(Photo by Margaret Krauss, WESA News)

Great turnout at the URA Lexington Park community meeting! Thanks to all the North Point Breeze, Homewood and PPT members that turned out to support affordable housing on the site. We will continue to advocate for community members to have a seat at the URA table to decide on the conditions set in the Request for Proposals (RFP) for developers, and to choose the developer for the site.

From WESA’s Report: Homewood, Point Breeze North Residents Push for Greater Involvement in Future Development: “For too long, development has driven poor people out of neighborhoods, said Mel Packer of Pittsburghers for Public Transit.

‘We have destroyed affordable housing,’ he said. ‘We have the chance here to develop a model community of mixed housing.’ ”

We know that transit assets like the MLK East Busway are often the first sites of displacement and gentrification in cities, and that the housing costs along the stops of the East Busway have been escalating in recent years. Rising housing and rental costs mean that low income transit riders that depend on public transit to get to jobs, food, childcare, family, and places of worship are being pushed out to affordable housing in the county, often to places that have little to no access to transit.

We want to ensure that people that depend on our buses, and particularly long term residents, are able to stay in their communities and near good bus lines as development happens. The URA is going to hold a community meeting on Thursday Nov 2nd at Construction Junction (214 N Lexington St Pittsburgh, 15208) to talk about the future of the Lexington Industrial Park site. It is 16 acres of prime land that is adjacent to the Homewood Ave busway stop. This is an opportunity to begin to address the crisis of affordable housing in the city, by building affordable units that allow residents to live, work and play in the community without needing a car to get around. It is also critical that this site not be full of market rate apartments that would sharply drive up the cost of rentals and homeowner taxes for adjacent businesses, tenants, and homeowners.

In 2014, the URA did a community study of development around the Homewood Ave station  in collaboration with PCRG. These were the guiding principles for equitable development that emerged through that community survey:

• The community should be involved from the beginning and throughout the process

• People who live in the community should get to stay there

• Development should create a strong and durable community that attracts and welcomes new residents

• Publicly-held land should benefit and support the economic stability of the neighborhood / public first

• Local business owners should have the opportunity to grow their businesses and new businesses in the community should be supported

• Transit should get people to jobs, education, goods and other opportunities

• Policies that support these principles should be permanent and not tied to a specific project or administration

We are calling on the URA to adhere to these principles, and to specifically include mixed income housing as part of this Request for Proposals (RFP) that it will put out for developers.

PPT has put forward the following proposal for the site, and we are encouraging residents to support this model:

Why have moderate density affordable housing on the site?

-To maintain diversity in the neighborhood of both income and race

-To begin to address the affordable housing unit shortage of 20,000 units in this city

-So that people that rely on public transit have good access to our best transit assets, and to incentivize more people to use alternative modes of transit to cars

-So that neighboring businesses like the East End Co-Op, the Construction Junction and subsidiary renters, and other smaller organizations are not priced out.

-So that neighbors that are tenants aren’t forced to leave because of rising rents, and homeowners on a fixed income not be priced out because of rising taxes.

What is a reasonable, positive and achievable proposal on the site?

How do we help ensure extended affordability?

1. The URA could have a ground lease on the site, with affordability provisions, and lease to a developer who would comply with these conditions OR

2. If a non-profit developer were to develop the site, after the 15 year tax credit period ran out, they could have the right of first refusal to buy the site from the investors, to continue to maintain affordability

3. Talk to the URA about how tenants could have equity on the site, potentially by having the residents be offered an affordable buyout option after the 15 year tax credit ran out, to turn into a cooperative ownership structure.

Some Developers that do Attractive, Responsible Affordable Housing in the City include:

Action Housing

Trek Development

Telesis Corp.

Complementary Uses?

It would be good to have ground level retail that supports local jobs and supports local needs.

Organizer Krystle Knight from the Thomas Merton Center shares survey responses from Latinx transit riders, who would be reluctant to use the T if Port Authority police were checking fares, and if public transit was serving as an immigration checkpoint.

Powerful testimony on Friday, October 27, in the Port Authority Board Room about the consequences of implementing the Bus Rapid Transit plan at the expense of riders on the 61 and 71 buses. Currently the Port Authority is anticipating a 45 % cut in frequency on the 61 buses, and mandatory transfers in Oakland for riders to go downtown, which could cost an additional $1 or $2.75 each way.

For Facebook live video of the testimony, click below, shared by our friends in Just Harvest:

https://www.facebook.com/JustHarvest/videos/10155004352087517/

https://www.facebook.com/JustHarvest/videos/10155004379572517/

Nearly 40% of Braddock commuters take public transit to go to work. This will further disadvantage communities that have been hardest hit by disinvestment and the collapse of the steel industries.

Coverage of the BRT testimony by the Pittsburgh Post Gazette can be found here:

“For some Port Authority customers, the agency’s decision to push for a Bus Rapid Transit system between Oakland and Downtown Pittsburgh is serving the “haves” at the expense of the “have-nots.”
Through a series of neighborhood meetings and last week’s authority board meeting, dozens of Monongahela Valley residents have sharply criticized the agency for an expected reduction in local service and an added transfer in Oakland if they want to travel from their communities to the Downtown area. They view the project as improving service for mostly white, middle-class riders and cutting service for lower-class, mostly black communities that don’t have other transportation options.”

——

If you are a resident of Rankin, Duquesne, Braddock, or McKeesport, please take this Port Authority survey so that the Port Authority can implement service that will actually address your transit needs.

Full room at the Duquesne BRT meeting yesterday! Thanks to everyone who came out to say “NO” to more cuts to service.

The BRT meetings in Braddock, Duquesne, and McKeesport over the past several weeks have been packed, and residents raised many important concerns around the current proposed BRT plan. As it stands, riders on the 61 A,B,C in the Mon Valley will lose their direct route to downtown and have forced transfers in Oakland. Riders and residents made it clear that the BRT benefits some at the expense of riders out in these neighborhoods, and the current plan is NOT equitable!

If you live in Braddock, Duquesne, McKeesport or Rankin, please fill out this survey here so the Port Authority knows your transit needs and uses.

Thanks to all who came out yesterday to oppose armed police checking fare payment on our public transit. We’re asking Dom Costa and the Port Authority board: which side are you on? Your constituents say “NO” to the criminalization of transit riders.

Transportation not Deportation! Public Transit, not a Checkpoint!

http://

Crystal Jennings leading chants at the Don’t Criminalize Transit Riders rally and speakers Brandi Fisher from the Alliance for Police Accountability, Alma Brigido, and Jordan Malloy from Fight for Lifers West shared some powerful stories and speeches about why the community has rallied against this terrible policy.

Thanks to Christina Acuna Castillo for the artwork and Dean Mougianis for the video!

http://

Please join us for our October PPT meeting on Tuesday, October 17th at 7pm at 1 Smithfield Street downtown. Hear updates about our campaigns and actions over the past month and ways to plug in in upcoming events.

For more information, please call (718) 309-0853

There have been some changes to the schedule of BRT meetings. The McKeesport meeting has been moved from this Wednesday to next Monday, October 16th at 7pm at the Palisades (100 Fifth Avenue, 2nd floor).

Apologies for the confusion. Here’s the list of upcoming meetings/events for clarity:

1. Letter delivery to Dom Costa’s office for Don’t Criminalize Transit Riders Campaign: Thursday, October 12th at 9:45am at Napoli Field in Morningside (near intersection of President Way and Antietam St.)
2. McKeesport BRT Meeting: Monday, October 16th at 7pm @ The Palisades– 100 Fifth Avenue
3. PPT October Meeting: Tuesday, October 17th at 7pm, location TBD
4. Duquesne BRT Meeting: Wednesday, October 18th at 6:30pm at Duquesne City Hall (12 S. Second Street)

If anyone has any questions, please email chandana@pittsburghforpublictransit.org or call (718) 309-0853.

Thanks so much!

Hi all!

There’s been so much happening this past month! Thanks to the awesome work of residents and riders, the County and the Port Authority have scheduled three community meetings in Braddock, McKeesport, and Duquesne to address concerns around the BRT. Unfortunately, the upcoming one in McKeesport is happening at the same time as our scheduled October meeting.

In light of that, we’re going to be pushing back the PPT meeting to Tuesday, October 17th at 7pm, location TBD. If folks can instead make it to the McKeesport BRT meeting to support residents out there advocating against massive cuts to frequency on the 61 buses and loss of a direct route downtown, that would be awesome! Here’s more details:
MCKEESPORT BRT MEETING

September 29th, 2017

Great testimony today at the Port Authority board meeting about why we should not have criminal penalties and Port Authority police doing fare enforcement on the T! Speakers included representatives from The Women and Girls Foundation, Aryse, PIIN, Urban Kind, Fight for LIfers West, LCLAA, the Center for Independent Living and Beechview Area Concerned Citizens.

Additionally, groups that signed onto a letter of support for a civil enforcement process include:

The Hill District Consensus Group
Restaurant Opportunities Center of Pittsburgh
One PA
ACCESS Mob
Pennsylvania Immigration and Citizenship Coalition (PICC)
Bhutanese Community Association of Pittsburgh
Allentown CDC
Zone Three Public Safety Council
Bloomfield Livable Streets
Bike Pittsburgh

See the letter below:

To: Port Authority of Allegheny County

We are writing to demand that the Port Authority of Allegheny County halts the implementation of their fare enforcement policy – “the proof of payment system” – on the light rail, until public concerns have been adequately addressed.  

Our concerns for the implementation of the currently proposed proof of payment policy can be summarized as follows. For the black and brown community, we know that even police officers with the best of intentions practice racial profiling (selective enforcement). Across the country, requiring armed police to have thousands of extra encounters with the public a week has proven to result in unnecessary confrontations and use of force incidents. These disproportionately impact black and brown communities. There have been incidents involving Port Authority police in the past, including but not limited to the murder of Bruce Kelley, Jr. and a confrontation with Somali youth downtown. Many communities still remember the recent and tragic deaths of Oscar Grant and Chad Robertson at the hands of transit police in their own cities.

For the immigrant community: when police run their names to check for prior fare violations, this can trigger contact with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and begin an unjust and destructive process of detainment and deportation. No one should be detained and deported for the suspicion of failing to pay a $2.50 fare. The recent case of Ariel Vences-Lopez having his immigration status questioned by Metro Transit Police in Minneapolis led to Mr. Vences-Lopez being detained by I.C.E. and scheduled for deportation.  

For youth: many students ride the T to school and after-school activities everyday. If they forget their bus pass 3 times, they are subject to both a Theft of Services and Criminal Trespass charge, which will result in a $300 fine or arrest. In NYC, 70% of arrestees were 16-17 years old. This will worsen the school-to-prison pipeline, lead to constitutional rights violations and future ACLU lawsuits.

In regard to those with mental health challenges, or intellectual disabilities: those with disabilities often respond in ways that police have misinterpreted as threats or defiance, and police have unnecessarily responded with force, leading to injury and death.

Finally, for the poor: this proposal results in the criminalization of an everyday necessity.

We support a civil fare enforcement process, where a civilian “fare ambassador” checks for fare payment, and writes a citation if someone cannot prove payment after several offences. Those citations would ultimately go to a bill collector, similar to the process that the Pittsburgh Parking Authority and Southwest PA Turnpike Commission follow. In addition, we believe that the Port Authority should have a policy limiting coordination and communication with ICE, should implement rigorous racial bias training for Port Authority Police and fare ambassadors, and have transparency and accountability with enforcement data.

There is ample evidence that demonstrates that the U.S. cities that have civilian fare checkers- with non-police powers- do not have a high rate of fare evasion. Our coalition is not proposing to duplicate any of these example cities’ fare enforcement practices entirely, but follow the best proof-of-payment practices that the Transit Cooperative Research Program of the Federal Transit Administration identifies: namely, to have a customer service approach rather than a traditional policing approach. It is important to note that concern over fare evasion is not the reason why PAAC is considering implementation of Proof-of- Payment. The only goal of the proof of payment is to increase efficiency, by allowing riders to board at any door on the T, without waiting in line to pay the driver or off-board fare collector. This goal would be accomplished regardless of whether or not enforcement were performed by Port Authority police or civilian fare ambassadors, and whether or not fare evasion had civil or criminal consequences, without any of the harm we foresee happening under the Port Authority’s current policy proposal.

Sincerely,

The Hill District Consensus Group

Restaurant Opportunities Center of Pittsburgh

One PA

ACCESS Mob

Pennsylvania Immigration and Citizenship Coalition (PICC)

Bhutanese Community Association of Pittsburgh

Allentown CDC

Zone Three Public Safety Council

Bloomfield Livable Streets

Bike Pittsburgh

LCLAA

Fight for Lifers West