OT: For the legal scholars....

[Pitt_Boss]

Pitt and UPMC made some donations to help build an apartment building for LGBTQ+ people only

Oakland will be home to a new affordable housing community for LGBTQ+ older adults

The Mosaic complex, which will offer 48 units for people 62 and older, is a first for Western Pennsylvania.

www.pitt.edu

I am just curious...is this legal? I thought you couldn't discriminate in housing based on race, sexual orientation, etc.

Please don't turn this into a discussion on people's sexual orientation, I don't really care who does what to whom for pleasure. I am just asking for legal opinions, even amateur ones. I am worried Pitt is setting itself up for legal issues, though I'd hope they worked that out already.

 

[ratking17]

Creating a senior center is nothing but a positive here...

 

[WillyDavis33]

First Secretary Gabel doing what she was hired to do

 

[pittchagg]

I don’t see anything in this article that suggests that non-LGBTQ+ people are banned from applying, or wouldn’t have their applications be accepted. I don’t even see anything that says that the building’s occupants will be 100% comprised of people from the LGBTQ+ communities. Do you?

 

[CrazyPaco]

Pitt and UPMC made some donations to help build an apartment building for LGBTQ+ people only

Oakland will be home to a new affordable housing community for LGBTQ+ older adults

The Mosaic complex, which will offer 48 units for people 62 and older, is a first for Western Pennsylvania.

www.pitt.edu

I am just curious...is this legal? I thought you couldn't discriminate in housing based on race, sexual orientation, etc.

Please don't turn this into a discussion on people's sexual orientation, I don't really care who does what to whom for pleasure. I am just asking for legal opinions, even amateur ones. I am worried Pitt is setting itself up for legal issues, though I'd hope they worked that out already.

It certainly sounds like it is rife for a a lawsuit if they denied housing based on sexual orientation, but I don't know if Pitt and UPMC would be culpable, more like the Presbyterian SeniorCare Network that is running it.

IMO, pretty dumb on Pitt and UPMC's part to give up the land for a possible 75-year lease when space is such a premium. This could have certainly been used for student housing or biomedical labs. But this space was sitting empty and was taxed so I guess this gets them off paying taxes on it.

 

[WillyDavis33]

I don’t see anything in this article that suggests that non-LGBTQ+ people are banned from applying, or wouldn’t have their applications be accepted. I don’t even see anything that says that the building’s occupants will be 100% comprised of people from the LGBTQ+ communities. Do you?

Presbyterian SeniorCare Network President and CEO Jim Pieffer said the company is leading the project with a strong emphasis on inclusivity and community support. The complex aims to address the unique needs of LGBTQ+ adults aged 62 and older, fostering a sense of community and belonging.

 

[Pitt_Boss]

I don’t see anything in this article that suggests that non-LGBTQ+ people are banned from applying, or wouldn’t have their applications be accepted. I don’t even see anything that says that the building’s occupants will be 100% comprised of people from the LGBTQ+ communities. Do you?

I guess it doesn't say they can't apply, but the official Pitt twitter handle tweeted today that "Pittsburgh’s Oakland neighborhood will soon be home to Mosaic Apartments, a 48-unit affordable housing complex for LGBTQ+ seniors, near Forbes and Craft avenues" which clearly says its for LGBTQ+, though I guess it doesn't say LGBTQ+ only. Still, seems curious.

 

[ratking17]

Could a football stadium have fit here? If not, whatever....

 

[Pitt_Boss]

Few schools haven't.

Pitt has plans to build new student housing up on the hillside and also on Bouquet.

It also just bought an apartment building on CMU on North Craig. But they'll always need more land. The good thing is they didn't sell; they are just leasing it.

I am all for new development in Oakland. I do question the senior citizen aspect of this though, not the LGBTQ+ part. Nothing says booming college town like adding more senior citizens!

In all seriousness, this thing could help with faculty recruiting. Many top university scholars are 60+ LGBTQ+ people. I am sure Pittsburgh at face value doesn't appeal to them as much as NYC, Cali, etc.

 

[CrazyPaco]

I am all for new development in Oakland. I do question the senior citizen aspect of this though, not the LGBTQ+ part. Nothing says booming college town like adding more senior citizens!

In all seriousness, this thing could help with faculty recruiting. Many top university scholars are 60+ LGBTQ+ people. I am sure Pittsburgh at face value doesn't apply to them as much as NYC, Cali, etc.

It's for low income I think, under $65K. I guess they could be lecturers and not professors, but it won't help with faculty recruitment.

Really, being right across from Magee Womens Research Institute, it would have been a prime location for expanding Pitt OBGYN and MWRI.

 

[HailtoPitt]

I can see how older gay folks might not feel comfortable in senior housing.

 

[Ray-Ray]

Most of these reversals are driven by state mandates/laws (Florida, Texas, Utah, etc).

But, I wonder what is really going on at some of these schools; whether they are just changing the the terminology of positions to skirt the intent.

That is probably the case. I did read where they are taking $2.3 million that was earmarked for the DEI program and giving it to police/security budget.

 

[Franb]

I don’t see anything in this article that suggests that non-LGBTQ+ people are banned from applying, or wouldn’t have their applications be accepted. I don’t even see anything that says that the building’s occupants will be 100% comprised of people from the LGBTQ+ communities. Do you?

You nailed it. The building will be LGBTQ friendly, not restricted. It doesn’t take a law degree to make that interpretation

 

[Tucker99]

I previously worked in the criminal justice field. Finding housing for individuals who were LGBTQ was always a challenge.

 

[Charles De Mar]

I previously worked in the criminal justice field. Finding housing for individuals who were LGBTQ was always a challenge.

Presbyterian SeniorCare Network President and CEO Jim Pieffer said the company is leading the project with a strong emphasis on inclusivity and community support. The complex aims to address the unique needs of LGBTQ+ adults aged 62 and older, fostering a sense of community and belonging.

Seems like a typical broom closet and bathroom stall on every floor would be easy accommodations to make for any building.

 

[PittPharm2002]

That is probably the case. I did read where they are taking $2.3 million that was earmarked for the DEI program and giving it to police/security budget.

Yes -
Because of these is one underfunded unit in this country - it’s police

 

[vikings1980]

It also said 62+ but you only mentioned the LGBTG aspect as a possible legal issue. But you don’t care.

 

[Pitt_Boss]

It also said 62+ but you only mentioned the LGBTG aspect as a possible legal issue. But you don’t care.

You may have noticed there are senior centers all over the country already. For that matter, these new apartments are only for certain low income levels only, which is also something that exists all over the country (housing restricted by income level). Both of these aspects seem exclusionary - a family with $70k in income probably could use affordable rent as much as the family with $60k income. However, as stated, both age discriminated and income discriminated housing exists all overt the place, so there is ample opportunity for people to make cases on that. The new thing here is adding sexual orientation discrimination to the mix.

 

[pittchagg]

I think the entire discussion is viewing the issue through the wrong lens. Here’s a study that found that 48% of LGBT seniors experienced discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation when applying for senior housing: https://equalrightscenter.org/wp-content/uploads/senior_housing_report.pdf

This is a facility that appears to be making an effort to overtly build a place that’s attractive to people who want nothing more than to age with dignity - and live with their same-sex partner in a senior living facility - without being discriminated against. And it’s being built on a hillside vacant lot that’s been abandoned for the past 20 years, if not more. It’s a good thing.

 

[CrazyPaco]

I think the entire discussion is viewing the issue through the wrong lens. Here’s a study that found that 48% of LGBT seniors experienced discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation when applying for senior housing: https://equalrightscenter.org/wp-content/uploads/senior_housing_report.pdf

This is a facility that appears to be making an effort to overtly build a place that’s attractive to people who want nothing more than to age with dignity - and live with their same-sex partner in a senior living facility - without being discriminated against. And it’s being built on a hillside vacant lot that’s been abandoned for the past 20 years, if not more. It’s a good thing.

Not quite abandoned as it is land owned and maintained by a combination of the Dialysis Clinic, UPMC, and Pitt. But it is a lot in a prime location in a land starved biomedical and educational center of the city. It is directly adjacent to the Oakland Dialysis Clinic to its North, Carlow to the East, and Magee Women's Research Institute to its South and empty lots to the west owned by Oakland Portal Partners that was intended to have office towers (a project they've apparently not been able to get off the ground and more akin to "abandoned" lots). The parcel that Pitt directly owns on the corner of 5th and Craft is only 0.07 acres and was previous a residential house that was gifted to the university in 1996. Pitt tore the house down, as to save on maintenance and taxes.

When I think of the most effective places one would put low income senior housing of any type in the city, as far as building on the city's needs and strength and located by services seniors would probably want, this location in western Oakland wouldn't make the list as an effective use of this land as it is currently being plopped in the middle of institutional buildings and cut off between Forbes/Fifth and the Boulevard of the Allies without significant amenities near by (no grocery, markets, or really even convenience stores; no parking of note). I'd think if you were going to aim for a residential complex, it would have made more sense if it was targeted at faculty and staff and/or graduate students/residents of Pitt, UPMC, and Carlow, but I think it could have also have been better reserved for MWRI or general biomedical complex expansion, as I previously mentioned.

 

[Franb]

You may have noticed there are senior centers all over the country already. For that matter, these new apartments are only for certain low income levels only, which is also something that exists all over the country (housing restricted by income level). Both of these aspects seem exclusionary - a family with $70k in income probably could use affordable rent as much as the family with $60k income. However, as stated, both age discriminated and income discriminated housing exists all overt the place, so there is ample opportunity for people to make cases on that. The new thing here is adding sexual orientation discrimination to the mix.

If you read the article, you would see that it is LGBT friendly, not exclusive. As for the income limit, all except 6 of the units will be 1-bedroom, the 6 will be 2 bedroom. This is not a building for families, it is for folks 62 and over.

 

[Pitt_Boss]

If you read the article, you would see that it is LGBT friendly, not exclusive. As for the income limit, all except 6 of the units will be 1-bedroom, the 6 will be 2 bedroom. This is not a building for families, it is for folks 62 and over.

If this is just an apartment building with apartments for rent, I don't know how they can say it is for people of a certain age or a certain sexual orientation or really anything about the renters other than their ability to pay the rent. That was all I was really asking about it.

If it is an assisted care facility, for instance, that would change everything. That would make sense to say an assisted care facility specializes in elderly and/or LGBTQ+ care. But by all accounts so far, it is just an apartment building with apartments for rent.

Incidentally, if you read the article, it never uses the term "LGBTQ+ friendly", though they would be wise to word it that way when actual marketing of units starts. They do say "housing community for LGBTQ+ older adults" which is a little more direct, though they don't say only, but they do imply it a bit. That's what I asked if this could legally be construed as implying they mean "only". Like if I say "this restroom is for teachers", most people take that to mean teachers only.

 

[pittchagg]

If this is just an apartment building with apartments for rent, I don't know how they can say it is for people of a certain age or a certain sexual orientation or really anything about the renters other than their ability to pay the rent. That was all I was really asking about it.

If it is an assisted care facility, for instance, that would change everything. That would make sense to say an assisted care facility specializes in elderly and/or LGBTQ+ care. But by all accounts so far, it is just an apartment building with apartments for rent.

Incidentally, if you read the article, it never uses the term "LGBTQ+ friendly", though they would be wise to word it that way when actual marketing of units starts. They do say "housing community for LGBTQ+ older adults" which is a little more direct, though they don't say only, but they do imply it a bit. That's what I asked if this could legally be construed as implying they mean "only". Like if I say "this restroom is for teachers", most people take that to mean teachers only.

For the same reason that they have 55+ senior communities spread throughout the country: the Fair Housing Act permits senior housing facilities, and only senior housing facilities, to discriminate based on age. That’s a simplistic explanation, but basically senior housing can do things that other types of housing cannot, and this is senior housing.

This project appears to be modeled after a number of other projects that exist in other cities, such as Stonewall House in Brooklyn. Here’s a relevant quote about the Brooklyn project, and I’m very confident that the one in Pittsburgh will end up taking a similar approach: https://www.thedailybeast.com/stone...lgbt-welcoming-senior-housing-opens-its-doors

“The building will not house LGBT people exclusively; the split will be roughly 50-50 with straight residents. “It was never our goal to create a building exclusively for LGBT people,” said Adams, “but to create a community that was LGBT-friendly. All residents applying to live there understand the spirit and goals of the building.”

Adams said New York City and State discrimination laws meant that it would be illegal to construct a building for solely LGBT elders. “It’s one of the complicated wrinkles in a project like this,” he said. “These buildings are needed because of high levels of discrimination against LGBT people, and we also cannot discriminate when it comes to populating a building.”

 

[Parkview57]

I am just curious...is this legal? I thought you couldn't discriminate in housing based on race, sexual orientation,

ok, now for a scholarly answer. There is no "protected class" being discriminated against, therefore it would be hard to win....

 

[Pitt_Boss]

The last two replies were exactly the kind of info I was hoping to get - Thanks!!