Dozens of Pittsburgh residents packed a heated City Council public hearing Wednesday night to cheer, jeer, and express their opinions about proposed zoning rule changes.
The hearing was centered around a bill sponsored by Councilor Theresa Kail-Smith that would provide more opportunities for officials and residents to weigh in on approving community homes – a type of small-scale group home for disabled residents.
But the hearing also served as a place to debate a rival zoning bill, presented by Mayor Ed Gainey’s administration, that would streamline approval for community homes – and add small homeless shelters and halfway houses to the definition.
Kail-Smith’s bill would require small community homes and personal care residences to be subject to mandatory public hearings, both before the city’s planning commission and council. Council would be required to ultimately approve the uses.
In contrast, according to Deputy Mayor Jake Pawlak, Gainey’s “Fair Housing” bill covers homeless shelters, homes for disabled people and halfway houses. It would allow smaller versions of those homes, containing up to 10 people, to be built without special meetings or requirements.
In letters sent to homeowners, Kail-Smith has raised concerns that Gainey’s bill could allow homeless shelters to be put into neighborhoods without public process.
Such concerns were on the minds of the nearly 50 people who spoke at the meeting, in remarks that were often punctuated with applause, shouting and booing. Residents expressed alarm about the possibility of homeless shelters coming to their neighborhood. Many spoke of fears that such facilities would increase crime and lower property values.
“When you put this in a residential community, you are putting the lives of residents and the individuals in danger of death or serious injury,” said Carrick resident Jim Boland.
At times, the meeting turned into an airing of grievances over the city’s handling of homeless residents. Some people even suggested moving homeless residents into the suburbs.
“Countless people have told us they won't come back to the city because of the danger posed by homelessness on our downtown streets and green spaces,” said resident Deborah Wiley, who said she was “dumbfounded” by Gainey’s proposal. “City residents see homeless people all day long causing havoc, scaring people on city streets, camping out and panhandling.”
“Many of the homeless are homeless because they've exhibited dangerous tendencies in the past, and many are criminally mentally ill,” said resident Mary Kozakiewicz. “Removing restrictions opens the door to potentially dangerous group homes, halfway houses, drug treatment centers. … Those places do not belong in residential neighborhoods.”
“I don’t want that in my neighborhood,” said Kirk Shimp, a Brookline homeowner who previously worked for Public Works and cleaned homeless encampments. “It’s foul. The drug use is out of control.”
Residents also expressed concern that Gainey’s bill would remove opportunities for the public and Council to weigh in.
Resident Nicholas Vrcic said any group-living proposals would be required to go through a public process. “Otherwise, proposals under consideration, if left unchallenged, could presumably create a commission dictatorship,” he said.
‘A lot of fearmongering going on’
Others argued that Kail-Smith’s bill could discriminate against disabled residents. Some speakers talked about how community homes had helped disabled loved ones thrive.
“I've worked with and lived beside the people who would have a harder time finding a home if this legislation passes,” said John Rhoades of Polish Hill. “I believe in removing barriers to making sure our city is a place that is welcoming to all people, especially people living with disabilities. … Pittsburgh is a city of strength. We don’t have to be afraid of people. We can embrace them and lift them up.”
“Permitting the building of group homes at the discretion of city council is not only wasteful, as I assume you all have better things to do, but also will functionally make these types of supportive homes more difficult to build,” said Beechview homeowner Amy Zaiss.
She worried that Kail-Smith’s bill would result in supportive housing only being built in poor communities, where people don’t have as much time to object at public meetings.
“This will ultimately embolden the ‘not in my backyard’ crowd here, which I'm frankly disappointed to see,” she said.
Some also decried the way other speakers portrayed homeless residents.
“We cannot continue to restrict, make things more difficult, for at least marginalized people to find housing, living space, to not be on our streets,” said resident Fred Smith. “Crime is inevitable, but it's not saying that just because you're going to have a group home or residential home or whatever in your community, that it's just going to spark crime.”
“Any community engagement process we have must take into consideration the needs of the city and not just the people on the block,” said resident Vlad Kaplun. “There’s a lot of fearmongering going on that I’m not sure reflects the text of the Fair Housing bill.”
‘We have more to do here’
Councilor Anthony Coghill said he fully supports Kail-Smith’s bill. He said there are other ways to help the homeless in Pittsburgh, like his and Councilor Deb Gross’s bill reintroduced earlier this week that would allow for other forms of interim housing, like so-called “tiny homes.”
Gainey’s bill “should not be presented to this city,” Coghill said. “We have plans out there that we can act on, we can move on tomorrow. Don’t be fooled. We don’t need this in that legislation in order to find housing for our unhoused.”
Councilor Barb Warwick criticized some of the hearing’s rhetoric as “mean.”
“I understand that it is grounded in fear,” she said. “But our unhoused neighbors are literally the most vulnerable people in our city. When we talk about safety, there is no place that is less safe for a woman on her own than sleeping in a tent under a bridge. And I think we need to remember that.”
She agreed that Gainey’s bill wasn’t perfect, and that public input is important. But she also said she feared Kail-Smith’s bill would lead to politics being prioritized over people.
“I think that we have more to do here,” Warwick said. “I think that we can reach a compromise here, but it’s going to take some time.”
