>> From WXXI News.

This is Connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

Our connection for this hour was made last night at Rochester City Council, where Council was considering the sale of two vacant Rochester City School buildings.

The buildings have been vacant for three and six years respectively.

And the school or the city, I should say, was considering two potential buyers, in particular young women's College Prep Charter school, wanted to buy school number 20 and move in hundreds of students, probably next year.

And Roxy was looking for a home for more than 100 young students for as soon as this fall, and they proposed buying school number 29.

Council voted to sell school 20.

But the debate about school 29 got rather heated.

Some saw it as an argument about the value of charter schools, but for most, this was about what the city should do with an empty and aging school building a piece of real estate.

Three council members ultimately said they would vote no, meaning there were not enough votes to pass the sale.

And so council tabled the matter.

Standing in the back of the room were dozens of young students and families and teachers and administrators from Roxy.

They had written letters practically begging council to approve the sale.

So they, as they said, could finally have a school of their own come this fall.

But the council members who opposed the sale have a different idea.

This old school building really should become housing if it can, they say not another charter school.

Here is Council member Mary Lupien explaining some of her opposition.

>> I am not planning on supporting this item, and this was not an easy decision by any means.

The testimony of all the students, the teachers and the families really touched me.

Um, there were two worthwhile visions for this building.

Ultimately, I believe that city owned property should be prioritized for housing in ways that address our most urgent needs.

And right now, the lack of affordable housing is the thing that is most impacting our Rochester families, including students.

>> And on the other side here is Council member Mitch Gruber explaining his support for the sale.

>> We have two options right now.

One option is sell a building to an entity that is ready to use.

It has the money to rehab it because we all know that RCSD doesn't return buildings without millions of dollars of Hvac and windows and other issues.

So we can either sell a building to someone who's ready to fix it and operate it, or we cannot sell a building.

And the result of not selling a building isn't that housing magically appears.

It is that we, the taxpayers of the city of Rochester, ultimately have to bear a very significant expense on a building that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to just maintain.

And the neighborhood, the 19th ward and adjacent neighborhoods have to deal with a big, gigantic, empty building.

I would love for there to be a third option.

I would love for there to be a housing proposal that was ready to go tomorrow.

Council member in our own.

In a conversation you had with me, you acknowledged that the one housing proposal was not prepared to have people live in it.

In an ideal world, in an aggressive timeline, until 2029.

So even in an ideal world, we have to wait three years with a vacant building where we're paying hundreds of thousands of dollars of precious city money to maintain that building.

I don't know how this is a choice.

>> Well, several weeks ago, we welcomed three members of council who support the sale, and today we welcome the council members who opposed it.

And I want to welcome them now.

And you heard Mary Lupien, member of Rochester City Council.

Mary is with us here, and it's nice to have you.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Across the table, Stanley Martin member of Rochester City Council.

Stanley, thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Chiara KeeKee Smith is with us, member of City Council.

Nice to see you.

Thank you for being here.

>> Nice to see you, Evan.

>> So, um, we got a little bit of of Mary's remarks.

And because in the sound council member Gruber was addressing you, I'll start with you here.

And I want to just start by asking all of you.

We'll go around the table where you are on this particular proposal.

Again, this may sound wonky to a lot of the audience, like you're talking about like a proposal that got tabled.

But really, this is, I think, as you have all said, about what to do with real estate.

So for you, Mary, you said it was not an easy choice.

Um, were you at any point close to saying yes on this one?

And ultimately tell me a little bit more about your opposition.

>> I think there were times in the last month where I was a yes, times when I was a no.

It was a really tough decision to make, and especially also with school.

20.

Um, you know, council members Smith and Martin and I spent a lot of time talking about it, trying to come to a decision that the three of us, you know, felt was right.

And ultimately what we landed on was to agree to sell school 20 because there was not a housing a viable housing proposal that came through the request for proposal process.

So that was the only use for that building.

And, you know, I'm not a housing expert, but folks were saying that it's not as suitable for housing as 2929 did have a very viable housing proposal that, you know, we're not allowed to talk about it.

Um, but it was, you know, it addressed a population that also tugs at my heartstrings.

That's why this was so difficult because kids and families that I care about were very passionately, very articulately, very, you know, convincingly arguing for their school and sharing the benefits that they've received from this school.

And, you know, I, my child goes to the Rochester City School District, I teach in the Rochester City School District.

I know its struggles.

Um, so I understand parent choice.

And for me, I hold that we should both support our public schools and that parents deserve choice.

Those two opinions can exist at the same time.

So this was never for me about denying parents or students choice of a good school to go to, but ultimately they do have a building.

It's not ideal.

They have a lot of space issues and, um, you know, they can't use certain spaces at the same time as the other school.

And, you know, they were saying that they were being treated as second class citizens.

And I understand that that has an impact on the kids, especially social emotionally, but they have a building and they have the financing to buy a building.

Um, but the population that this housing project would serve, they don't have those kind of resources.

And housing is one of the, if not the most critical issues in Rochester right now.

Housing has skyrocketed, rents have doubled, have risen by 50% in the last few years.

The number of homeless students in the Rochester City School District has risen by 150%.

Housing is the issue that's closest to my heart, and we can't, as a city, do a lot about housing, right?

We can do public private partnerships and give money to projects.

Um, we can raise our voices to the county who is ultimately responsible for housing.

But with city owned property.

That is one area where we have control.

And I think the three of us all believe that with city owned property, we should be prioritizing housing.

And with this RFP process, it prioritized speed of sale.

And I don't believe how quickly you come up with the money means that it's the best use for our precious city property.

And so ultimately, that's why I supported, um, keeping the school building and submitting it back out to RFP.

>> So this wasn't a vote at all about your feeling about charter schools.

No, we can talk about that in a different day.

Uh, this was about all the reasons you just laid out, but you did hear your colleague, Mitch Gruber, say that he had a conversation with you and was acknowledged that 2029 was the best case scenario for housing there.

Is that accurate?

>> Um, that is we weren't supposed to talk about those details, but yes, that is accurate.

But any housing where you're converting into housing is going to take time.

So Council Member Gruber both said that he wants to see housing, but also that he's not willing to wait the time it takes to build housing and selling the school building to the charter school takes it out of our control forever, you know?

So if they decide to get into another building, you know, then they are in control of what happens to that building.

So, um, the city retaining the ability to shape what goes in that space.

And with all of our city property, I think is an important responsibility.

>> But Council President Melendez also addressed that, saying, my interpretation of listening to his remarks was that he wasn't convinced the housing proposals viable.

He said, it is when you retrofit old schools, it's hard.

It's extremely expensive.

You don't always have someone who can get it over the finish line.

And he didn't seem convinced that this was a real viable proposal.

>> He also said he didn't read it.

>> He has not seen the proposal we have.

So he's talking from a theoretical standpoint.

The project had merit and it had financing.

It's just that housing takes time to build.

And what was prioritized in this process was speed of sale.

>> Council member Martin, do you want to talk about your your position on this?

>> Yeah, my position is very similar.

I was very interested in seeing how we can use city property to facilitate housing.

We know housing is one of the biggest issues we're facing, along with affordability.

So the proposal that I would like to see in that building created an opportunity for housing that was affordable from a reputable organization with expertise in this area.

Um, I spent time reading the proposals, trying to see what the distinctions were.

And one of the key things we saw was that the proposals from the charter schools just had a quicker timetable.

So my vote was entirely about a vision for housing.

Um, and really trying to ensure that when we have property as a city, we consider housing first instead of the speed of speed of sale, which is the standard for the general RFP process currently.

>> So when there's talk about reforming the RFP process, that's part of what you're talking about is changing what essentially you're looking for and what you're going for in a process.

>> Exactly.

The criteria.

So the speed of sale is weighted.

Um, so if you have a project you're proposing and you can get it done quickly, it's going to outweigh a project that takes till 2029.

So we want to transform it to have weight given to whether the project is housing or not.

So that is a, a plan to ensure that there's a housing first, um, criteria when we sell property.

>> Council member Smith, it's interesting.

Last night you noted that you've been pretty quiet for the last few weeks on this process, and that was intentional.

You wanted to be listening and you were ready to talk about it last night.

Tell some of the audience about your position on this.

>> Yeah.

So again, intentionally silent around the issue because, um, there were a lot of things that were said along the way in this process.

Um, and just being mindful of the families and the children and the children that are, that are attached to these decisions.

I wanted to make sure that I wasn't speaking from emotion, that I wasn't responding to what I believed to be political theater or political jabs.

Um, but that I was thoughtful in the process.

So I wanted to listen, I wanted to learn.

We read the RFP process.

I think my position is similar.

Um, is the same rather, uh, Martin.

And I read the RFP and, um, saw that there was overwhelming support from some of our local officials from, from the community in which this, this project could, um, go, go into, um, but for me, it was more so about that 151% increase in student homeless population.

And that was only from 2021 to 2024.

So we don't know what the current numbers are.

That covers 2025 or the current school year.

And my only guess is that those numbers have significantly increased.

And so for me, when I ran, I ran on prioritizing housing.

Um, and so that that's my position and that's where we landed.

>> Okay.

Um, I, I suspect and Council member Smith will confirm or deny here, I suspect some of what Council Member Smith is talking about with political theater is aimed at some of your colleagues who occasionally have said things that I know you have disagreed with.

There was a remark last night from Council member Michael Patterson about the people who were in the room, and there were dozens of students and families and administrators and teachers from Roxy who were asking council to give them this, this building as a new home, to sell them, this building as a new home.

And council member, Patterson is talking about his frustration with his colleagues who are in the room with us today, about them opposing it.

Let's listen to some of them.

>> People clamoring to do housing in these buildings.

That's just not the case.

We have to almost beg people to take them.

And I, you know, you know, I, I'm not going to go into that discussion.

I'm going to say, is this.

You see them because that's who you're voting against.

You're voting against them.

You see, all in black and brown kids out there.

Do we have any folks from the immigrant community?

Raise your hand if you're voting against them.

Do we have any black folks in the room?

Raise your hand.

You're voting against them.

Got any Hispanic folks?

Anybody else in the room?

Raise your hand.

You're voting against them.

I want to be very clear that you are voting against Rochester's children today in this room.

That's your vote.

That's who you are.

>> So Council member Smith, he wanted you to change your vote.

What do you make of those remarks?

>> I didn't.

I went to school of the Performing Arts.

So.

I I'm not we agreed that we would play nice in this space.

Um, what I will say I'm not.

No, no, I'm reminding myself.

>> I'm going to talk more.

>> About.

I'm reminding myself that I'm going to play nice.

Okay.

I'm going to say that I think that, um, he has a right to feel how he feels, but he is so incorrect.

Um, I'm a black woman.

I went to the Rochester City School District.

I represent black and brown people.

Um, all people in this city.

This was not a matter of black versus right white.

Rochester City School District versus charter.

It was about it's about what is in the best interest of the entire city of Rochester.

And again, when we have children who are homeless, who are sleeping in cars, they are not attending school.

And so for me, this the RFP, which we're not supposed to be talking about, but folks have been, uh, leaking it out all last night.

But this RFP was going to support a certain a population, um, Mary, can you.

What Stanley King, you guys.

>> But before Stanley, let me just clarify for the audience, when you hear RFP, it's request for proposal, essentially it is a it's an alternative for use here.

So the council members, when they're talking about a housing proposal, an RFP, they're talking about details that have not been publicly shared about a possible housing proposal here for this school building site.

And council Member Patterson says, no, there are not people clamoring to build housing.

He actually begged them to.

>> He also stated that he reached out to those same individuals and told them that he had another building in the northeast.

So if the proposal wasn't viable, why would you reach out to them and tell them that you had another building?

>> I think perhaps he would say, we got another building.

That's a lot easier than a school to turn into housing.

>> I think that that community for which this proposal was written for, stood up and stood out overwhelmingly in support of it, um, and I don't know what to say to that.

I read the proposal.

I'm for sure that, you know, it's going to take two years, but it's possible they have the money, they have the resources to get it done.

And it's, it's what this community needs.

It's what the children of the city of Rochester need.

>> I also want to interject that we sold school 25 and school 25 is being built into housing.

So this isn't like a new idea.

>> Okay.

And anything you want to add there to what you heard from your colleague, Council member Patterson Stanley?

>> Um, I think it's so disappointing, right, to make this issue about race or who gets what the as a council, we've all agreed housing is one of the most important issues the council president put out a report that took a lot of capacity from the council staff saying, you know, homelessness is a huge issue.

So it's pretty wild to me that we can, in one breath say this is an issue.

And when we have the opportunity to create a solution for the issue, we step away from it.

It is deeply logical and in line with our principles as a body to be fighting for housing development.

It is deeply in line with the needs of our community, the black and brown and immigrant children of our community who are unhoused and sleeping in cars for us to fight for housing.

Right?

So, I mean, again, for me, it was political theater.

He has my phone number.

There has never been a time that he has called or messaged me where I haven't responded.

So if there was really an intention to, uh, have me see another side or show me that I was missing something, he would have reached out.

>> Okay, but but before I get, I know Mary wants to jump in and we're going to get Council Member Lupien in just a second.

But let me just follow up with one other point with you.

If he would have said to you, I'm trying to steel man the argument here and say, what if he were to say, look, well, I think he did say last night, look, we all support housing, more housing.

Everybody knows we need it.

Council agrees that we need it.

But council's job is to find the most viable places for it.

This is a big city with a lot of different places where housing can go.

And if you've got a building that is at best three years away, if the proposal works versus a charter school for kids who need a home, now we can find other places and we should.

That, I think, is what he is saying there.

Um, and you I wonder what you would make of that.

>> Yeah, I, I actually want to address something.

A lot of the arguments that have come are about kids needing a home, right?

We looked at the data.

Most of the children, children in these charter schools do have homes, right?

And it's important to distinguish someone being unhoused versus a kid needing a new building for to expand their school.

Right?

We know housing is the most fundamental human right.

It is how kids are able to be stable and learn in school.

So the argument that this is essentially, um, the kids need a home is similar to other kids who are really unhoused needing a home.

I think it's deeply problematic.

So I want to be clear, there are children who are suffering in shelters, in sleeping in cars, some of them being taken away from their parents because they have nowhere to go.

That is completely different.

Um, and in fact, you know, more significant than finding a new building for a school that already has $8 million that already has access to so many resources, the kids sleeping in cars cannot go take out an $8 million loan.

They can't.

So for me, and based on the proposal, I think this is the best option we have for our city to start to address some of the housing issues.

>> Council member Lupien first of all, the floor is yours.

And then I've got a couple things I want to ask you.

>> Well, I definitely agree with with my colleagues.

I just wanted to add, you know, to your point, Council Member Patterson was talking a lot about how much council supports housing and how much he's fought for housing.

I felt as a way to discredit the proposal that was put forth that he values housing.

He didn't think that this was a good idea for housing.

He out of, you know, uh, Council member Leslie Smith, uh, acknowledged her relationship with YWCA.

She used to be on their board, council member, Council President Melendez.

>> Young Women's charter.

>> Yes.

Uh, acknowledge he's on the board of, um, Eugenio Maria charter school.

Michael Patterson is on the board for a organization that champions charter schools called charter Champions.

He did not disclose that.

So I feel like that, um, was it was a necessary piece to this puzzle of why he's so supportive of this building, going to a charter school over housing.

But again, if we want housing in these buildings, housing is always going to take years.

And so to say, yes, we want housing, but it takes too long.

That means we'll never be able to have housing in these buildings.

>> Okay.

Now, I will say for listeners who may be wondering, like, well, shouldn't we get everybody in here together?

Um, our guests in the studio asked for time and we absolutely granted it.

Because if you're an elected official, we want to talk to you regularly on this program.

And ideally, we want elected officials who might disagree to come on together.

This is a case where Council member Lupien was willing to go on the record.

A few weeks ago, when we talked to Council member Patterson and some other colleagues of yours and say that you did not feel like you could come on this show and sit down with him.

And have you didn't think he was capable of civil discourse and, you know, I guess what I want to ask you is you're an elected official.

You've heard some tough stuff.

Social media is awful.

People say terrible things.

You're used to whatever barbs are out there, you've heard it all.

Probably.

>> Mhm.

>> Shouldn't we sit down together?

Even when it feels vitriolic at times or hard at times.

>> It's not.

Obviously, I'm used to taking abuse.

Um, women who speak their mind get a lot of abuse.

>> I'm not I'm not asking anyone for the record to take actual abuse.

I'm just talking about verbal, even heated disagreement.

>> Well, that it isn't heated disagreement with Michael Patterson.

You heard him on your show.

You heard him just now.

He is personally attacking us.

And I don't want that.

I don't need to stand for that.

If I felt like there was any room for actual argument and debate, I'd come on.

But Michael Patterson is not about debating.

He is about punishing for having a different opinion, and he is consistently behaved that way.

Since, uh, Loretta Scott left council because Loretta Scott kept him in check.

There were times where he would go off on me and she would say, Michael.

And he, he would apologize.

But and he has said I respected her because she was my elder.

Now all bets are off.

So it is not possible to have an actual civil discussion and get through to any kind of point, because that's not his mission.

His mission is to publicly shame, put us down, punish us for having a different opinion than he does.

>> But do you think when when he says those things, it's obvious to most listeners that that he is out of line?

>> I have no idea.

>> The reason I ask is, I mean, if you feel like it's obvious he's out of line, just come on with him anyway.

Let people judge for themselves.

>> I feel like you're pressuring me, Evan.

>> Okay, well, I am, and I the reason being is I want to be able to sit down together.

I wanted people to understand why you don't feel like you can't, can you?

With other members of council?

>> Absolutely.

And I think Mike is out on a limb here.

I think since this since, you know, Council member Smith came on and Council member Leslie Smith, there's a real new energy of trying to get along because we know.

>> You mean on the whole body of.

>> Council, the entire body of council.

You know, we recently had a retreat.

We know that our problems are so big that we need to stand together with the federal government.

And, you know, the how the housing crisis and that we are all people who are trying to enact our vision for Rochester that we think is best.

We are not here to, um, do anything malicious.

And I think all of us are on board with that, except for Michael Patterson.

Um, you know, Mitch Gruber and I have had a long standing rivalry, but even the two of us can have a conversation and get through it.

Um, I would love for you to have the conversation with Michael Patterson.

Can't he tone it down to be able to have a conversation with the three of us?

>> Listen, I mean, I've asked him, do you think you're actually persuasive?

Because the soundbite I played today is one example.

He has publicly said that he thinks this invokes the Fugitive Slave Act, that the council members who voted against, for example, the East End proposal on the old inner loop, the housing proposal, they're is similar to the people who would have voted to fill in the pools in black neighborhoods, rather than let black families swim.

And I asked him, do you think that is persuasive?

And he said that he doesn't think it's his job to persuade.

He is making a case.

So that's anyway that's out there.

And I do appreciate the idea that there's a lot of people with different opinions who can agree.

And let me also say something I think is really important.

There's three members here who voted together on this issue last night.

You don't always vote together every time.

In fact, I think on the proposal on the old Inner Loop, Council member Smith, you voted for that housing proposal, is that correct?

And the two no votes were Council Member Martin, Council member Lupien.

So, um, so it's not always a monolith.

I know there's some disagreement.

Um, it is worth asking there because you heard, um, not just Michael Patterson, but you heard some other members of council say if you are about housing, housing, housing, why were you not about housing?

In a proposal on the old inner loop that was always supposed to be about housing, what's the answer there?

>> Well, it wasn't always supposed to be about housing.

I think it was sold to a daycare originally.

Um, that proposal was presented as affordable home ownership, but the affordability started at $175,000.

So for Michael Patterson to say it's equivalent to filling in the pools, those houses aren't necessarily for the people that live in the city.

And I'm very clear, and I have been clear, even when I was running for mayor, I want our city money to go to our city residents.

I don't believe that importing people from the suburbs is going to save our city.

I think we have to invest in our people right now.

And my people in my district were asking to keep that as a green space.

800 people submitted a petition, and so this project would have benefited 11 families versus all of these people who were asking for the space, who are passionately arguing that it's been able to facilitate community between people who live in truly low income housing and the really high income housing.

That is right around that square.

So it was a tough decision because I actually think it's an incredible project that is innovative.

It has an Adu attached to it.

I'd love to see, you know, they weren't able to prove that they could get it down to the affordability in time.

We asked to hold it.

I think had they been able to do that, potentially my vote would have been different.

But I even said that I'm not opposed to it on that spot.

Once they complete the expansion of Anderson Park, which they're going to do as part of the Inner Loop project, because basically it would be one building over and they would have green space that's three times the size.

So my point was, let's give them this space before we take it away.

>> Okay.

And you did say at one of the hearings that I watched, that the amount of people who use green space is a lot more than potentially 11 families or 11 families.

Plus, using ADUs.

Mhm.

But, you know, there's a lot of things that could, I could figure out that have more people using it than 11 units for housing.

You know.

>> If, if that was my only reason, you know, I'd be on your side.

But the fact that I don't I am not convinced that Rochester residents and definitely not low income residents are the ones that are going to be benefiting for this benefited benefiting by these houses being built.

>> Yeah.

And the number I heard from Council President Melendez was 160,000.

You said 175.

I don't know if.

>> 75175175 what they quoted.

>> 75 when we asked about.

>> It, you know, they said that they were seeking other options to bring the cost down.

So potentially that's how it got to 160.

>> But okay.

And the point you're making largely is that is not affordable enough for you.

Absolutely not.

Is that correct?

>> They were saying it was for people who had 60% of Ami.

Um, which I, I think I'm around 52% of Ami.

There's no way I could afford that house.

So I know that what they're saying isn't accurate.

And I didn't feel like they had all their ducks in a row.

>> Um, Council member Martin said this proposal created a false choice between two important priorities for our community homeownership, opportunity and maintaining accessible green communal space.

And council member Martin said, my vote is a rejection of the idea that we can't have both in the same space.

And I, I, I mean, obviously you can have as much greening as you can around homes.

The city has been trying to put more trees, plant more trees.

But when we're talking about a a lot that's currently green space and there's a proposal to make it housing, it actually can't be both things, right?

Like it's got to be one or the other.

>> It actually can right now.

Thank you.

That's a great question.

Um, so it could have been designed to maintain a bit more of the green space, like very simply, right.

It could have had more green space.

Maybe there would be one less house, there could have been more green space as a result.

Another option which we proposed that I was very interested, is interested in, was prioritizing the development of Anderson Park so people can transition to that space and have green space.

Um, while the development happened, um, a lot of my issues on this council surround process, right?

If there was an opportunity to talk to neighbors, work together with them, to move them into Anderson Park and create that space in partnership before announcing this proposal, I would have likely had a different vote, but instead of collaboration, a lot of the times we see decisions are made, the people who are impacted hear about it when they're made, and then they have to live with the consequences.

I would have preferred for it to be held, to have more clarity around the timeline for the development of Anderson Park, but without all the information I needed at that time, I just did not feel that I was prepared to be a yes.

>> And I know you asked questions as well about affordability, about what's truly affordable.

Um, and I, I think it is fair to ask who can afford 175, 161 90, whatever the number is?

Um, there's a lot of people right now who are not going to find any housing that they could own for under 200 in a lot of places.

So there's going to be for sure people who cannot afford that.

But does adding to the inventory doesn't.

Is that a way to relieve some of the pressure and at least sort of drip by drip, add more stock, more inventory is supposed to, over time, bring prices down?

Is that part of the process?

>> Absolutely, absolutely.

Um, I fully understand that logic.

There are going to be different people at different price points who may be able to afford it.

However, the other narrative about the project was that it was going to write systemic harms.

And, uh, provide reparations to people who were displaced.

>> Those were the words of Shawn Dunwoody, um, who is with hinge neighbors and well-known artists.

He said, this is a point of reparations.

He said that during a recent recording of the Big Dig podcast recorded at WXXI, he says, you really want to figure out how you do something.

You create equity, homeownership, and this is what you do to create the model of how we can do it.

>> Absolutely.

>> And you seem to reject that.

>>, uh, on paper logically doesn't make sense, right?

You can't ensure that the houses go to people in the city.

You can't ensure that the houses go to black and brown people.

There are regulations against that.

We know that people who were displaced were city residents, primarily black residents.

Um, and the houses, there's no way to guarantee that.

I think other arguments make sense, but that specific one, I understand the hope, but on paper, there's just no way to guarantee that it was going to write those harms.

Um, however, again, my vote was primarily about process.

I really wanted to make sure that, um, the folks that over 800 people who signed a petition, which is a very significant number, um, felt heard, had the option to be moved somewhere else.

Learn more about the park before the development happened.

>> One other note on the petition, because this has been covered a lot, my understanding is the criticism of the petition was, well, of course you got Red restaurant.

You've got some places that don't want more affordable housing, which, by the way, is I'm not saying that Red is or anybody.

They're saying you've got higher end restaurants and you've got businesses and they wouldn't want the assumptions.

Why?

They wouldn't want lower income housing.

And my understanding is that you and your colleagues who've read the petition, you don't believe that this is any just one part of socio economics, that this actually is quite the range of people who signed the petition.

>> Exactly.

The the folks who signed their addresses come from a wide range of places, not just business owners, but also people who showed up to speak.

Right.

We had disabled residents who lived in the affordable housing complex right there.

Come and share that.

It's a place they use.

It's it helps with their mental health.

We had black and brown residents who live literally right next to it come and speak.

So it was it was the opposition was diverse.

>> And I will add, it's disingenuous because the level of affordability is someone who makes more money a year than I do.

Those are not the people that restaurants and neighbors don't want around.

When you're talking about Nimby, that's that's not that's not a reasonable argument.

>> And by the way, I'm not saying that any restaurant or any business.

No, I wouldn't want people.

But I'm saying that there's this theory or an argument out there that that's where the opposition was coming from.

>> Right, right.

And again, Council member Patterson accused us of, of not wanting black and brown folks to have a chance at equity in a nice neighborhood at $175,000.

That isn't the.

When you think of not wanting people who live in affordable housing in your backyard, that's not the same people.

>> And regarding the petition, council President Melendez said that the petition is largely about asking the question, would you like to keep the green space green as opposed to actually knowing, here's A, here's choice B, are you opposed to the housing?

Does that change the equation at all?

>> Yeah.

So looking at the Keep East End Green website, they actually discuss what is being proposed.

Um, so I don't think that's entirely accurate.

I think the neighbors were being very honest, sharing about what's what the plan was and people knew what they were signing.

>> So Councilmember Smith, why were you on a different side on this one?

>> Um, as someone who grew up, my family moved here from Louisiana and bought a house on Weld Street, which is around three blocks away from that area.

Um, and I thought that it was a wonderful opportunity.

I read the proposal.

Um, I met with Commissioner Frisch.

I looked at upcoming development opportunities for housing and this in particular, um, housing development would give individuals the opportunity to gain like 500 plus thousand dollars, um, in wealth over time.

And so I think that for me was, was one of the leading factors.

And I know, um, not to sound elitist, but as someone who had, um, I just know that there are folks who can't afford the 175,100, I think it was 162 plus thousand.

And so I was like, hey, let's give them the opportunity.

It's a once in a lifetime opportunity.

There are no other developments that are coming up that are gonna that's going to give this kind of a return.

Um, there the, the space was always slated to have been something, right?

The, the, the fitting for the ground plumbing, electrical, all of those things had already been put there.

The mayor was allowing community to use the space until there was a development.

Um, and then when I looked at the map as far as green space was concerned, that neighborhood in particular, in comparison to some of the spaces, like in the northeast, had more, more green space than other communities.

And then there was going to be this opportunity to build out the park three times the size of the current one.

And so I just thought it was a great opportunity.

Um, and so I voted yes.

>> All right.

So we're covering a lot of ground here.

One of the questions after we take this break, we'll take some phone calls.

A question from listeners about the schools is if there is a proposal for housing in 29 school 29, can that be reinvigorated now?

And so what happens next?

What is the process going to be?

If you're just joining us, Council decided last night to sell school 20 to young women's prep charter School.

Council tabled a vote that would have failed on selling school number 29 to Roxy.

Uh, charter school.

And so the members of council voted, would have voted no last night had that vote been taken.

Are with us explaining their positions on that.

We're talking about how the city handles its real estate, their views on housing, their views on what constitutes affordable housing and what should be done.

And we'll take some of your feedback on the other side of this break.

>> Coming up in our second hour, a conversation about how art and war are interacting in places like Ukraine.

More than four years after Russia invaded, there are so many Ukrainian artists trying to tell the world about what they are going through, sometimes through poetry, sometimes through music.

And our guests are artists themselves.

They're going to talk about the work they are doing and what they hope the world will understand about the Ukrainian people next.

Our.

>> Support for your public radio station comes from our members and from Mary Cariola center, supporting residents to become active members of the community, from developing life skills to gaining independence, Mary Cariola, center.

Transforming lives of people with disabilities.

More online at Mary.org.

>> This is Connections.

I'm Evan Dawson look, my job as a journalist to ask.

So now that some members of council have talked a little bit more about this RFP, about housing and school 29, do you all want to just put it all out there on the table?

>> No.

>> Okay.

>> We're not it's not advisable for, you know.

>> You can't tell who's behind the proposal.

>> No, no.

>> Okay.

You can't tell us what their name is.

No.

What does it rhyme with?

We can't.

>> You're all about pressure, I guess.

Today, Evan.

>> Well, I tried to get answers here because now, uh.

And listener, uh, Mark wanted to know, is this now back on the table?

So last night, council decides not to vote.

Technically tabling the vote on school 29 under the auspices.

I think members of council who support it think they can convince one of you to get on and be that seventh vote that they need.

Um, and then they would hold a vote in the future until then, Mark is emailing to ask, what about the proposal that your your guests are talking about?

Does that get reintroduced at some point?

Do we know?

>> Yeah.

So I think what we saw with it being tabled is a way to stall, like you said, and see if something will change for us.

We are really dedicated to this being a housing proposal.

So what we'd like to see is the administration change the RFP criteria to prioritize housing, and then put it back to RFP.

So the housing proposal can resubmit and hopefully other housing proposals can come through.

>> Okay.

Um, and the tabling of the vote last night, I saw you in particular Council member Lupien, you wanted the vote to be taken formally last night.

>> As did Council President Melendez.

And I thought we were all on the same page.

I was very surprised when Council member Paterson moved to put it on the table.

Um, or originally back into committee.

We are very solid in our no.

And to keep the families and students even taking the recess and making them wait, all of that time and getting their hopes up, I felt like that was cruel.

Um, it, I would like to say we consider this final on the table or not.

>> Yeah.

>> I think it's important to give them a resolution.

And one thing I haven't mentioned is just how much I appreciate the advocacy of the children and the families.

>> From Roxy.

>> From Roxy, and also why Wcp taking time out of their days.

I truly understand that this decision has, uh, folks, it'll affect, um, and so I just want to acknowledge them.

Miss Stewart, her child, so many people.

So I want to acknowledge.

And the bridge building that's happening.

Um, however, for us, we desperately want to see this proposal go to housing.

So we're set.

>> This is firm.

>> Okay.

>> Firm.

All right.

Let me grab some phone calls.

Alex in Rochester first.

Hey, Alex.

Go ahead.

>> Hi, Evan.

Um, there's a couple things here that have been said at council.

And, uh, one of the things is that they don't want these sitting around any longer to go to tech so they can get taxes.

But the housing is not paying any taxes.

And certainly the schools are not going to pay any taxes.

So that just seems like a red herring.

Further, you know, if they turn this into housing and I am all for housing, usually is actually going to be the housing we need.

Rochester has done studies saying that the housing they need is in the $600 or less range, and is that really what we're going to get, or are we going to get our standard $1,200 low income housing, which no one in Rochester can afford?

>> So, Alex, I'll let them answer if they can on that, but I will just I don't remember what Council member Monroe or Gruber, but someone was talking last night about how it was a long meeting.

I tried to watch the whole thing.

Um, should always watch council meetings.

You learn a lot.

Um, the idea is Is not just taxes, it's that when the city owns a building like that, it's tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in upkeep and maintenance just so the building doesn't collapse every year.

And you have a willing buyer who's going to come in with, I don't know what the rock side folks are offering for the bill.

>>, one, 2.

>> Million, $2 million that the city would get, and then the city would also not have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars annually on the upkeep of an empty building.

So, um, okay.

Council member Lupien response to Alex there.

Go ahead.

>> Yeah, we again, can't discuss the specifics, but what I will say is what I just said a few minutes ago about the East End green.

I am not interested in projects that are not for our residents.

And this project would have been for our residents.

>> Yeah.

This this project, I believe, would have satisfied some of Alex's needs regarding affordability 100%.

>> And it would, in particularly a demographic that is most impacted by socio economic harm.

So I would say, yes.

>> If if the project in the East End that council members Lupien and Martin opposed, if that had been housing in line with what has been proposed for 29, would you have supported it?

>> Yes.

>> I would have likely supported it.

Um, I absolutely would have likely supported it, and I would have been 100% supportive if the process had been different.

And if residents knew the timeline for when they would be moved over to the next green space.

>> Is there a line for you that says, If I'm going to support housing, it cannot be above X number or no.

>> No, there isn't that line.

I weigh everything differently.

Um, there are several different factors to consider.

Obviously community support.

Um, the, there there various things I consider.

So it's not a hard yes or no.

It's, it's dependent on the factors.

>> Okay.

Council member Lupien.

>> I if we're going to give our city money, I would prefer it.

And we theoretically have a rule on council that it has to be 60% of Ami or lower for us to give money to it.

Um, we haven't followed that, but um, I think in terms of, uh, in payments, in lieu of taxes, the pilot agreements, you know, I'm more flexible on that because I do know that we need all levels of housing and we need to, um, you know, we just need more housing of all levels, but there is a specific range of housing between 30 and 50% of Ami.

Um, that we are in desperate need of.

And so that.

>> 60% Ami is too high a threshold.

>> It's too high a threshold.

>> Okay.

Council member Smith, anything to add there?

>> I think for me, it's on a case by case basis.

When I read things, of course, I want to make sure that we are doing things in an affordable way and in a way, you know, that gives folks access who wouldn't ordinarily have access.

But I think that for me, I'd have to read the proposal.

>> Okay.

Uh, on the phone next is Naim in Rochester.

Hey, Naim.

Go ahead.

>> Hi, Evan Dawson.

Thank you so much for this opportunity and thank you for the Congress, the council members that are on the radio.

Thank you.

Um, I want to say absolutely.

I, I love this conversation and it's really kind of sad that it's now turned sort of theatrics because the community is as strong as the weakest link.

And I feel that everyone talking about this looking to benefit students or benefit people who need housing are on the same team, trying to kind of find a solution.

But the fact that this now has turned into sort of attacks, theatrics, emotional responses, like it's really sad because you all are trying to find a solution.

And I, I am on the fence, on the fence, on the side of yes, housing.

It's just, it's just really disheartening to hear that there can't be an easy conversation because it's turned into theatrics.

There's already a lot of political discourse going on and attacks going on, and it feels like it's just infighting.

But I want to say thank you to the council members there who are really doing the work and trying to keep everything in mind.

Um, because it's really, really needed and necessary.

>> Thank you.

Thank you for the phone call.

Anything to add, Council members.

>> Can I say that, um, I think Council Member Lupien mentioned it earlier.

We have really I know for myself in particular, gone out of my way to get to know each and every one of the council members to develop relationships and to just get to understand how people communicate.

Um, for me, I'm managing emotions.

Um, because it's hard to be insulted on television, on radio, wherever they get the opportunity to, um, and not say anything.

But I think when we knocked on doors this summer, we heard community loud and clear.

They want us to work together.

They want us to collaborate.

And so we are intentional about building those relationships.

And so I want to say that I do believe that for the most part, even Paterson is theatrical as he is.

I believe that we all have, um, the best interest of the city in mind.

We just have a different way of going about doing it.

>> All right.

Uh, did you want to jump in there, Councilmember?

>> Just quickly add to that it's okay to have different opinions, right?

We voted differently.

>> I certainly hope so.

>> Right, right.

We voted differently on 125 Charlotte Street.

And we still talk about it.

We still heard each other and we're able to be here today.

That's exactly how we'd want the body to operate.

And we hope that's possible.

>> Yeah.

Collaborative, deliberative.

When you elect nine people, I think the idea is that we're all bringing different perspectives and different ideas, and we're working together to select the best, you know, project or decision for our residents.

And, you know, I think eight of us are on the same page.

And Michael Paterson is my way or the highway.

And he's very, um, you know, aggressive about his opinion.

And it does make it difficult to, um, to work together.

>> Council President Melendez did say recently he thought that the debates about these various sites has been largely a pretty productive process.

A lot of good questions, a lot of mostly hearing each other.

Well, even when there's disagreement.

So, um, so it sounds like there's a lot on the same page.

I'll close just briefly, Dallas says adding bathrooms to a school building, adding more plumbing, separating electrical and whatever code requirements, this would be very pricey.

And he's he's questioning whether any proposal could make this thing viable at school.

29 so last chance to tell us who this is and what the proposal were to get it.

I know you're not going to do that.

Like I said.

>> School 25 was approved for housing and that project is going forward.

And so there is there.

>> Are.

>> Viable housing projects.

Yep.

>> Okay.

Uh, yeah.

Okay.

>> 100%.

We've read the proposal.

There is a possibility.

It's just a timing issue for the administration.

And can I also say, yeah, um, shout out to the president.

Melendez v p Lashay Harris, as well as the mayor for listening and for hearing us out.

Initially.

I'll say that.

>> Well, I appreciate first of all, any elected leaders who come on this program, including the three who are on this program right now.

If you're an elected leader, wherever you're listening, you're invited.

We want to talk about what you're working on.

You're working on the people's business.

That's what this is.

And I am sure that if there is a housing proposal that has any forward motion, we'll be able to talk about it more publicly in the future when it gets there.

For the moment, we apparently we can't do that yet, but if there is one, we'll do that in the future.

I want to thank all three of you for being here.

Council members Mary Lupien Stanley Martin.

Chiara.

KeeKee Smith.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Thanks, everyone.

More Connections.

Coming up in a moment.

>> This program is a production of WXXI Public Radio.

The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of this station.

Its staff, management or underwriters.

The broadcast is meant for the private use of our audience.

Any rebroadcast or use in another medium without express written consent of WXXI is strictly prohibited.

Connections with Evan Dawson is available as a podcast.

Just click on the Connections link at WXXI News.org.

>> You're welcome anytime.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

You play basketball?

Did you play basketball?

Really?

Oh my God.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

What do you think?

Yes, we love.

Summary.

Sheet.

I'm just like.

Immediately.

Okay.

Used to be on this side.

Welcome back.

How are you?

Thank you for.

Olena.

Olena.

Olena Elena.

My real name is actually, it was just because I left Elena three of you?

Yes.

Huge love.

It's supposed to be like.

George is going to get you all lined up.

So we're going to have one person here and two over there.

Okay, I'll go here and Elena.

I'm a little hyperventilating about reading all of the stuff you've been going through videos.

Don't do five hours with me.

It's great.

Well, a lot.

I'm going to try.

Can you guys hear me?

Definitely.

We're all going to.

During the intro.

I'm sorry.

I don't know if our intercom is working.

Um.

Oh my God.

Testing.

One.

Two three.

I'd rather.

I'd rather you profile a real author.

You know, but there's somebody over there on the feature, especially the last video of.

You say, um, what is it?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Well, anyway, it's, you know, it's something that.

Okay.

So.

Elena.

Kondrashova.

Is that right?

Our intercom.

Um, they can hear us, but we can't hear them.

Would you mind texting them about that?

Please?

So pretty original.

Olena.

All three of them.

>> Who can't.

>> Production?

Uh, downstairs.

>> What's going on?

>> Something is wrong.

Let's call them.

Something is very wrong.

Do you want me to call them?

>> Yeah.

>> Have you lost.

>> Everything?

We got signal.

>> It's.

In general, Hormuz, all the things about art.

>> You hear something through the speakers down here.

>> Were you.

Are you calling?

>> Going straight to voicemail.

>> Is it for Greg?

>> No.

Ben.

>> Call Greg for me.

>> Jeff and Chris are in Teams.

>> I'm sorry to interrupt.

Um, we're having on a production, uh, technical issues that.

>> No one is around.

I saw Mike running away.

>> So just go forward as normal.

Hey, Greg, it's Megan.

Uh, we lost everything up here.

We can't hear anything, and the intercom doesn't work.

>> And the.

But we see the meters going.

>> We see the meter working, but we can't hear anything.

Thanks.

I can't get a hold of him.

>> So we're just going to go.

>> Greg Carter's on his way up because we lost everything.

>> We lost everything.

Oh, we still get the meters.

>> Should he start as normal, Ben?

>> Uh, I don't know.

For life.

I don't know.

I don't know if we're doing.

>> Caine.

>> That's on AM right now.

You lost all audio.

Audio.

I was in the bathroom, came back, and it was gone.

Hey, Greg, I'm up here.

>> In the newsroom.

The radio.

The newsroom is playing.

>> What's playing right now in the newsroom.

US satellite.

>> We can't do anything right now.

We can't do anything here.

We can't hear anything.

Can they hear anything?

>> Can play right now.

Is it a is it the, uh.

It's about to go now.

It's us.

So I can try to start the show and see what happens.

What would you what am I doing?

>> What should he do, Greg?

>> I would, I would just.

Reboot the, the the.

>> Thing.

What's on the air right now?

What's he going to.

>> Put on the air?

Nothing right now.

>> Can you play a promo round?

Right now?

>> Nothing.

Is it playing out a program?

Program one.

Um.

>> Of us talking.

Right, Julie?

>> Yep.

>> Oh, sure.

>> Support for your public radio station comes from our members and from Excellus Blue Cross Blue Shield, providing members with options for in-person and virtual care, creating ways to connect to care when and where it's needed.

Learn more at Excel sbc.com.