Hey, Affordable Housing in the Hill District is About You Too

The brownstone across from my sister’s house.

I was just at my sister’s and brother-in-law’s apartment in Brooklyn, NY and so was in one of the most talked about places in the country when it comes to gentrification, so I will try to avoid the clichés and focus on a piece that I think connects well to the Hill District and a larger issue re: owner choice when it comes to prices. She has lived in Brooklyn for 11 years and Bed Stuy for the past 8. Nina is a renter and has been blessed to live in an apartment that has not had its rent increased since she moved in. After seeing the housing prices of this neighborhood, I attribute this lack of an increase to the personal values of the owner. The issue of owner values is important because it contradicts the always repeated mantra of “the market” as this is  a giant from the hills that we have no control over (Mos Def’s “Fear Not of Man”  uses this analogy to talk about people asking about the direction of Hip Hop) . The market as price raising giant. A giant wholly separate of the values of the people who actually own the thing. C’mon. Stop that.

So, at some point we went outside to walk with my nephew and Nina points to a house across the street and notes that what looks like a pretty basic brownstone says “I hear that place is going for $1.6 million.” As luck would have it,  the house happens to have an open house going on at that time and so we go in to check it out. The realtor makes a point to say the this three- plex over a two bedroom apartments will be sold “as is”. When we go inside to see the place, we see what he means. Stained carpet, old stove, rickety stairs, just generally kind of funky. Nina is looking around and is noting that there is no way this place costs $1.6 million.

My sister asks the gentleman how much the house is going for and he says not $1.6 million.. but $1.69 million! Wow. So, if you are not familiar with what a three-plex over a two bedroom apartment means, it means three floors of a house above a 2 br apt. I am no real estate expert, and we don’t have any traditional AA neighborhoods that are at this stage of gentrification, so comparisons are difficult, but I am thinking this house is more expensive than what we’d find in Pgh, by a factor of 5. However, what’s more telling is that the #’s were staggering to my sister who, as I said earlier, has been in this neighborhood for almost a decade.

As we were leaving we noted to the realtor that it was a hefty price tag. He commented off handedly that the reason he could have an asking price this high was because there was no space left in Manhattan. This immediately struck me and made me think of the Hill. Around 2:30 pm a ride to my sister’s from Midtown Manhattan was about a 25 minute cab ride. Take into account NYC non-rush hour traffic and we’ll call it a 15 min ride in Pittsburgh. Now keep in mind that Mayor Peduto is said to want 10,000 to 20,000 new residents in Pittsburgh over the next decade (Thanks to Majestic Lane, formerly of Senator Ferlo’s office and now of A+ schools for this info). So, if housing in the Lower Hill District will average about $300,000, what will happen to housing in the Hill District once that housing fills up? Obviously, its likely that housing prices will go up dramatically, though not automatically, since there really is not a price raising giant (there really isn’t). It’s obvious because you can drive across the Hill and back 2x in that same 15 min drive that is needed to get toinside the house top floor “The Stuy” from Midtown, so of course we will be impacted by housing in the Lower Hill. What I haven’t really thought much about is what the Lower Hill housing prices might  mean to neighborhoods like Manchester and Lawrenceville.  If Manhattan, NY’s center city,  is driving Brooklyn housing prices, isn’t that akin to the Lower Hill and its surrounding neighborhoods?  And it’s not just housing prices. My sister has noted food and daycare prices escalating as well, because owners i.e. are sensing there is money left on the table and making choices to raise prices. The issue of affordable housing is usually framed as an issue where we in the professional and “caretaking” classes talk about the impacts on poor people, but Nina and her husband are professional class folks with multiple degrees between them and the giant is impacting them as well.photo 2-2

Thus, affordable housing in the Lower Hill District is about all of us in Pittsburgh and this remaining a more affordable city than many.  Of course we know that the Penguins development is built on land given them by the city for free when they threatened to go to Kansas City and that that land was acquired by the city when it used eminent domain to take the property from its largely African American population. So, the issue of the Lower Hill is also about the increasing ways the public sector is used to enrich those who are very wealthy already,  in this case, Mr. Ron Burkle, Mario Lemieux and the Penguins. Seriously, how do they talk so stridently about the market and how it can’t tolerate 30% affordable housing on this piece of land they did not buy. If a housing owner can decide to maintain an affordable rent for a young family in Bed Stuy as personal policy, why can’t major corporate owners have a value for affordable housing as a citywide policy that impacts thousands of people? Everyday we hear allusions and direct references to the values and of poor people, whether in the need for certain kinds of mentoring programs so kids can learn values “not in Mario_Lemieux the businessmantheir homes” or in the “ratchet” videos on Facebook.  However, I don’t think we spend 1/2 that amount of time thinking about the values of the very wealthy and the choices they make that impact us far greater than the young men who are sagging.  I’ve heard Pgh Black folks get on Pgh Black athletes for their lack of commitment to the Pittsburgh Black community, but what of Mario Lemieux? Honestly, what Pittsburgh athlete has received  more benefits from  Pittsburgh’s Black community? Who is the proverbial “giant” in this story? Don’t get mad. It’s a fair question.

Don’t Call It A Comeback


LL Cool J coined the immortal “Don’t Call It A Comeback” in “Mama said knock you out” because LL is hard as H-E- double hockey sticks.

Alright, let’s get back in the saddle here. Hillombo has sat idle while I have taken to posting more stuff on fb, writing a blog on my fraternity’s Black culture focused Saturday Academy “The Omega Dr. Carter G. Woodson Academy” and then recently have discovered instagram (@jdlaing). Not to mention that I have generally been a little distracted. All of these efforts either took real-time of their own or are just  easier.  So, I am going to try shorter posts that are less daunting to approach and/or figure out how to combine all of this into one place. For now though, with so much going on in the H-I-double, Hillombo is back, baby, it’s back!

Thinking of a Hill Art Plan

A couple of weeks ago, the Hill District Consensus Group (for whom my wife works, I am a supporter and the organization I work for, The Heinz Endowments, is a funder) held its second art plan meeting at the Hill House Association. The focus of this meeting was, in accordance with The Greater Hill District Master Plan, to take another step in the development of a plan for arts and culture in the Hill District. The meeting was facilitated by HDCG staffer, Brian Brown, and was attended by a range of interested parties including Errol Reynolds (Moe) and Charlotte Ka and who are working to build a cultural center to host artist residencies, performances, classes and more on Centre and Soho, Karen Abrams, Hill District resident and URA staffer, Thomas Chatman, Hill District resident and Executive Director of Pittsburgh Dance Ensemble, IAsia Thomas, teaching artist & poet, Ayisha Morgan Lee, Executive Director of Hill Dance Academy Theater, which holds its classes in the old St. Benedict the Moor School on Bedford Ave, an organization also funded by The Heinz Endowments, and Marimba Milliones, Executive Director of the Hill District Community Development Corporation, who came in during the latter part of the meeting and as I was leaving. Additionally, there were a range of youth staff from the HDCG, staff of Public Allies and Luqmon Salaam who was there in his capacity as a member of S Consulting.

There were a few guiding questions that we worked on in the meeting and the agenda can be seen here HDCG Arts Plan Working Group Agenda & Action Plan_Feb 11 2014. The section of the conversation that was most memorable in my mind was the discussion with Karen Abrams  and Moe around the idea that arts plan should have a balance of work that is designed to help the community remember the best of its past thought and behavior (cultural legacy) as well as facilitate  creative production from professional artists, organizations, and non professional adults and youth (art). Celebrating past creative production and facilitating current production, particularly by African Americans, could play an important role in maintaining the neighborhood’s African American identity, attracting Black artists and attracting former residents to return and new African American residents to want to make the Hill their home while making this neighborhood a much more interesting and child friendly place. My suspicion is keeping the Hill predominantly African American will also keep it more affordable since everything is monetized or given a dollar value  in capitalism and Black life is deemed less valuable in our culture. Think of the “There goes the neighborhood” phrase. I can hear my friend and colleague, Karen Abrams, sucking her teeth and pointing to Harlem, so that could be a misplaced hope. What I am most interested in as a different conversation and set of actions when it comes to artists and “redevelopment” in predominantly African American neighborhoods. So often when Pittsburgh talks “artists” and cultural/economic/neighborhood development what is imagined is the facilitating and relocating of  artists who often do not have a history of being in dialogue or being inspired by the neighborhood, its culture and history and this only continues when they arrive. Most often these are white artists and this only compounds the feeling that a neighborhood is being “taken”. More to say on this matter, but I want to get this up and posted because it’s been a moment since I have posted.

Next steps will be to involve more residents both artists and non-artists and Bonnie and Brian had the good idea to begin to take the questions listed on the agenda to a variety of community settings, rather than wait for folks to come to meetings, so I am excited about that strategy just for the kinds of conversations and visibility it can give to conversations of culture in the Hill.  I believe the next meeting will be in the next couple of weeks and residents (the current priority) should contact Brian Brown at brown@hdcg.org to get more information. To see the good ideas already generated about what kinds of arts activity is desired for the neighborhood, please click on HDCG Arts Plan Working Group Notes_Meeting 2_Feb 19 2014 revised1.  Work on this plan will be ongoing and so I hope to have further updates as it progress. Onward and upward…

Thinking and Talking about the Danger of “THOTS”

Demonstrating the cultural center role barbershops often play, I had a thought-provoking and somewhat troubling conversation with a broad range of African American men at Big Tom’s barbershop on Centre Ave a couple Saturdays ago . New to me and a few of the other over 40’s was this phrase used in both electronic and verbal communication among the younger set called THOTS, which stands for “that ‘ho’ over there”.  In the course of the discussion, I remarked that the term was terrible and likely to boomerang and a young man responded  that what was terrible was that young women do the things that make them worthy of such names. Obviously, there is no mystery in what makes a young woman or girl worthy: engaging in sex with a number of partners that young men or boys determine excessive, but of course not too excessive to be a commentary on the men and boys who engage as well. It felt good that the young man later followed up his comment empathetically reflecting that there could be a reason for the young woman’s behavior, but interestingly did not mention that the participating boys’ behavior needed an explanation.

The young man who made the comment was by no means expressing a viewpoint unique to him or even a minority view. We live in a white supremacist, patriarchal culture (literally, rule of the father) so the image and identity of Black women and girls are under regular assault. So, I guess what really struck me about the this term was that it was even more dismissive and dehumanizing than what I normally hear, but it’s important to consider it because the language of youth tells us a lot about where we stand as culture. Who did they learn it from? Also, I have to reflect on why the term might be striking to me when I’m aware of the culture we live in. There is this term, “middle class subterfuge”, that a former professor of mine, Dr. Vernell Lillie, taught to explain how middle class people hide their ideas, particularly around power, with all kinds of euphemisms. So, I shouldn’t be surprised at hearing a term like “THOTS” in a community that is largely working class and less prone to euphemisms, but still the dehumanizing  language literally sent a shockwave of fear through me. Fear, because we dehumanize classes of people to justify all kinds of things that are done to them, very often violent things, and so dehumanizing women and girls in language is simply a stage in a continuum of violence. And, I have seen on one occasion walking with my daughter at Kennard Field, how rape sits very present in the minds of boys not even 14 years old.

This got me to thinking about where does the desire to prevent male violence against women show up in neighborhood planning beyond well lit streets? When we talk about building on the cultural legacies we often are thinking about supporting our identities in racial and ethnic terms, but what about in gender terms? What kinds of design choices would we make if we wanted to build on a cultural legacy that challenged the thinking behind THOTS? The thinking that leaves women and girls vulnerable to rape and abuse and traps men and boys in ideas of manhood and boyhood that encourages unprotected sex with multiple partners and all of the consequences that can follow when we are still very young.

But the Hill does have a legacy that challenges the thinking behind THOTS. We have a building named after Ms. Alma Speed Fox, one of the most prominent feminists in Pittsburgh, and the home of the non-profit organization she began, Freedom Unlimited (my wife, Dr. Bonnie Young Laing, serves on that board), a professor/artist/blogger/social media magnate, Dr. Kim Ellis aka Dr. Goddess, has a national following and shares thinking that could be called Black feminism, Baba Rob Penny, love, light and progress to his spirit, who always talked about the need for a balance of women’s and men’s voices when talking about African American cultural legacy (thanks to Iya Valerie Adeniji Lawrence for reminding me of this a few weeks ago), and in my life there is my wife, Bonnie, who has been a strong voice for me about patriarchy and chauvinism. Still, are those voices and the thoughts behind them present in the majority of conversations men and boys have in this community? What part of Master Planning and neighborhood revitalization asks questions about the impact of the environment on the identities of men and boys and how those identities can be engaged with to prevent violence and the dehumanizing of women and girls, even if we are “only” talking about dehumanizing language? Maybe its having artists in the neighborhood who create work such as Luqmon Salaam’s “Blue Color Theory” off of his album “Ancestral Connections” (will try and post a link later)

Shout out to Tom Boyd and Big Tom’s Barbershop for creating a place where these conversations could be held, my nine year old could listen without my feeling he was in an inappropriate environment, learning could happen and he still got a fresh cut.

What I Want For Christmas? Fair Coverage from the PG

A few weeks ago, Mark Belko wrote a problematic piece in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette’s PGBusiness section titled “Penguins plans for Civic site hit snag”. As you can see, I haven’t been making time for posting of late, however, luckily for this blogger,  it was problematic in such a way as to still be relevant a few weeks later. As a “bonus”, it was problematic enough to be problematic on three counts, since pithy points are best made in threes.

The first problem was the PG/Belko brought neither critical eye nor ear to the article and instead choose to be megaphone for the Pens’ talking points, this is not just a problem for the article, though, it’s a problem because it’s an example of the larger challenge the Hill District faces in getting balanced coverage in the local media. Particularly coverage that helps the public avoid the cliché of angry, dissatisfied Black communities and instead consider the fact that the Penguins are a fairly massive corporation, with international reach, getting private benefit from public goods. Of course there is also the fact that the PG covers the Penguins almost year round… Second problem, Travis Williams once again showing the Penguins to be our disingenuous corporate neighbor to the west, brazenly “misspeaking” about what the Pens know of the Hill District’s desires and interests in the Lower Hill District.  Finally, and third, Councilman Daniel Lavelle’s comment that making sure that 30% of Lower Hill housing is affordable is a non-negotiable “at this time”.  As Slick Rick said, heeeeere we go.

Belko as shill

Essentially, it appears a few weeks ago someone from the Pens’ communications office called over to the PG to give them the following “story”: the Penguins won’t be calling another community meeting or submitting their Preliminary Land Development Plan as they planned. To hear them tell it, at the meeting they called a month ago at the Hill House (and covered on this site in Ms. Renee Aldrich’s “Pens Meeting Goes Nowhere Fast” ) they “heard the community” and now know the Hill wants the Lower Hill development to have 30% of its housing dedicated as affordable for households earning 50% of the average median income.  Secondly, the Pens and their developer, McCormack Baron Salazar, would like the PG readership to know that they are offering to “designate 20% of the units as affordable to households earning 80% of the average median income.” However, according to the Penguins Chief Operating officer, Travis Williams, now that the Penguins are clear that this is issue of affordable housing is “an important issue to them [the Hill]“, they are prepared to delay their own forward progress, hold off on the submission of the plan and have a “broader conversation”. What a crock…

That Belko just allows the Penguins to make these kinds of statements unchallenged is sad, to say the least. A few facts:

  • The Hill District’s stand on the % of housing that should be affordable and what would make it affordable is stated clearly in the Community Master Plan completed in, wait for it ….2011.
  • The Penguins point of view of what should be offered and their definition of affordable housing was first shared in the assumptions they used to draft an economic impact study in, wait for it …2010. How much have they moved on this issue of affordable housing after more than six months of talking to the Hill District in the personage of the Lower Hill Working Group, wait for it…it appears not one iota.

Now, maybe Belko knows none of this (mind you, a quick search will show Belko has covered the Hill District’s battle with the Penguins and the City going back to 2008), but the following question to Travis Williams “If you did not know what ‘the community’ wanted, what have you been talking to Councilman Lavelle and the Lower Hill Working Group for more than six months about?” would have showed the Penguins to be playing games.  However, there is another section of the story that suggests the PG is not simply naively repeating the Penguins’ talking points and that is the following section: “City Councilman R. Daniel Lavelle, whose district includes the Hill and the adjacent (emphasis mine) arena site…” Note also the title of the article which calls the Lower Hill District the “Civic site”. So, now the we refer to the area clearly marked in the Greater Hill District Master Plan as the “Lower Hill District” as an area “adjacent to the Hill” or as the “Civic site”? As though the Lower Hill is not  a part of the Hill District? What then is the meaning of the name Lower Hill Working Group i.e. the group negotiating around the Lower Hill. The renaming of the Hill District has been going on for quite sometime (see Oak Hill) but this is one of the more brazen attempts that I have seen in a moment, particularly since it’s the PG serving as “objective” certifier.

The Mis-speaker: Travis Williams

Obviously, if the Greater Hill District Master Plan has been out for more than 1 1/2 years and the housing goals are a part of that plan, it’s absolutely ridiculous for Mr. Williams to pretend that they are just learning about this issue…now. So, what was the real reason for calling that community meeting? Not knowing Williams and not being involved in these discussions with the Penguins, I really don’t know, but I would venture it was to test the political strength of the Lower Hill Working Group and see to what extent they had a constituency ready to kick up a fuss. So, the Penguins call the meeting, the Councilman and community drum up interest and then we see where the chips fall. Well, Hill District, according to the PG, mission accomplished on that front since apparently we showed enough color to prove to Williams and the Penguins that they shouldn’t submit the PLDP to city planning, yet. However, what’s so problematic is that one of our city leaders, Travis Williams, would get up and so grossly misrepresent the truth to the PG readers. Does anything hold this city back more than the lack of honest communication from of our leadership? Pittsburgh’s tolerance for leadership that obfuscates and lies, particularly to its African American communities, is a problem.

Councilman Lavelle and Affordable Housing

“When asked whether the community would accept less than 30% [affordable housing], Mr. Lavelle replied ‘At this time, I would say no'”. Okaaaay?  So, at a later time, the Councilman could presumably say “yes, I accept less than 30%”? I guess we should infer the answer is  “yes, but only under the “proper conditions.”? But what conditions? I don’t know the answer to that question, but I would imagine it would be conditions where the Councilman was offered something on the behalf of the community that he felt was worth accepting less than 30% affordable housing. That’s concerning. Because of our city’s extreme racial disparities, in order for Pittsburgh to maintain and even grow its African American population in the City and the Hill District, this 30% affordable housing is important. The 30% is also critically important to this city’s burgeoning movement to develop structural responses to the gentrification of predominantly African American communities. I would also say that I have talked to African American professional class folks in the Hill who have stayed and moved to this neighborhood because they want to live in a predominantly African American community (count me among them), and would be very disappointed to see this criteria negotiated away for something else, for example a development fund, probably the sexiest of the remaining issues still at play. To see what those issues are, see my prior post on my conversation with Councilman Lavelle. So, I hope this is an issue that the Councilman and community representatives stand and win on. I realize that the newspaper coverage is not what it once was, but it would be great if Belko could give have given us some inkling as to the potential implications of Lavelle’s comment by asking a follow up question. Even if only on the paper’s online version.

C’mon PG, Step Your Game Up

So, a great Christmas present or New Year’s Resolution from the PG and Mr. Belko would be more thoughtful, balanced and incisive coverage of the Hill District and Penguins negotiation and a commitment to help this city understand the important questions of race and class that are being discussed on the streets, in meetings and boardrooms everyday. As Elwin Green of the Homewood Nation would say, “Let’s Elevate the Conversation”.

Pens Meeting Goes Nowhere Fast…by Renee Aldrich

On November 21, I attended what I thought would be yet another run of the mill meeting where the Penguins come to the Hill House and make a whole lot of noise about their plans for the lower hill, and we leave wondering what we just heard and what it means for us the “community”. That is not quite what happened.

A large turnout of over 100 community folks, business people, hill leaders, and others turned out at the Hill House Auditorium in anticipation of  hearing the plans about the Lower Hill (Irreverently referred to by the Pens as “the 28 acres”)

Initially it did seem like it was about to be a repeat of the same old same old –  a kind of leading the lambs to slaughter by way of fried chicken, mac and cheese, string beans, rolls, juice and chocolate chip cookies.

The screen loomed overhead, promising of the pending Powerpoint presentations of our neighborhood.   I knew they’d be a variation on the same slides we’ve seen any number of times—giving us a “history of the Hill”  a history of the processes that have been engaged over the past two-three years as relates to the Pens and the Community.  And along with this there was the COO of the Pens, Travis Williams,  waiting in the wings with  their 3 sets of urban experts , poised to meet us and attempt to assure this community that they have our total interest in mind.

Between the food, the motivational speeches, banal sentimentality, and a power point presentation of the track record of McCormick Baron Salazar, the next thing we knew,  45 minutes had passed and this meeting was nowhere near providing information to the community as to what they (the Pens) planned to take before the Planning Commission on December 9.

When Carl Redwood, Executive Director of the Consensus Group, brought this out, and said  “You guys are slow walking us through this presentation until we run out of time here and we don’t get to debate what these plans are going to be”, is when things begin to go south.  His challenge to them opened the flood gates and it seemed  that the community decided that would not wait until the Q&A portion to express their disdain at what they have already heard.

I raised the point as follows:  “With respect I am suggesting to you that it I snow 7:30 we’ve been here since 6pm, and motivational speeches are NOT what we came here for tonight.  We don’t need to be motivated, we need some substantive conversation about the Pen’s plans to make sure this community benefits from whatever is done in the lower hill.  Ms. Frankie Williams stated that she for one did not trust for one minute that they were being honest with us, and that she believes they intend to go forward with their plans and we will end up with NOTHING!!

Many others came to the mike to protest this empty process.  In the meantime, the Pens and their consultants were trying to take back the meeting.  But this was proving to be very challenging.  Questions never really got answered, except that in spite of the valiant efforts of the working group on the “Lower Hill” to convey to the Pens that the community was seeking 30 percent affordable housing, they (the Pens) had not agreed to that but were stopping at 20 percent.  This created great furor in the room and again voices were raised, while the Pens continued to try to convince this audience that they were making every effort to work with this community to ensure that  things could come out fair and equitable for the Hill.

In the meantime there were those who were wondering where the political leaders where whom the Pens kept saying they had been working with to come up with a plan that would satisfy the community’s demands—the Greater Hill District Master Plan, notwithstanding.

Marc Little, Executive Director of MWELA (Minority & Women Educational Labor Agency) expressed it best when he asked Travis Williams why had he kept mentioning Councilman Lavelle but Councilman Lavelle was not standing beside him enforcing the events of this evening.   He stated too that he was completely frustrated with the wheel spinning process that has not gotten anyone anywhere, a process wherein the Pens spend more time talking about why the can’t do what the community asks, then taking the steps necessary to change the history and landscape of a community that for far too long has been subject to ‘leftovers’ while corporations continue to get the cream.

Councilman Lavelle did come to the mic and expressed his appreciation to the community for coming out and making their voices heard, and for informing the Pens of where they  (Community) stand and what they saw as unacceptable.  He also said that he had not called this meeting because he wanted to bring “better” information to the community  and as soon as  he, the lower hill working group, and the Pens where able to return to the table and to agree on a plan that would create a more positive impact on this community in  his district, he would call a meeting to let them know, but from his perspective, this was not it.

This meeting showed that this community is finished  sitting in silence while the Pens pull the wool over our eyes. At the very least they (the Pens) will be challenged as to the level of their sincerity, and more voices will be heard in protest if they continue to conduct things, business as usual.  It was good to watch and take part in.

Conversation with Councilman Lavelle re: Lower Hill Negotiations

Went to Councilman Daniel Lavelle’s community office hours two Mondays ago (yeah, backed up on posting) at the Hill Library and, in addition to a brief conversation on tennis courts in the Hill (which I need to get back to at some point), asked about the status of the negotiations of the Lower Hill Working Group and the Penguins. According to the Councilman the sticking points on the negotiations are the following issues: (a) housing, (b) the degree to which the Penguins are held accountable to achieve outcomes in the Community Collaboration and Implementation Plan (CCIP), (c) a fund for neighborhood development, (d) the governance process for the implementation of the CCIP. This is too much for one post and I need some more information in certain cases, so I will talk about the housing issue in this post and talk about others later.

  • Affordable Housing-The Penguins are not in agreement that 30% of the housing of the Lower Hill should be “affordable” nor in agreement as to what determines what is “affordable”. The Penguins are currently willing to make 20% of the housing “affordable” and want to define affordable as housing for those who make up to 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The AMI for a family of four in Pittsburgh is $50,489 and so this would mean an income of a little over $40,000 would make you eligible for the affordable housing. However, what’s confusing is that this AMI is based on the income for a family of four, but it appears that this income will work for a single individual since the rent for a single bedroom in the Penguins plan will be $950, according to the Councilman. The Master Plan states that we should use a standard of 50% eligibility of the AMI, but Lavelle said he is open to a broader range.  One of my interests is the Hill would be a place for African American artists and creative types to want to live and help with the goal of the Master Plan to build on the African American legacy. If that eligibility is not altered that it surely won’t be possible for up and coming artists/creatives.

We also went on to talk about the need to increase chatter and community mobilization about these negotiations both in the Hill District and across the city. One idea was Lavelle convene artists and creative types who are active in social media to talk about these negotiations and where they stand. In this way the Lower Hill would be more likely to be seen as the important issue that it is for the whole city, particularly on the question of African American power. The Councilman agreed this was important and was down to convene these folks for a conversation or maybe reach out electronically. Look to your right for a snippet of the the conversation I started via twitter. Thanks to artists Darrell Kinsel and Kenneth Neely for adding some stimulating comments and questions (In addition to his work as a solo artist, Darrell works for an organization that is a grantee of The Heinz Endowments, The MGR Foundation). The Councilman initially responded he agreed that we needed to expand the conversation but did not “add on”, so to speak. To see the full dialogue, you can to my twitter home page @jdlaing. The conversation had some interesting pieces to it.

twitter convo on artists in Lower HillOk, recently looked at the Hill CDC’s website (couldn’t remember what CCIP stood for) and I came across an article from a couple of weeks ago terming conversations between just elected Mayor Bill Peduto and the Penguins as positive and that future discussions would include limits on public dollars and an expanded list of stakeholders participating in the conversations. This will include the Hill District Consensus Group (of which my wife is Co-Director) and so that adds another layer to all of this. The Councilman didn’t mention this issue, but I am sure it is a factor in some form or fashion.

Anyway, my thinking on this has shifted a little since I first began the conversation with the Councilman. Beyond the notion of simply involving artists and creatives in publicizing the issues involved in the Lower Hill negotiations, we need to be actively thinking about how we are going to build on the African American cultural legacy of the Hill District with living African American artists both in the Hill District now and those who might want to come to the Hill District. A necessary but not sufficient step will be making sure that the Lower Hill has housing that will truly be affordable. This will likely take a larger movement, so please spread the word about where these negotiations sit currently. Somehow we need to make the Lower Hill District one of the city’s key social justice issues of the moment. Onward and Upward.