh ordinance is problematic.
States with more progressive fair housing policies have prohibited municipalities from passing these types of zoning restrictions. In City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, the California Supreme Court struck down an ordinance prohibiting more than five unrelated people as violating the state constitution. In Charter Township of Delta v. Dinolfo, a Michigan appeals court struck down an ordinance prohibiting more than two unrelated people living together as arbitrary and capricious, violating the due process clause of the Michigan state constitution. Ideally, Pennsylvania would prohibit all municipalities from passing unrelated occupancy limits. In the meantime, Pittsburgh should get rid of this prohibition.
I lived with housemates before I got married to save money. While it’s not for everyone, having housemates is a great way to make long term friendships. Two of my housemates were in my wedding party. It also helped me save for future home ownership. I want other people to have the same opportunities as I had.
Many Pittsburghers are currently struggling with housing insecurity. The city is also financially challenged, limiting its ability to provide direct assistance. Deleting this ordinance is an easy way to address this problem while saving the city money on zoning enforcement.
The author of this article does not have even basic understanding that when a single family house is occupied by a crowd of people the electric, water and sewage systems are experiencing stress. That’s why a single family home is called a SINGLE family home. The occupancy laws are protecting neighbors who have rights to quiet and clean environments. We buy homes in residential areas and do not want to live next to homes turned into dorms or packed with migrant workers. How would you, Mr. Salmans, would like to live next to a house with 10-15 people, who cannot care less about garbage they produce, about the junk on their porch, about your property value?
If water, electric or sewer capacity were the limiting factor, Pittsburgh could impose occupancy limits that were applied irrespective of family status. Tenants who are unrelated don’t suddenly put more stress on this infrastructure than a family with the same number of people. Furthermore, Pittsburgh’s population has declined from a peak of 676,806 in 1950 to 301,286 today. Much of our housing stock is old and was built when typical families were larger. Our infrastructure has excess capacity and our tax base could use additional residents. I think the type of prejudice in this post that people who live as roommates are somehow nosier or dirtier than families is the basis for a variety of exclusionary housing practices. This type of prejudice has caused significant harm to people trying to meet their basic housing needs. I doubt 10-15 people would choose to live in the houses on my street if it were legal. However, they are mostly 6 bedroom houses with three full baths. There is space, and if people want to live that way that should be their right. Our family of five hosted another family of five for the weekend once and there was plenty of space in our house for everyone. However, if we wanted to live with another family like this it would be illegal.
There’s no law against a couple having more than 1 kid, so if a couple has 8 kids, or a couple with 2 grandparents living with them has 6 kids, or siblings move in together with spouses, grandparents, and kids to save money, you still have that same scenario.
I understand your argument about housing insecurity and having extra roommates to help alleviate financial struggles, but the fact is that landlords are not leasing their houses at the same rate regardless of the number of roommates. Many charge per person. At $750 per head, a house with 4 people grosses $3K per month, while the same house with 6 people grosses $4,500 per month. The landlord isn’t splitting the $3K between the 6 roommates, they’re still charging per head not per house. Therefore, housing insecurity and financial instability would still be in the same position it’s in today.
That means there is truly no point to the law — it doesn’t accomplish anything that can’t be accomplished in other ways but does restrict people’s freedom unnecessarily.
Bad bad landlords. !! so sick of reading about how landlords are so evil. I wish the author of this article would buy some rentals and fill them up with multiple college students see how quickly his investment depreciates having so many bodies using the kitchen and the toilet and all of the other facilities. Just like any subjects there’s two sides to every story, and usually the truth like somewhere in the middle!
The article doesn’t say landlords are bad, it’s bad that the zoning code prevents landlords who want to from renting to more than three people who want to live together.
Landlords should have to be courteous to the neighborhoods they rent in. A street with families on it aren’t going to want to live next to 6 20 year old college kids. Three college kids, maybe not so bad. This rule blankets the entire city of Pittsburgh, maybe it could be amended to only apply to the wards near colleges… because that’s what this rule is really about. Adults living together who pay their own way aren’t the real focus of the rule. It’s made to keep neighborhoods safe and friendly.
Additionally, I haven’t heard of the rule being enforced on small landlords who rent 1 or 2 houses, only the big fish get fried by this law, and man does it hurt.