Browse by Date

Follow-up To Zoning Request to House Federal Prisoners

306_penn_avenue I attended the Wilkinsburg Zoning hearing yesterday and have some additional information to share. The hearing was very well attended, and the crowd spilled out into the hall, as not everyone could fit into the hearing room.

First off the request is to change the offender population from juvenile females, to co-ed adults. It is not to mix the juveniles with adults. So the total proposed population is for 108 offenders.  The program is to take convicted offenders during the last 3 to 6 months of their sentence, and house them in the facility while providing life skill, job skill, and other counseling- with the goal of improving their reintegration with society.

Some specific questions/answers from the hearing, as answered by the facility’s representatives (Disclaimer: this is based on my notes and best recollection. There were almost 4 hours of questions/comments/testimony!):

  1. Do the offenders leave the facility or otherwise interact with the community?
    Answer: The offenders will be able to leave the facility (unsupervised) for specific durations and activities such as job interviews, jobs, week-end passes to visit family, etc. They must return by predetermined times or an arrest warrant will be issued for them.
  2. What are the nature of the crimes committed by the offenders?
    Answer: The (planned, not current) offenders  may be convicted of any felony (or lessor crime if they are coming from non-federal systems).  While the majority are expected to be non-violent offenders, a small percentage may have been convicted of violent crimes, and/or be sex offenders.
  3. What security precautions are taken?
    Answer: The offenders are monitored within the facility by camera. There are some small number of security guards, in addition to employees. Schedules are set for the offenders and compliance is monitored, specifically for leave from the facility.
  4. Doe the company operate other facilities? In residential communities?
    Answer: Yes. Two examples of residential communities provided are in Brownsville Texas, and Oakland California.
  5. Are there any statistics available for crimes committed by resident offenders while in similar facilities operated by the corporation?
    Answer: No, not at the time of the hearing.
  6. What is the basis of the plaintiff’s argument for the zoning variance (to allow 108 instead of the already permitted 19 resident offenders)?
    Answer: First, the institution would struggle to continue to function as a juvenile facility, and the already granted request to switch to adults, requires re-requesting of a variance to have more that the permitted 19 residents. More than 19 are needed to be viable as a business location.
    Second, other uses are very limited or impractical with the current building.
  7. Was the impact or relation to the current neighborhood comprehensive plan considered or presented?
    Answer: No.
  8. How long has the facility be operating in the community?
    Answer: Since 2000, they have housed female juvenile offenders. Currently they have about 72 residents.

The hearing lasted from 7:00Pm to after 11:00PM, with unlimited time for public questions and comments permitted. The Borough of Wilkinsburg’s representative before the board requested that the board deny the request for the variance.  The Board asked them and the plaintiffs to provide legal briefs prior to the next meeting, when they will announce their decision.

The next meeting is at
7:00pm, Thursday November 19
3rd Floor, 605 Ross Ave Wilkinsburg, PA 15221

The decision will be announced at that time.

Comments are closed.