►
From YouTube: Pittsburgh City Council Public Hearing - 10/28/19
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
B
Good
afternoon
and
welcome
to
Pittsburgh
City
Council
cablecast
post
cablecast
public
hearing
of
Monday
October
28
2019,
we
are
joined
with
us
by
Councilwoman
Deborah
growth
gross,
we're
going
to
ask
that
the
in
this
order
the
clerk
will
read
the
purpose
of
the
public
hearing
and
then
from
my
office.
Shawn
Carter
will
talk
a
little
bit
and
brief
you
as
to
the
process
that
brought
us
here
this
afternoon.
B
D
Name
is
Shawn
Carter
special
assistant
in
the
office
of
Councilman,
Ricky
Burgess
and
we're
here
today
for
a
public
hearing
on
two
resolutions,
the
first
of
which
is
bill
number
two:
zero
one,
nine
two
one,
eight
zero.
A
resolution
authorizing
the
conveyance
of
a
portion
of
Enright
Park
to
Pendley
park
south
incorporated
and
accepting
certain
property
in
the
eighth
ward
of
the
city
of
Pittsburgh
for
public
purposes
to
become
portion
of
to
become
part
of
Enright
Park.
As
council
is
aware
and
I
think,
as
the
most
of
the
public
is
aware.
D
And
so
that's
why
it
is
before
you
today,
and
the
second
piece
of
legislation
is
bill.
Number
two,
one,
eight
one:
it's
a
resolution
authorizing
the
acceptance
by
the
city
of
Pittsburgh,
of
the
grant
of
an
easement
on
a
brand
new
street
that
is
being
constructed
by
Penley
park
south
to
provide
permanent
public
access
to
that
park
and
to
the
residents
who
live
near
it
and
to
the
development
itself,
and
there
is
a
map.
D
There's
a
legal
description
of
that
easement
and
everyone
in
the
room,
I
believe
has
Exhibit
A
and
Exhibit
B
is
a
map
or
more?
A
survey
with
the
pink
street
is
that's
new
IVA
Street
in
the
green
is
new
south
st.
Clair
Street
and
those
streets
in
addition
to
providing
permanent
public
access
to
the
development
retains
permanent
public
access
to
the
residential
subdivision.
Behind
it
was
there
anything
else.
You
wanted
me
to
discuss.
Reverend
Burgess,
no.
B
That's
fine,
I
think
that's
good!
Thank
you
very
much,
Sean
all
right,
so
we'll
go
now
to
the
public
comment.
Part
of
this
public
hearing
so
far,
I
have
three
speakers
who
have
registered
and
if
there's
other
speakers
here,
I
will
also
afford
them
three
minutes.
If
there
are
other
speakers
here,
but
in
order
I
have
Jennifer
Haven
follow-up,
who
is
opposed,
followed
by
Yvonne
F
brow.
E
We
have
not
sued
the
city,
we
have
not
been
a
plaintiff
in
any
lawsuits.
We
were
only
intervenors
in
the
lawsuits
between
PBS
and
the
city,
and
I
also
wanted
to
mention.
If
it
seems
strange
that
there
are
not
more
people
here
today,
myself
and
John
Extell
are
here
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
entire
and
Wright
Park
coalition.
There
are
only
certain
people
that
are
able
to
take
off
during
the
middle
of
the
day
and
because
this
is
a
1:30
hearing,
we
didn't
want
it
to
be
a
burden
on
everybody
in
our
coalition.
E
It's
just
really
confusing
to
me
because
it's
my
understanding
that
you
councilmen
gross
and
you
council,
member,
just
that
you
don't
work
for
the
administration,
that
you
don't
work
for
developers
any
developer
in
the
city
that
you
work
for
us.
You
work
for
me.
You
work
for
them,
but
you
know,
and
I
I
try
so
hard
to
not
be
adversarial.
I
really
do,
but
we
just
really
feel
that
the
administration
has
forgotten
us.
They
forgotten
the
promises
that
they
had
made
to
us
over
two
years
ago,
and
you
should
be
our
protectors.
E
You
should
be
the
people
that
are
holding
up
those
promises,
you're
our
liaisons
to
the
city
administration.
You
should
be
our
champions.
You
should
be
championing
public
space
space
that
had
been
given
to
you
decades
ago
and
are
held
under
the
public
trust
document.
For
us
that
is
our
Park.
These
are
our
rivers.
These
are
our
hills.
Everything
here
belongs
to
us
and
I.
Just
we
shouldn't
allow
our
elected
officials
to
monetize
our
sacrosanct
investments
in
open
space
and
parkland.
E
It's
truly
the
taxpayers
that
fund
the
acquisition
and
the
continued
investments
through
our
tax
dollars
and
we're
doing
this
further
for
us
for
our
future
generations.
Please
please
take
this
seriously
and
don't
take
us
as
someone
that's
here,
to
bother
you
or
to
to
be
offensive
to
you
in
any
way,
because
that's
not
my
intention.
Thank
you.
So
much
thank.
F
My
name
is
Yvonne
F,
Brown
and
I
must
deviate.
I
must
make
an
announcement,
and
this
is
for
the
citizens,
because
we
are
being
placed
in
clear
and
present
danger.
Coming
down,
Bedford
I
told
mr.
LaBelle
about
the
two
sides
they
put
them
up.
Who
one
is
back
again
see
what
you
must
understand.
There
are
two
signs.
The
bottom
is
gray.
The
sign
is
on
the
fence,
but
someone
that
can't
see
it
looks
like
it's
all
the
ground.
My
sight
is
bad.
F
Do
you
understand
I'll,
try
to
call
yesterday
to
tell
them
they
need
to
change
the
position
that
they
have.
These
signs.
Both
of
them
are
down
the
day
me
and
the
children
had
to
walk
in
the
street
when
I
came
back
the
other
day
ahead.
Okay
I
had
a
big
cart.
I
had
to
walk
all
the
way
up.
The
hill
with
the
cars
flying
past
me
so
I'm
telling
you
mayor,
I
tried
to
leave
you
a
message.
She
told
me
no
call
3-1-1
mayor.
F
We
are
a
clear
and
present
danger
coming
down
the
hill,
see
what
bothered
me
is
I've.
Seen
a
public
work
truck,
go
past,
I'm
calling
them
to
look.
Please
see,
I'm
not
kidding.
This
is
dangerous
and
I
know
it,
because
I
can't
see
that
well.
Also
number
two,
the
lady
from
the
Enright
court
I,
had
asked
her.
If
the
last
time
they
had
a
petition
petition
that
had
a
hearing.
The
reason
why
I
was
interested
in
in
write
quite
there's,
a
case
worker.
That
was
my
area
and
there
was
a
bunch
of
children.
F
F
They
put
her
clowns,
put
her
ahead
of
me
cuz.
He
did
not
answer
mines
within
30
days,
plus
my
understanding.
The
woman
got
five
minutes.
When
I
did
my
Proclamation
I
mean
when
I
did
my
hearing
I
want
you
to
understand,
I
was
given
three
minutes.
He
said
we
have
two
speakers,
I
said
well.
Who
is
the
sponsor?
Who
this
is
some
serious
sponsor
I
have
all
the
papers
from
Mary
Beth
telling
me,
and
she
also
said
that
would
only
get
three
minutes.
I
didn't
know
it
then
oh
and
making
please
pray
for
me.
F
When
you
see
me
upset
because
I'm
coming
down
to
try
to
save
lives,
you
understand
that
they
make
the
rules,
you
understand,
they're,
making
the
rules
and
we
are
done.
We
are
died.
Oh
he'll
change
the
rules
before
miss
gross
which
I
really
don't
like
her
that
much,
and
she
knows
it
because
in
the
statement
that
she
made,
that
we
decided
to
put
the
police
over
in
Lawrenceville
was
head
the
meeting
we
decided,
who
are
you
this?
G
I
am
commenting
on
this
legislation,
and
the
substance
of
my
comment
is
to
ask
that
action
be
held
on
this
legislation
until
the
Enright
Park
Coalition
has
an
opportunity
to
meet
with
the
city
solicitor.
The
meeting
is
scheduled
for
tomorrow.
We
hope,
too,
that
our
concerns,
which
we
have
been
raising
with
city
officials
for
a
year
and
a
half
about
the
proposed
private
street,
can
be
addressed.
I
do
want
to
say
that
I
appreciate
seeing
the
easement
language
that
which
was
delivered
today.
G
The
we
believe
this
is
of
the
essence
that
this
is
necessary
and
critical
element
of
the
legislation.
The
fact
that
it
was
not
available
until
this
late
date,
when
there's
no
opportunity
for
informed
review
of
it
and
inform
the
questions,
indicates
that
this
has
been
rushed
when
things
are
rushed
mistakes
are
made.
We
would
like
to
ask
there
be
some
reasonable
process
here
that
there'd
be
an
opportunity
for
the
public
to
understand
what
is
being
proposed
for
this
major
development
which
is
going
to
last
for
decades,
if
not
centuries.
G
Unlike
the
language
of
the
resolution,
the
first
that
the
members
of
the
coalition
who
did
participate
in
the
consent
order
that
created
Enright
park
that
preserved
Enright
Park
prior
to
that
court
order
and
Wright
Park
had
been
proposed
for
elimination.
Community
groups
raised
concerns.
We
are
very
happy
with
this
with
what
was
put
into
the
consent
order.
We
had
assumed
that,
since
the
consent
order
was
silent
on
the
question
of
who
would
own
the
new
IBAs
street,
the
conventional
practice
would
be
followed.
The
developer
would
dedicate
the
completed
street
public
use.
G
It
came
as
a
surprise
when
the
final
land
development
plan
called
for
the
street
to
be
private.
We
raised
concerns
about.
We
have
no.
We
believe
that
there's
no
reason
for
it
to
be
private,
that
all
of
the
developers
concerns
regarding
maintenance
of
their
storm,
water,
tanks
and
and
use
of
the
street
for
their
own
events
can
be
accommodated
with
a
public
street.
G
We
would,
however,
be
happy
to
have
an
easement
that
addresses
this
so
far.
The
easement
language
was
given
to
us
provides
no
concern,
no
wording
whatsoever
regarding
who
will
police
the
street.
We
trust
the
current
developers,
but
future
developers
may
use
private
security
guards
to
arbitrarily
harass
or
exclude
people
from
the
park.
The
park
is
accessed
by
both
sides
of
Eva's
Street,
the
street
pavement
itself
and
the
north
sidewalk
will
be
private
and
subject
to
private
security
guards
unless
seized.
Manang
language
is
provided,
that's
what
we
hope
to
resolve
tomorrow.
Thank
you
very
much.
B
H
Carmen
browner
from
the
East
Liberty
area
and
I'm,
also
representative
of
in
Plaza,
supporting
Action
Coalition
I'm
here
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
happened
at
the
hearing
and
I
was
very,
very
displeased.
I
seen
that
the
solicitor
we
pay
taxes
to
the
solicitor
and
a
solicitor
was
representing
the
Gompers,
they
did
everything
that
they
possibly
possibly
could
you
know
he
objected
to
a
lot
of
things
that
were
said
by
the
community
groups.
He
you
know
he
was
holding
exhibits,
I
mean
he.
H
He
truly
represented
the
gun,
birds
and
then
I
understand
when
I
had
talked
to
him
and
we
were
walking
and
now
talk
to
him
and
I
told
him.
He
was
totally
wrong
for
what
he
did.
He
said
well,
I'll
be
quitting
anyway,
so
he
had
not
actually
left
and
I
guess
he
resigned
or
whatever
effect,
but
but
also
but
I
quit
like
I
said,
but
a
lot
of
I
think
the
influence
was
from
the
solicitor
of
the
city
of
Pittsburgh
I.
Think
that's.
Why
I
believe?
H
That's
why
judge
O'toole
did
rule
in
a
favor
because
he's
seeing
you
know
that
that
the
solicitor
was
favoring,
the
gun
birds,
so
that
played
a
great
part
and
I
just
think.
It's
a
shame
that
they're
gonna
do
they're
gonna
privatize
his
park,
the
gun
Birds,
they
don't
deserve
anything.
They
took
people's
homes.
H
Now
they
want
a
park
now
they
want
to
privatize
the
street.
Why
do
we
keep
giving
these
people
what
they
want,
because
Ricky
Burgess
gets
contributions
from
them?
Is
that
why?
Because
he
definitely
gets
contributions
more
from
them?
If
you
look
at
his
his
sheep,
but
but
again
like
I
said,
is
that
this
is
totally
wrong.
H
This
is
this
seems
like
a
lot
of
corrupt
and
I
noticed.
Even
when
we
dispersed
Shawn
didn't
come
over
and
talk
to
the
community
group,
he
went
straight
up
there
and
shook
the
gun.
Birds
hands,
which
was
totally
robbed,
was
showed
right
there,
the
favoritism
and
the
deals
that
are
being
made
with
our
tax
dollars.
So
that's
what
I
wanted
to
say.
I
just
think
that
there's
so
much
corruption
I
just
hope
that
we
can
unseat
this
uncommon
and
we're
going
to
be
working
real
hard
and
also
I.
H
I
I
have
in
front
of
me
the
easement
language
that
we
talked
about
last
Wednesday,
I
I,
think
I
heard
from
testifier
that
the
public
just
received
it
today.
I
think
this
has
been
in
my
inbox,
I
think
since
maybe
Friday
evening,
or
something
like
that,
I'm,
actually
only
just
seeing
it
be
totally
before
the
hearing.
Cuz
I
was
out
of
town,
but
councilman
Burgess
has
heard
me
many
times
talk
about
how
I
hate
street
vision,
so
most
members
of
the
public.
Listening
to
this,
if
you
don't
live
in
my
district,
you
don't
know
that.
I
I
This
really
reminds
me
of
an
Oxford
development
situation,
the
river's
edge
and
the
Strip
District,
which
is
three
crossings,
hugely
successful
hundreds
of
apartments
big
corporate
headquarters
now,
but
the
developer
really
wanted
a
portion
of
26th,
Street
and
I
kept
saying:
that's
people's
riverfront
property.
You
can't
have
it.
This
is
where
26
terminates
at
the
river.
It
would
have
been
hugely
convenient
for
them
to
control
it.
It's
still
a
bone
of
contention
because
they
want
to
they
say
we're
not
we
as
the
city,
even
though
it's
a
city
street,
aren't
regulating
parking
closely
enough.
I
You
know
there's
like
no
shoveling,
that
they
say
they're,
doing,
they're,
doing
maintenance,
stuff
and
I,
and
I've
mentioned
this
quite
a
few
times
around
things
that
are
park
related.
So
this
is
both
Park
and
City.
Street
related
that
we
keep
encountering
these
situations
where
it's
either
public
property,
but
people
want
to
do
private
functions
on
it
or
it's
private
property,
and
we
want
to
do
public
functions
on
it.
We're
gonna
have
to
have
this
conversation
to
some
resolution.
I
If
we're
gonna
build
five
miles
of
riverfront
park
on
trail
through
along
the
Allegheny
River
on
private
property,
right,
we've
required
these
hundred
foot
setbacks
with
public
easements,
but
on
private
property,
but
I'm
generally,
not
in
favor
of
giving
up
private
or
public
property
because
again,
especially
with
the
street
kid
okay,
where
did
I
just
lose
the
maps
here
it
is.
This
is
these
super
blocks
also
really
bothered
me,
especially
around
friendship
and
East
Liberty.
I
The
urban
renewal
legacy
of
having
these
giant
giant
footprints
without
pedestrian
and
bicycle
access
is
problematic
because
it
just
means
you're
building
something
that
you
can
only
get
to
by
car,
which
again
been
really
the
private
developer,
finds
that
appealing
if
they
want
the
kind
of
tenant
or
owner
inside
that
has
a
car
and
they're
building
for
people
who
have
cars.
But
it
is
not
really
good
city
planning.
We've
decided
that,
and
so
I
would
prefer
to
see
these.
I
But
and
now
it's
been
two
orphans,
Court
I
would
prefer
and
I
probably
I,
know
I
think
I
did
vote.
I
might
have
abstained
when
we
sent
it
there,
actually
that
these
remain
public
streets,
but
with
the
easement
on
it,
for
whatever
operating
and
maintaining
that
the
private
developer
needs
and
I've
been
pushing
for
that
in
my
district
as
well.
I
am
very
happy
to
see
the
kind
of
connection
I'm
gonna
reorient
this
right,
because
this
is
the
way
I
think
of
it,
because
this
arrow
is
north.
I
My
district
starts
just
a
little
bit
down
here,
it's
out
on
the
south
side
of
Friendship
Avenue,
where
it
ends
on
South
Euclid,
and
it
picks
up
again
up
that
many
blocks.
Maybe
ten
blocks
north
of
here
so
I
have
both
the
southern
side
in
the
northern
side
and
I'm
very
concerned
that
people
should
be
able
to
travel
that
we
dismantle
the
big
car
through
affairs
and
the
big
super
blocks
that
have
blocked
pedestrian
and
non
car
travel
north-south.
I
Because
really,
if
you
go
through
and
right
park
right
now-
and
you
continue
through
what
is
self
self
saint-clair
you
cross
over
into
North
st.
Claire
anew
and
right
up
at
the
super
playground
in
Highland
Park
I
mean
this
is
a
way
for
identifying
neighborhood
that
is
filling
up
with
children
to
really
kind
of
have
that
non
car
access.
I
really
can't
emphasize
enough
how
these
public
1960
style
vacay.
I
It
was
really
tons
of
Street
vacations
to
create
these
super
blocks
and
create
the
big
kind
of
inner
ring
almost
little
mini
highway
around
East
Liberty
that
we
now
see.
That
is
the
wrong
kind
of
planning
and
we
should
not
participate
in
it.
So
I
appreciate
that
we're
just
getting
this
now
I'm
glad
we're
getting
it
before
tomorrow,
but
it
or
Wednesday
I
guess
it's
on
Standing
Committee.
B
I
B
G
H
B
So
the
court
has
already
ruled
so
this
is
really
not
a
matter
of
us.
It's
not
a
matter
of
us
amending.
It's
us
simply
falling
through
what
the
court
has
already
decided
and
any
further
delay.
It's
actually
unfair
to
developer,
because
they
have
actually
had
their
day
in
court
won
their
day
in
court
and
so
I
think
any
any
other
delay.
Is
it's
actually
nefarious
and
unnecessary?
B
I
B
Really
great
for
you
for
your
leadership
in
your
district
and
certainly
inclusionary.
Zoning
is
a
great
example
of
what
can
happen
in
our
city.
I
I
think
that
you
have
been
in
many
ways
a
champion
for
your
district
in
terms
of
your
vision
of
its
planning
and
I
support,
her
horridly,
your
efforts
in
that
in
that
area
I
also
to
have
a
vision
of
my
district.
This
Park,
this
development
is
hopes
wholly
completely
in
my
district
on
all
sides
and
I
made
a
promise
to
the
residents
of
pin
Plaza.
B
That
I
would
give
them
a
chance
to
come
back
and
as
to
date.
Well
not
quite
today,
but
over
the
next
few
weeks,
I
will
have
completed
that
promise
and
that
we
will
have
had
enough
replacement
units
in
the
general
authority
area
walking
distance
from
where
this
development
occurs,
that
the
bulk
of
those
residents
will
be
able
to
come
back.
There
are
two
projects
called
melon
orchards,
one
by
Trek,
one
by
another
developer,
there's
one
on
negli
Avenue,
where
the
old
urban
Academy
was
house
that
has
a
nine
percent.
B
It's
been
more
than
nine
percent
that
will
be
all
affordable
and
there
is
a
project
that
eventually
be
awarded
on
Beatty
street
and
when
you
take
all
four
of
those
developments
together,
the
totals
of
those
exceed
the
number
of
residents
that
were
in
Penn
Plaza,
and
so
the
mayor
and
I
over
the
next
few
months
will
have
fulfilled
that
promise.
Now,
in
terms
of
this
particular
piece
of
legislation,
it
is
in
my
council
district
I
support.
It
not
only
does
support
it.
B
I
find
and
have
found
some
of
the
community's
dissent
to
be
disingenuous,
not
necessarily
to
improve
access
to
the
park.
That's
really
not!
It's
been
used
as
a
smokescreen
to
in
order
to
stop
slow
down
because
they
don't
want
the
development
to
occur
and
I
find
that
to
be
certainly
the
right.
But
now
there
has
been
a
court
proceeding.
B
So
we
can
get
this
behind
us
so
that
the
new
development
can
occur
and
let's
focus
on
the
other
parts
of
you
celebrity
where
we
can
build
more
affordable
housing,
we're
building
some
now
and
then
to
use
the
strength
of
East
Liberty
to
rebuild
the
rest
of
the
East
End
home
would
Lincoln
Limington,
Larmour,
East
Hills
and
that's
really.
The
plan
is
to
use
the
strength
of
East
Liberty
and
it
has
worked
right,
we're
building
58
units
in
Homewood
right
now.
We've
built
400
units
and
I.
B
Don't
talk
about
this
in
length,
but
had
there
not
been
that
redeveloped
the
redevelopment
of
East
Liberty,
there
would
never
be
a
Larmour
choice.
We've
never
gotten
choice.
In
fact,
the
federal
government
has
told
the
reason
that
it's
approved
choice
and
the
rebuilding
of
Larmour
from
the
the
200
million
dollar.
Investment
is
because
of
the
amenities
of
East
Liberty
that
those
residents
can
now
walk
to,
and
so
we
want
to
use
East
Liberty
in
its
dynamism
as
an
economic
hub.