Saturday, November 9, 2019

Help us meet our grassroots fundraising goal today!

Proposed plan for the reconfiguration of Enright Park. Please help us make sure that the park is fully funded and rebuilt in a timely manner!


Help us raise the funds to ensure that Enright Park will be rebuilt and provisions made for affordable housing when redevelopment happens!

We have just shy of two weeks left in our fundraising campaign. Can you pitch in $10, $15, or $20 to help us reach our goal? We are just $1,604 shy meeting a goal of $5,000 in GRASSROOTS COMMUNITY FUNDRAISING. Meeting that goal will allow us to unlock a full $5,000 in additional matching funds.

Please consider a contribution today!

Wednesday, October 16, 2019

IMPORTANT UPDATE! (aren't they all important though?)

image via Tribune Review. View of new development from Enright Park. New South Saint Clair Street to left; extended Eva Street to the right.

Last week, we got word that the judge at Orphan's Court APPROVED the City's filing to swap a portion of Enright Park with the developer in order to reconfigure the park and support the development. You can read some of the coverage here in the Tribune Review (thanks Bob!).

We do support this land swap, and agreed to it in the many many months long negotiations and mediation that took place back in 2017 in order to settle the litigation that developed out of the developer's appeal of the Planning Commission's rejection of their revised Preliminary Land Development Plan.  

HOWEVER, we have MANY outstanding concerns that have not been addressed and we are urging the Mayor and City Council to consider these issues prior to a final decision. 

The land swap is now sitting before City Council for consideration with a final vote next week. Prior to a vote taking place, we are requesting the following of the City, and have requested an opportunity to meet with Mayor Peduto to discuss further. Neither of the two key components that were agreed to as part of the 2017 Consent Order that were critical to getting support from our community have been addressed - how will the park be reconstructed (and on what timeline) and how will funding generated for affordable housing by the development be disbursed with real COMMUNITY input?

Park Reconfiguration
Regarding the Park, we are requesting a fully transparent plan for how the land swap will occur and the timeline for it. Of particular note, we want to know:
  • What is the exact timeline for the developer to take ownership of the park? 
  • What steps will be taken to ensure that public access to the park remains in place as long as physically feasible? This is particularly important as the portion of the park that is being transferred to the developer includes the children's playground, two sets of swings, and a basketball court, as well as most of the grassy lawn area used for informal recreation. Cutting off access to these amenities prior to it being deemed necessary for construction is unacceptable.
  • Will the developer sign a temporary easement agreement that provides public access to the park site until such as time as construction deems it necessary to cease that access? What does that construction timeline look like and how will it impact quality of life for the residents?
  • How will the community be given the opportunity to celebrate and say goodbye to a place (the park) that has been extremely important, as well as mourn the loss of the trees that are a critical characteristic of the park?*
  • What steps is the City taking (and on what timeline) to advance the new park design and ensure that funding is in place for the reconstructed park? Will the Mayor commit money in the 2020 City budget towards both park design and reconstruction? 
 
Affordable Housing 
  • What is the City's commitment to follow through on the agreement to expand the TRID** and make affordable housing with community input a priority? This was a key linchpin to our entire agreement to support the consent order and we have yet to see any forward progress.
  •  How is the City going to engage community members (both residents AND former residents) in developing a community plan and strategy for affordable housing that is truly collaborative and not only in the hands of a chose few? See also this recent Public Source article: Who Is the Community?.

Construction Timeline and Community Impacts
  • What is the overall construction schedule for the development site? The community needs to have an opportunity to review and understand the construction management plan, and the impacts that it will have. 
  • Of particular note are the impacts on both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. It should be noted that Penn and Negley is a significant transit stop in all directions, and also serves a high number of school students. How will construction impact these community members? What plans are being put in place to ensure their safety and security?

* Author Dolores Hayden in Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History writes poignantly about the importance of communities having the opportunity to celebrate and mourn the loss of the places that mark their history. The history of East Liberty's urban renewal is particularly checkered and troubling, given the myriad of racist practices that went into the programs that created Penn Circle and the adjacent housing complexes that have since been dismantled [and one might also posit continue to this day***]. However, that legacy is still part of our community narrative and for us to pretend that these places mean nothing and are merely one transactional relationship after another it to ignore the history of the place and to deny the realities of the people who have inhabited it. 

** TRID = Transit Revitalization Investment District. It is a mechanism that allows taxes from a development site to be diverted from the general funds (and, gulp, school district - yes it may be shooting oneself in the foot but it's an available mechanism) to be dedicated to fund infrastructure projects, such as site utilities and streets and parks, within a certain distance of the East Liberty transit stations. In this case, the community requested that the radius of the TRID be expanded in order to create opportunity within 3/4 of a mile (walking distance) of the former Penn Plaza site. It was also requested that there be a committee overseeing the distribution of those funds, which would include representatives from the impacted community groups. The City agreed to support this, but no forward motion has been made.  

*** See also There Are Black People in the Future . You'll be glad that you did. There's good stuff happening amidst all of it.

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Fundraising for the NEXT Round of Legal Struggles

Please make a contribution to this fundraiser that Bloomfield Garfield Corporation is hosting in order to raise legal funds to ensure that we really DO have a park in our community once the former Penn Plaza site is redeveloped!

This legal fund will allow groups to go to court and ensure, when the new retail-office complex at former Penn Plaza Apartments opens, there is an Enright Park sitting next to it, with unfettered access for the public. http://ioby.org/Enright


the project

The battle to preserve Enright Park in East Liberty continues!
This fall, the fight will shift to Orphan’s Court, a division of Common Pleas Court, as a judge hears the City’s petition to authorize the exchange of land with Pennley Park South, Inc., that will give them the final piece they need to construct their large office-retail development in East Liberty. But at what cost to the public?

Nowhere in the City’s petition will there be a guarantee that a new, reconfigured park will emerge as the first phase of the commercial development comes out of the ground. Nor will it ensure that when the park is finished, the public will enjoy unfettered access to it. And we're still waiting to see when and how a community process is put in place to oversee the use of tax dollars generated by the new development in funding affordable housing nearby. It’s a complex set of terms and conditions the judge will be asked to review, and we, as community groups, believe we need to be in the room as those deliberations take place.

To be heard in that courtroom means hiring attorneys to represent the interests of the larger public, and that takes money.

The Bloomfield-Garfield Corporation (BGC), together with Enright Park Neighborhood Association, are creating a legal fund for just that purpose, and we need your support.

Please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to the BGC so that the public is not left holding the short straw when all of the dust has settled.

For more background on what’s at stake with this fight, please visit the website, enrightpark.org.

Thank you in advance for your donation to this important cause!

the steps

To be heard in that courtroom means hiring attorneys to represent the interests of the larger public, and that takes money. Once the Money is in hand it will go directly to the attorneys who are briefed and ready for the case.

why we're doing it

We are doing this because Parks are important. Nowhere in the City’s petition will there be a guarantee that a new, reconfigured park will emerge as the first phase of the commercial development comes out of the ground. Nor will it ensure that when the park is finished, the public will enjoy unfettered access to it. It’s a complex set of terms and conditions the judge will be asked to review, and we, as community groups, believe we need to be in the room as those deliberations take place.

Updates: Letter to City Council about Eva Street



Bloomfield Garfield Corporation
Enright Park Neighborhood Association
Friendship Community Group
Pittsburgh, PA

September 9, 2019


Members, Pittsburgh City Council
City-County Building, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Re: Council Bill #2019-1910 Resolution Vacating a Portion of Eva Street

Dear Members of Pittsburgh City Council:

The Bloomfield Garfield Corporation, Enright Park Neighborhood Association, and Friendship Community Group wish to reiterate their longstanding opposition to the privatization of the planned reconstruction of Eva Street, of which this proposed street vacation will be a part. We therefore formally object to Council Bill #2019-1910.

As the attached May 12 letter to Mayor Peduto indicates, our opposition to the privatization of Eva Street centers upon the need to provide unimpeded public access to the reconfigured Enright Park, which the proposed Eva Street will front for most of its length. As we stated in our May 12 letter:

Regardless of easement agreements or other legal covenants for the new street (which we note were not contained in the final land development plan), management and control of Eva Street by a private entity creates a foreseeable risk that park-goers and others will be subject to arbitrary rules pertaining to their use of the street. Further, if such rules are enforced by a private security force, there will be many opportunities for careless or deliberate abuse of such authority.

Despite our repeated requests for the text of the proposed easements which will govern public use of the privatized Eva Street, they have not been shared with us to date. We regret that the planning process for this street privatization has been opaque and closed to participation by community stakeholders. We wish to strongly reiterate, however, that no easements or other legal covenants can substitute for the rights of city residents and others to freely use a street policed and maintained by the City of Pittsburgh.

We note that the new Eva Street will be built using public subsidies through the East Liberty Transit Revitalization Investment District (TRID). As our May 12 letter indicates, we are unpersuaded by the reasons that the developers of Pennley Park South have used to justify privatization of Eva Street: maintenance of underground stormwater infrastructure and periodic use of the street for special events are both activities which are accommodated elsewhere in Pittsburgh on and under public streets. We see no reason to make an exception here.

The risks of arbitrary private management and policing of this important new piece of city infrastructure will extend far into the future. We urge that City Council reject this proposed partial street vacation and support construction of the new Eva Street as a public right of way.

Sincerely,

Bloomfield Garfield Corporation
Enright Park Neighborhood Association
Friendship Community Group

Sunday, July 28, 2019

The Proposed Park Plan

Just so that it is clear and easy to find, we wanted to post the proposed park reconfiguration here so that folks can understand it in full.



Also, although it doesn't appear on this drawing, there is a plan for park improvements that are part of this project. You can see the preliminary concepts from the presentation that was made to Art Commission last year (below). There is further work and refinement to be done to the designs, but the intention is that this would move in parallel with the development. Here are the designs as of last summer (2018), courtesy Studio Brian Haynes. A few observations:

  • Yes, we lose the majority of the trees in the park. But we get a park that is better connected for everyone and no longer hemmed in by a private developer on three sides. 
  • We go from two full basketball courts to one and a half. Based on observations over the past fifteen plus years, we do not foresee this as a problem. Most use is by groups playing half court games, or by kids using the courts for bike riding and scootering.


Here you can see the existing park outline and features overlaid with reconfigured park area. Link to enlarge here.


 This is the proposed design of the park based on the new configuration. Link to enlarge here.


And a bird's eye view of the park from above South Euclid (the new development are the tall blocks in the background). Link to enlarge here.


We'd love to get your thoughts on the designs and what should be changed/adjusted as it moves forward. Please leave comments below or email us at info@enrightpark.org.
 

Street Vacations, Public Hearings, oh my!

If you live in the vicinity of Enright Park(let) you most likely received multiple letters from the City of Pittsburgh this weekend regarding two proposed street vacations. We thought that it would be good to try to explain what these mean so that everyone can make an informed decision about whether they support or do not support these proposals.


our kitchen counter Friday afternoon...

First, what on earth is a street vacation??? For this, we go to Wikipedia:

"A street vacation, also known as an alley vacation or vacation of public access, is a type of easement in which a government transfers the right-of-way of a public street, highway or alley to a private property owner."

This means that the City is considering legislation to vacate two portions of streets to the owner of the former Penn Plaza site, LG Realty (also sometimes referred to as "Pennley Place South" or "PPS" which is the name of the development entity for the site). 

So what portions of what streets?

Council Bill #2019-1911: Resolution Vacating a Portion of Penn Avenue and South Euclid Avenue
The first proposed vacation is for the speed lane at the intersection of Penn Avenue and South Euclid, aka Penn Circle West. You know, the right turn lane that currently allows drivers to by-pass the light and keep moving onto South Euclid, generally at a high rate of speed. Eliminating the speed lane and reintroducing a more traditional intersection design has been discussed for some time, and has been part of the strategy for deconstructing Penn Circle for at least ten years. There is no surprise here and representatives from the neighborhood have endorsed this proposal. 

Council Bill #2019-1910: Resolution Vacating a Portion of Eva Street
The second proposed vacation is for an 8-foot wide section of Eva Street to be vacated to the developer. This has NOT previously been made known to the neighborhood, and is part of the developer's intended plan to build a new PRIVATELY owned Eva Street to replace the existing Eva Street. A few key points here:
  • Neighborhood representatives HAVE endorsed the proposed reconfiguration of Eva Street in order to provide greater access to the park and to improve overall neighborhood connectivity (see the diagram below to understand a bit better). 
  • However, neighborhood representatives have been extremely vocal and clear that the New Eva Street MUST be a publicly owned street, albeit with easements to the developer who intends to use it for storm water retention systems below. 
Why do we feel that Eva Street must be public? For several reasons:
  • To provide continued public access to the neighborhood that it connect;
  • To provide continued public access to the park; and
  • To ensure that the public realm of the neighborhood is not eroded by private ownership and control over assets that should be owned by the citizens.
While the developer has attempted to reassure us and the City that they will not limit access, we are frankly concerned as to any additional consolidation of site control by a private entity in the neighborhood. Remember, much of the reason we are in this mess to begin with was site consolidation and the privatization of public rights-of-way (aka the elimination of the street grid) back in the 1960s. It may seem "minor" to privatize another street, but it sets up a move towards increased privatization that is detrimental to both the near future and the long term for the neighborhood.



So what does this mean? If you support the vacation of these streets, by all means, write a letter of support! If you have concerns or are opposed to one or both of these proposals, please write to City Council! Letters can be sent to the attention of the City Clerk, 5th Floor, City County Building, 412 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219.

And in either case PLEASE plan to come to the public hearing. The hearing will be held:

Tuesday, September 10, 2019
3:00 PM
City Council Chambers
5th Floor, City-County Building
412 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219

We will post the full text of the legislation once we get the chance to get it all scanned, but feel free to visit the City Council's Legislative Information Center at: pittsburghpa.gov/clerk/lic.

Sunday, July 14, 2019

Link to the complete legislation!

Everyone has been scrambling to get information about the City Council legislation, which we just found on the City’s website. Here is the link to the copy we downloaded.

It is important for everyone to understand it, regardless of whether one supports the changes to the park or not.

Here's the text copied and pasted (apologies for the formatting mess - it's definitely much easier to read in the PDF, but we are short on time and not everyone can easily access the PDF):

Resolution authorizing the City Solicitor, on behalf of the City of Pittsburgh (“City”) to Petition the Orphans
Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County to request the transfer of a portion of a
certain lot (the “Subject Property”), now part of Enright Parklet in the East Liberty Neighborhood of the City of
Pittsburgh, to Pennley Park South, Inc. (“PPS”), in exchange for an abutting parcel of land of approximately
equal size and value as the Subject Property to be transferred from PPS to the City of Pittsburgh for
consolidation with and use as part of Enright Parklet, plus all necessary or appropriate expenses incurred by the
City, and/or upon such other terms and conditions as the Court or the City authorize and/or direct.
(Public Hearing scheduled for 7/15/19)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 121.02(e) of the City Code, the Director of Finance has the responsibility for
the disposition of City-owned property and has responsibility for the disposition of City controlled property;
and
WHEREAS, the property currently identified as Enright Parklet was purchased by the City from the Urban
Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh (“URA”) as part of a multi-parcel purchase totaling 227,400.47 total
square feet, and duly recorded at Deed Book Volume 4164, Page 537, dated July 27, 1964, and recorded
September 25, 1964, in the Allegheny County Department of Real Estate, formerly known as the Recorder of
Deeds Office, with Enright Parklet being 99,365.41 square feet more or less, thereof, said Property being
designated as Block and Lot No. 84-A-176; and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is the portion of Lot 84-A-176 located on the northern half of Enright
Parklet, Lot 84-A-176. (See Exhibit A.); and
WHEREAS, since 1966, PPS has owned that certain 7.09 +/- acre parcel of ground known as 5600 Penn
Avenue and 5704 Penn Avenue, which directly abuts three sides of the Subject Property. The PPS Parcel is
known in the Allegheny County Office of Deed Registry as Block and Lot No. 83-N-125; and
WHEREAS, Commencing in 2015, the City and PPS entered into discussions about the redevelopment of both
the PPS Parcel for development pursuant to their preliminary land development plan (“PPS Project”) and the re
-configuration of Enright Parklet ; and
WHEREAS, On April 19, 2016, Pittsburgh City Council conditionally approved the rezoning of both the PPS
Parcel and Enright Parklet to the AP designation under the City of Pittsburgh Zoning Code. Mayor William
Peduto signed this rezoning legislation into law on April 22, 2016; and
WHEREAS, On August 2, 2016, PPS submitted revised preliminary land development plans (“PDLP”) for an
amendment to the development of the PPS Parcel to the City of Pittsburgh Planning Commission. On January
10, 2017, the City of Pittsburgh Planning Commission denied the Amendment to the PLDP. PPS timely
appealed this denial to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County on January 17, 2017. This appeal was
docketed at Case No. SA-17-50; and
WHEREAS, On October 27, 2017, after approximately five (5) months of special mediation supervised by
William Pietragallo, Esq. the City of Pittsburgh and PPS finalized a settlement for the development of the PPS
Parcel and the reconfiguration and redevelopment of Enright Parklet and memorialized the same into a
“Consent Order of Court”; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Consent Order of Court, the City and PPS agreed to pursue the appropriate land
swaps and conveyances in order to accomplish the re-configuration of Enright Parklet; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Consent Order of Court, up to $1,000,000 of the PPS Transit Revitalization
Investment District (“TRID”) funding shall be deposited into the Enright Park Improvement Account (“EPIA”);
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Consent Order of Court, the City and PPS agreed that the re-configured Enright
Parklet shall be at least 2.28 acres; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the clarification issued by Judge James on May 29, 2019, the 2.28 Acres shall be
comprised of 2.201 acres of dedicated parkland and .178 acres to remain as public right-of-way for access to
the park, totaling 2.379 acres; and
WHEREAS, PPS agreed to convey approximately 48,701 contiguous square feet, of parcel No. 83-N-125, in a
rough graded condition, to the City to consolidate into Enright Parklet and to facilitate the creation of a new,
reconfigured Enright Parklet. (Exhibit B and Exhibit C); and
WHEREAS, approximately 7758 square feet, of the current Eva St. right-of-way will serve as public right-ofway
with access to the reconfigured Enright Parklet. (See Exhibit D.); and
WHEREAS, in return for the PPS conveyance from parcel No. 83-N-125, the City agreed to seek to convey
approximately 55,443 square feet of Enright Parklet, previously identified as the Subject Property (Exhibit A
and Exhibit C), to PPS to consolidate into parcel No. 83-N-125 in order to facilitate the development of the
PPS Project; and
WHEREAS, PPS will grant a public easement in approximately 25,489 square feet of property abutting the
northern border of the reconfigured Enright Park to use as a reconfigured Eva St. (See Exhibit E.); and
WHEREAS, PPS will grant a public easement in approximately 14,788 square feet property running from the
northern edge of the reconfigured Eva St. to the southern edge of Penn Avenue to use as a reconfigured South
St. Clair St. (See Exhibit E.); and
WHEREAS, the City is now seeking City Council permission to petition for court-approval to transfer said
portion of Enright Parklet identified as the Subject Property to PPS in compliance with applicable law including
53 P.S. § 3381 et seq; and
WHEREAS, City Council has made the necessary findings below to authorize such petition and any courtapproved
transfer to move forward.

Be it resolved by the Council of the City of Pittsburgh as follows:
Section 1.

A. After careful consideration, this Council hereby finds:

1) Upon completion, the reconfigured Enright Parklet, currently at approximately 2.28 acres, will contain
approximately 2.201 acres. The Eva St. access public right-of-way to the park will contain
approximately .178 acres, bringing the combined total to 2.379 acres. (See Exhibit D and Exhibit G.);
and

2) The Subject Property portion of Enright Parklet currently contains a limited play area of approximately
3,600 square feet in total. In addition to the play area, the Subject Property offers approximately 10
benches, a small spray park, an older drinking fountain and one of the 2 Enright Park basketball courts
for public use. The Subject Property does not contain any type of pavilion or shelter to provide shade
and rain protection. The Subject Property also lacks nighttime lighting for the play area and access
pathways; and

3) The Subject Property also has older, limited lighting around the basketball court. Due to the location,
age and design of the lighting, there is significant light pollution for the abutting neighborhood; and

4) The Subject Property contains obsolete play equipment and wire fencing, minimal signage, and lacks a
formally identified access point to the play area; and

5) Without the assistance of the PPS TRID funds designated in the EPIA, it is estimated that it would
require two to three fiscal years for the City to designate appropriate funding to update the Subject
Property, if such funding was determined to be available; and

6) Enright Parklet, including the Subject Property area, is only accessible and visible from two
neighborhood side streets on the south side of park, limiting the access and placing an impracticable
traffic burden on the abutting neighborhood. There is currently no formally identified entryway for the
Park and Subject property. Visibility of the Subject Property play area and basketball court is blocked
from Negley Avenue and Penn Avenue by buildings along both Avenues. Current emergency vehicle
access is limited to Eva St. and Amber St; and

7) If Enright Parklet remains in its current configuration, the alternative proposed construction of the
abutting PPS property will surround the Subject Property on three sides. The alternative proposed
construction will contain structures approximately 150 feet in height, which would directly abut the
Subject Property and eliminate access and visibility of the Subject Property from the East, West, and
North sides. The alternative proposed construction would also significantly reduce natural light at the
Subject Property; and

8) The proposed re-configured Enright Parklet will contain a play area of approximately 6,700 square feet.
In addition to the expanded play area, the proposed re-configure includes a new pavilion with 4 picnic
tables, 3 tables for seating/play along Eva Street, 1.5 basketball courts, 130 total linear feet of benches,
expanded and modernized spray area, modern Americans with Disabilities Act (”ADA”) compliant bilevel
drinking fountain, and bike racks; and

9) The proposed re-configured Enright Parklet will feature modernized and targeted lighting to both
increase safety at the subject property and reduce light pollution effects on the surrounding community.
Two pedestrian-scale pole lights are proposed within the park. The pavilion/shelter is also proposed to
have local lighting, as well as targeted lighting along any paths through the park; and

10) The proposed re-configured Enright Parklet will contain new ADA compliant curb cuts, pathways, and
surface paving. Five swings are proposed, including an adaptive swing with harness that is ADA
compliant. The site furnishings such as a bi-level drinking fountain will increase the accessibility of the
park; and

11) The proposed re-configured Enright Parklet will increase safety by updating play equipment, and
removing obsolete and uninviting features such as the wire fencing perimeter. Increasing signage will
help to create formal access points and better connectivity to the park. Appropriate pedestrian scale
lighting will be developed to increase safety while being mindful of creating light pollution for
surrounding neighbors; and

12) The proposed re-configured Enright Parklet will include access points on all four sides of the property
(Eva Street on the Northside, Topaz Street on the Southside, S. Euclid Avenue on the Eastside, and
Amber Street and Negley Avenue on the Westside) that will serve to increase the accessibility and
visibility of the Subject Property; and

13) The proposed re-configured Enright Parklet will also serve to create a connection between Negley Ave
and S. Euclid Ave. by extending Eva Street and connecting both avenues. The re-configuration will also
allow for the connection of the Subject Property to the reconfigured South St.Clair St, which will in turn connect the Subject Property to Penn Avenue and neighboring Garland Park; and

14) The proposed re-configured Enright Parklet will be larger and have a broader range of amenities to
better serve the public interest, including the Friendship, Garfield and East Liberty communities’ needs
for space for recreational and other outdoor programming and activities.

B. Based on the above, this Council further finds:

1) The continuation of the Subject Property as a park purpose is no longer practicable because;

a. The Subject Property lacks sufficient play and picnic area to effectively serve the surrounding
community; and

b. The Subject Property contains old and obsolete equipment and access areas that limit Enright
Park’s usefulness to the surrounding community; and

c. The Subject Property creates significant light pollution for the surrounding community; and

d. The Subject Property is not visible or accessible from the major roads in the area, limiting the
use to just residents of the abutting neighborhood; and

e. The Subject Property contains limited access points for emergency vehicles; and

f. The planned alternative construction at the abutting property would surround the Subject
Property on three sides, eliminating visibility and access from all but the small abutting
neighborhood, and severely reducing natural light.

2) The public interest is best served by allowing the Subject Property to be transferred to Pennley Park
South and allowing Enright Park to be re-configured and updated as part of an overall redesign of the
immediate area that will result in larger play and picnic areas, safer equipment, lighting and pathways,
ADA compliant amenities and access points, and increased accessibility and visibility to the larger
surrounding community of East Liberty, Garfield, and Friendship.
Section 2

A. Based on such findings, the City Solicitor, on behalf of the City, is hereby authorized to file a Petition
with the Orphans Court Division of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas to request the
transfer of a portion of a certain lot (the “Subject Property”), now part of Enright Park in the East Liberty Neighborhood of the City of Pittsburgh, to Pennley Park South, Inc. (“PPS”), in exchange for
an abutting parcel of land of approximately equal size and value as the Subject Property to be
transferred from PPS to the City of Pittsburgh for consolidation with and use as part of Enright Parklet,
plus all necessary or appropriate expenses incurred by the City, and / or upon such other terms and
conditions as the Court or the City authorize and/or direct.



Friday, July 12, 2019

Hearing Notice: Monday, July 15, 2019 at 6 PM in City Council Chambers

We have received very last minute notice that the public hearing that was requested regarding the transfer of a portion of the park to LG Realty in exchange for a portion of their property to use for the park has been scheduled. Please try to attend this important hearing!

Because the park is a publicly owned land, it is subject to oversight by Orphans' Court and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania via the public trust doctrine, which much approve any changes to the size or configuration of the park, and determine whether the changes serve the public interest. The resolution before City Council is to authorize the City's solicitor to submit a petition to Orphans' Court to make the proposed changes, which were approved at Planning Commission earlier this year.

It's a complex issue, and important for the public to be able to fully understand the implications of the resolution, and how the changes to the park may impact the community.

This article from Penn Future on a 2017 ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on a proposed sale of a public park gives some interesting insight into how the public trust doctrine is applied to public parks.


Please see the notice below for info about the hearing!

The fine print:
Citizens wanting to testify must register online at the following link https://pittsburghpa.gov/clerk/council-meetings; (scroll to the bottom of the page) or may also contact the City Clerk's Office at 412-255-2138 prior to the hearing to have their name placed on the speakers' list. Speakers are limited to three minutes. 

Note: if you do not register to speak in advance, but attend the hearing, you may speak for one minutes.