How can that be? What does it say about Pittsburgh's recruiting and vetting process? Does it resemble the iffy due diligence that likely plays a role in the ongoing departure of high level appointees from Portland city government?
I asked Anthropics' Claude AI to assess the problems at the city's housing agency. I supplied it with this piece and The Oregonian's coverage of Home Forward going back to April of this year. This is the result:
The reforms that follow from this record are not complicated:
Stop new development starts until portfolio occupancy reaches the promised 6% vacancy.
Tie any future development funding to measured operating performance.
Lower rents on units priced above market immediately.
Use the expedited eviction statute as written.
Stop placing high-acuity tenants in buildings designed for seniors and disabled residents unless on-site services are funded first.
Build dedicated supportive housing, with clinical staff, for people who need it, and stop treating ordinary affordable housing as a substitute.
Publish the outside assessment and the dashboard, or explain why they don't exist.
Replace the board members who oversaw the travel spending and the Hollywood East record.
None of these requires solving the national housing shortage. All of them are within reach of Home Forward, its board, and the City of Portland. The Examiner headline says managers admit the system is broken. The more useful point is that they run a large part of it.
This is what the Pittsburgh Housing Authority announced:
“After an extensive national search, the Board is thrilled to welcome Ivory Mathews as the next Executive Director of the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh,” said Wasi Mohamed, Chair of the HACP Board of Commissioners. “Ivory is a nationally recognized affordable housing executive who brings nearly three decades of transformational leadership, a proven track record of success, and a deep commitment to expanding access to affordable housing. Following a thorough review and extended conversations, we are confident in her ability to lead HACP into an exciting new chapter. We look forward to working together to strengthen our agency, deliver for our residents, and create more opportunities for Pittsburgh families.”
Did anyone there even read the scandal she created in Portland?
Could the homeless problem be solved if so much money didn't have to be made in the process of solving it? And how dare these rich white guys call places where poor people live "shit shows"!
I’ve volunteered with SRO residents in Old Town, many of whom are recovering from addiction. Even they complain about a system that mixes people who are stable and simply trying to get by with people who are actively using, highly disruptive, or not ready for independent housing.
So I wouldn’t dismiss the description as just “rich white guys” insulting poor people. Some of the residents living in these buildings would probably use equally strong language themselves.
Reducing this to “people making money” and “rich white guys” doesn’t really help solve the problem. The harder question is how to provide safe housing for low-income tenants while also dealing honestly with addiction, disruptive behavior, and residents who need more support than ordinary independent housing provides.
One thing I’ve heard repeatedly from residents is that conditions can depend heavily on the quality of the on-site manager. Once a building loses control, it can be very difficult to restore order. That may also be an argument for smaller buildings, where managers can know residents better, problems are easier to identify early, and a relatively small number of difficult tenants are less likely to destabilize an entire property.
The real issue is whether the housing system is serving very different populations as though they all have the same needs.
This is not about affordable housing capacity, it’s about site mismanagement, excessive construction costs for the new site which has no parking, and not taking responsibility for the residents legal right of quiet enjoyment. Home Forward and its property manager Pinehurst management in the Pearl properties have failed the residents, good people that deserve better. You can’t attract new tenants when you don’t manage properties adequately, and allow some individuals to live in them that have serious behavioral health and substance abuse issues, resulting in security and other site problems. Thank goodness residents have created their own governance systems to help hold Home Forward and Pinehurst Management accountable. No more excuses, just action and accountability are needed.
“Why are we spending $700 million on a new building when we’ve got 900 units that are open?” Because Portland has a huge drug problem that a is not being addressed. Because there is easy money for housing and not for drug treatment. There are over 2000 vacant, low-cost housing units in Portland that have remained unfilled for quite some time.
Howard Husock makes a useful distinction in America’s Trillion-Dollar Housing Mistake between people who are economically poor and people whose behavior makes them difficult tenants or neighbors. The two are not the same. Many low-income and working-poor households are responsible tenants who simply cannot afford market rents.
That distinction seems directly relevant here. Some tenants—particularly people dealing with active addiction, severe instability, or the early stages of recovery—may need more structured housing, closer supervision, treatment, or supportive services before they are ready for fully independent tenancy. Placing everyone into the same housing model does a disservice both to those who need more support and to responsible low-income tenants who deserve safe, stable homes.
Treating every low-income tenant as though they have the same needs and can function successfully in the same setting is not compassionate policy. It is poor housing management.
I’m exhausted watching these slow-motion, completely preventable disasters unfold while the city keeps moving forward as if there’s no reason to stop and reassess. At some point, accountability and basic competence have to matter.
In other news, the former director of Home Forward, Ivory Matthews, is the newly appointed Executive Director of the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh (HACP), effective October 1, 2026. https://hacp.org/hacp-board-selects-ivory-mathews-as-next-executive-director/
How can that be? What does it say about Pittsburgh's recruiting and vetting process? Does it resemble the iffy due diligence that likely plays a role in the ongoing departure of high level appointees from Portland city government?
I asked Anthropics' Claude AI to assess the problems at the city's housing agency. I supplied it with this piece and The Oregonian's coverage of Home Forward going back to April of this year. This is the result:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What accountability would actually require
The reforms that follow from this record are not complicated:
Stop new development starts until portfolio occupancy reaches the promised 6% vacancy.
Tie any future development funding to measured operating performance.
Lower rents on units priced above market immediately.
Use the expedited eviction statute as written.
Stop placing high-acuity tenants in buildings designed for seniors and disabled residents unless on-site services are funded first.
Build dedicated supportive housing, with clinical staff, for people who need it, and stop treating ordinary affordable housing as a substitute.
Publish the outside assessment and the dashboard, or explain why they don't exist.
Replace the board members who oversaw the travel spending and the Hollywood East record.
None of these requires solving the national housing shortage. All of them are within reach of Home Forward, its board, and the City of Portland. The Examiner headline says managers admit the system is broken. The more useful point is that they run a large part of it.
This is what the Pittsburgh Housing Authority announced:
“After an extensive national search, the Board is thrilled to welcome Ivory Mathews as the next Executive Director of the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh,” said Wasi Mohamed, Chair of the HACP Board of Commissioners. “Ivory is a nationally recognized affordable housing executive who brings nearly three decades of transformational leadership, a proven track record of success, and a deep commitment to expanding access to affordable housing. Following a thorough review and extended conversations, we are confident in her ability to lead HACP into an exciting new chapter. We look forward to working together to strengthen our agency, deliver for our residents, and create more opportunities for Pittsburgh families.”
Did anyone there even read the scandal she created in Portland?
I do believe the part about "extended conversations."
So agreed!
failing up !
Could the homeless problem be solved if so much money didn't have to be made in the process of solving it? And how dare these rich white guys call places where poor people live "shit shows"!
I’ve volunteered with SRO residents in Old Town, many of whom are recovering from addiction. Even they complain about a system that mixes people who are stable and simply trying to get by with people who are actively using, highly disruptive, or not ready for independent housing.
So I wouldn’t dismiss the description as just “rich white guys” insulting poor people. Some of the residents living in these buildings would probably use equally strong language themselves.
Reducing this to “people making money” and “rich white guys” doesn’t really help solve the problem. The harder question is how to provide safe housing for low-income tenants while also dealing honestly with addiction, disruptive behavior, and residents who need more support than ordinary independent housing provides.
One thing I’ve heard repeatedly from residents is that conditions can depend heavily on the quality of the on-site manager. Once a building loses control, it can be very difficult to restore order. That may also be an argument for smaller buildings, where managers can know residents better, problems are easier to identify early, and a relatively small number of difficult tenants are less likely to destabilize an entire property.
The real issue is whether the housing system is serving very different populations as though they all have the same needs.
This is not about affordable housing capacity, it’s about site mismanagement, excessive construction costs for the new site which has no parking, and not taking responsibility for the residents legal right of quiet enjoyment. Home Forward and its property manager Pinehurst management in the Pearl properties have failed the residents, good people that deserve better. You can’t attract new tenants when you don’t manage properties adequately, and allow some individuals to live in them that have serious behavioral health and substance abuse issues, resulting in security and other site problems. Thank goodness residents have created their own governance systems to help hold Home Forward and Pinehurst Management accountable. No more excuses, just action and accountability are needed.
“Why are we spending $700 million on a new building when we’ve got 900 units that are open?” Because Portland has a huge drug problem that a is not being addressed. Because there is easy money for housing and not for drug treatment. There are over 2000 vacant, low-cost housing units in Portland that have remained unfilled for quite some time.
Howard Husock makes a useful distinction in America’s Trillion-Dollar Housing Mistake between people who are economically poor and people whose behavior makes them difficult tenants or neighbors. The two are not the same. Many low-income and working-poor households are responsible tenants who simply cannot afford market rents.
That distinction seems directly relevant here. Some tenants—particularly people dealing with active addiction, severe instability, or the early stages of recovery—may need more structured housing, closer supervision, treatment, or supportive services before they are ready for fully independent tenancy. Placing everyone into the same housing model does a disservice both to those who need more support and to responsible low-income tenants who deserve safe, stable homes.
Treating every low-income tenant as though they have the same needs and can function successfully in the same setting is not compassionate policy. It is poor housing management.
I’m exhausted watching these slow-motion, completely preventable disasters unfold while the city keeps moving forward as if there’s no reason to stop and reassess. At some point, accountability and basic competence have to matter.
Seriously. Enough.