Open Letter to 3rd District City Councilmember Gauthier
On Monday April 19th, Protect Squirrel Hill had a meeting with our Councilperson’s office. The meeting included 19 neighbors, Councilmember Jamie Gauthier, her office’s Director of Equitable Development Andrew Goodman and Chief of Staff Max Weiss. We met for about an hour during which constituents shared our reasons for opposing this project. We were disappointed that Councilmember Gauthier said that she was still undecided in her opinion on this project. With over 500 petition signatures against it, including 83 from residents who live within 250ft of the project, and a community vote of 64 against, 6 pro, this should not be a difficult decision for Councilmember Gauthier. We believe that she is not siding with the community because she wants to use this project as an example of “good development” for legislation she will bring to City Council later this year. At the end of the meeting we told Councilperson Gauthier that we expect her to stand with constituents and oppose this project by April 30th. After the meeting, we sent her the following e-mail outlining our opposition:
Dear Councilperson Gauthier,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us yesterday.
We recall that one of your greatest and most oft-repeated campaign promises was to engage in community-based planning. We are disappointed to find ourselves engaged in a community-based process of battling a wealthy developer, only to learn that you are in support of the developer rather than of your own constituents — over 530 of whom have signed a petition in opposition to this project, including nearly every near neighbor in the area.
You stated that you have not yet taken a position on this project. However, it is difficult to take that comment in good faith. In their most recent email, local Democratic Committee members stated that “Parties and the Councilmembers’ office are working on how the CBA could also possibly be recorded with the City to make it more enforceable.” It is apparent to us that your office is in direct negotiation with the developer — if that is not the case please help us understand where exactly you stand.
You say that you are in support of affordable housing. So are we. But there is nothing “affordable” about the proposed project. Instead, two-thirds of the units are luxury-rate rentals far exceeding the rents of the area, and the so-called “affordable” units are at or above those rates (see examples below). This development will push surrounding rents up and jeopardize vulnerable tenants. We have been told time and time again in community meetings by landlords in the area that if this building goes in that they will raise their rent. Meanwhile, the “affordable” units are not even permanent. In just a few decades, your legacy will be the eviction of those same tenants as they face a huge increase in rents.
In observing ZBA hearings the past few weeks we’ve seen nothing close to this amount of community opposition for a project. Most RCO community meeting votes were under 12 people total. Consistently we saw that Council Members voted in alignment with the community. With an RCO vote of immediate neighbors 64–6–2 and a petition of 530 signatures, it is clear that the immediate community overwhelmingly does not support this proposal. We see no reason for you to support this project and we expect you to stand with the community and publicly oppose this project by the end of the month.
Because we had limited time and there were many issues raised in the meeting, we are including an outline of our primary concerns below and some links to follow for more information. Please let us know if you have any questions for us.
Protect Squirrel Hill
Reasons we oppose this project:
1. The proposed rents are not affordable for this area and will displace low income, long term, systemically marginalized residents.
a. Compare the proposed rents with rents in nearby apartment buildings. The proposal includes:
61 “market rate” one-bedroom units for $1320-$1560+
15 units that range from $725 (one-bedroom) to $870 (two-bedroom).
Median rent for one-bedrooms in the 78th Census Tract is $897, the proposed rents are a 50–60% increase from the median rent in this tract.
Based on the Affordable Housing Strategic Planning tool that your office created/supported, raising the Median rent by any amount will add to the already current cost burdened individuals in this neighborhood. Your evidence based tool demonstrates the fear (that bringing in above market price apartments) will actively lead to an increase in the rent
Examples of nearby rents:
4725 Chester Ave (4 story, 40 unit apt building directly across the street):
$735-$800/mo one bedrooms
1014–18 South 48th St (4 story apt building ½ block away)
$1,000/mo one bedroom
$1,100/mo two bedroom
4618 Chester Ave (4 story apt building 1½ blocks away):
$1,050/mo one bedroom
4807 Chester Ave (4 story, 22 unit apt building ½ block away):
$695/mo studio
$830/mo one bedroom
b. Research and poor people’s lived experiences show that when new luxury housing is introduced to an area, it eventually raises the values of nearby homes and drives up nearby rents.
Three studies we can cite are:
The effect of new residential construction on housing prices by Velma Zahirovich-Herberta and Karen M.Gibler; Published in the Journal of Housing Economics, Volume 26, December 2014
Eviction Dynamics in Market-Rate Multifamily Rental Housing by David Robinson & Justin Steil; Published on Housing Policy Debate Journal’s website in Dec 2020, to be published in print in the forthcoming special issue: Evictions: Shedding Light on the Hidden Housing Problem
Watching Neighborhoods Vanish: The Intertwining of Gentrification, Race, Class, and Policy by Davida L. Robinson , Dasha J. Rhodes & Laurens Van Sluytman; Published in the Journal of Poverty Volume 24, 2020 — Issue 5–6: Unraveling the Hidden Agenda of Structural Discrimination against the Poor in the U.S
c. We have spoken with hundreds of neighbors who have come to our events and signed our petition, which has over 500 signatures. They overwhelmingly oppose this project even with the fraction of affordable units and promised Community Benefits Agreement because they understand that 61 units will still drive up rents in the neighborhood and displace those of us who already live here. Anyone can view testimonies from neighbors recorded at our Speak Out event on our Instagram page.
d. Many of the people who rent in the nearby apt buildings have low incomes or fixed incomes. Many are Black, Brown, immigrant, disabled, queer and/or gender oppressed among other identities. If rents go up and they can’t afford to stay in their homes, they are going to have a difficult time finding safe housing and may end up homeless and/or disconnected from their safety nets and communities.
i. A study on gentrification in Philadelphia from 2002–2014 showed that, “when [residents in gentrifying neighborhoods] move they are much more likely to end up in lower-income neighborhoods with more crime and worse schools.”ii. A study on gentrification in major US cities from 2000–2013 that included Philadelphia found “The large number of neighborhoods that gentrified, and the number of displaced residents, rank Philadelphia among the worst cities for black displacement.”
2. There is not community support for the project
a. As of today we have 530 signatures on the petition opposing the project. All signees are aware of the proposed affordable units and CBA and continue to oppose. 97 of those signatures are from “near neighbors” (within 250 feet of the project). 59 are from residents who live in “Affected Properties” as defined by the Civic Design Review board (within 200 ft of the project).
b. At the Mar 24 Community meeting, where only near neighbors who live within a block of the property could vote, 64 neighbors opposed the project and 6 supported it. This was in response to a presentation with the proposed CBA terms.
c. We are baffled by the continued campaign of local Democratic leaders Matthew Goldfine and Algernong Allen and neighbor Karena Valentine to negotiate with the developer when they have almost no support from the neighborhood. At their group’s last Zoom meeting on 3/21 they only had 15 neighbors present: The 3 facilitators, 4 people in opposition and 8 people who were largely undecided. There has been almost no dialogue on their listserv since that time. They do not represent the community.
d. Of the 9 RCOS for this area, 5 have taken a position against the project (46th Ward Democrats, Earthkeepers, West Philadelphians for Progressive Planning and Preservation, Southwest Philadelphia District Services, West Philly United Neighbors), 3 have not taken a position (46th Ward Republicans, Kingsessing Civic Association and Kingsessing Spirit — the latter two have not attended any meetings) and only 1 is in support, Cedar Park Neighbors.
3. Meir Gelley is untrustworthy
a. Gelley has been proving himself untrustworthy since he entered negotiations to purchase the property in 2008. The previous owners of Renaissance found Gelley to be dishonest in the process of purchasing the facility and did not want to sell it to him. He sued them for breach of contract and put them through two lawsuits over the course of four years (2008–2012). It is telling of his character that he would pursue this so heavily when the daughters of the institution’s founder were very explicit that they did not want to sell it to him.
b. When Gelley purchased the property there was an historic Victorian twin at 4720 Chester. Gelley filed a demolition permit for the building in 2012. Members of the Cedar Park Neighbors Zoning Committee were concerned when they saw the permit and hoped to save the building from demolition. CPN wrote to Gelley asking him why he wanted to demo it. He said the building was in bad repair and he did not want to pay to renovate it. CPN asked Gelley if he would consider selling the building and offered to help him find a local buyer who would want to renovate it. He said he was not interested in selling and that he wanted the space where the building was for additional parking for visitors to the facility. CPN told Gelley that he could not create a parking lot there by right and he would need to apply for a zoning variance for this. Gelley demolished the building in 2013. Neighbors complained that the demolition was done without adequate safety measures and that asbestos polluted the air nearby. Gelley began using the site as a parking lot illegally to this day despite CPN sending him desist letters multiple times. Why would we trust someone with this track record of ignoring what is best for neighbors and what is requested by local RCOs and local zoning laws?
c. Gelley also seems to not value the health and wellbeing of residents at Renaissance. Inspections by CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) have uncovered numerous fire safety and health hazards in recent years. Following their 2020 inspection, Renaissance was fined $19,789 and ordered to correct these deficiencies. Again, why would we trust someone with a record like this?
d. Gelley owns seven other nursing home/rehab facilities. In a community meeting he said he is in the process of building an apartment building adjacent to another of the facilities. It’s clear that he is interested in owning property and profiting off of it and that he is already doing that. With so many other properties to manage, it does not seem like he will have the capacity to adequately manage issues that arise at the proposed development, especially based on his track record.
e. Gelley’s attorney Brett Feldman has also demonstrated untrustworthy behavior. Feldman is a veteran real estate attorney who specializes in zoning variances for chains like Starbucks. Neighbors feel he has used a shady developer’s playbook here, including:
i. Failing to do adequate outreach to nearby neighbors, especially renters. For the Feb 4th Community meeting which was not open to the public, only invited near neighbors, Feldman did not invite any renters, including not inviting anyone from 4725 Chester, one of the nearest neighbors. It was only after this was pointed out to him that he asked Matt Goldfine and Algernon Allen to invite a few renters to the meeting.ii. Using Zoom functions to silence dissent and control the conversation in his favor. I.e. disabling the chat function so there is no way for community members to communicate with each other one on one or with the group outside of their speaking time. Keeping participants muted with no option for them to unmute until someone from Feldman’s firm unmutes them.iii. In the community meetings Feldman and Gelley frequently sidestep questions from neighbors and give unrelated answers. In the beginning of the process they repeatedly called units affordable even after being told at multiple meetings that 50% AMI for the greater Philadelphia area is not 50% AMI for this area and the rents based on that figure were not affordable.iv. Feldman lives at 44th & Spruce, an area which has already been thoroughly gentrified due to its proximity to UPenn. At community meetings he represents himself as living in the same neighborhood where the development is proposed, this is not true. We do not want this area to become like Spruce Hill, it’s much more affordable and we can preserve that.
