Editorial: Common sense solutions for housing are great idea

People frustrated by government often cite one troubling factor: a lack of common sense.

That can look like a committee spending months debating a solution to a problem your regular person on the street finds fairly obvious. The length of time it takes to decide to put a stop sign at a place where cars regularly collide is a good example.

It also can take the form of spending big bucks to answer a question that maybe no one was asking. Carnegie Mellon professor emeritus Robert Kraut once did a study for the National Institute of Mental Health into why people — including bowlers and hockey fans — smile. It was critiqued as a waste of government money. (In fairness to Kraut and his partner, Robert Johnston, like many other studies, it does have deeper meaning and impact than a toothy grin after a strike.)

But sometimes government can get something right — even if it seems almost accidental.

On Aug. 23, Pittsburgh City Council introduced legislation to find solutions for homelessness. Included were directions for city departments to identify 40 parcels of city-owned land that could be part of the solution by being used for things like tiny homes, temporary shelters and seasonal heating or cooling shelters.

Not forgotten, however, was the need for affordable housing to be part of the mix. At least 10 of the parcels to be identified would be for affordable housing — either to rent or to buy.

On Tuesday, council heard another proposal. Councilwoman Deb Gross sponsored legislation asking Mayor Ed Gainey to produce a report on “accessory dwelling units” that could be part of a solution. These might be spaces in attics or basements that could be converted to acceptable rentals or turning a garage into housing.

Today, zoning doesn’t allow for new detached accessory dwellings to be built. But they were once used in the city and could still be in existence. The legislation wouldn’t change that, but would help council get a better idea of what the city’s housing stock could be.

This is a smart move for a number of reasons. First, starting with information is always a better idea than just making a decision only to find out why it won’t work when it fails.

Second, it recognizes that intrinsic link between homelessness and affordable housing. People become homeless when they fall off that bottom rung of the housing ladder — especially in times like these when rental rates have ballooned. That makes it harder for people to escape homelessness as the most basic housing remains out of reach.

Perhaps best of all, it invites homeowners to be part of the solution instead of adversaries. It is often hard to sell the idea of affordable housing to areas that can be all for it — as long as it’s not in their neighborhood. By looking at the accessory dwelling options, it creates a way for people with existing real estate to create new income streams. That could be a way to drop that second job or not have to drive Uber. It could be more stable than renting rooms on Airbnb and might let empty-nesters and older residents find ways to keep the homes they love.

These ideas solve problems by bringing all of the ideas to the table with healthy helpings of common sense. Maybe other communities — and the state Legislature — could pay attention.