MYTHBUSTING
Dormont Junction Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
Why a Mythbusting page?
The rhetoric around this project has been marked by false information, blatant lies, and misrepresentation about the facts. Much of this information has come from an individual who does not even live in the borough or the school district and appears to rely heavily on AI in drafting messaging.
That same individual is fundraising to support this effort. Residents do not need to pay to have their voices heard. There is opportunity to speak at every council meeting, and the members’ email addresses are publicly posted and available to anyone.
Lying in politics or government may not be unprecedented in this day or age, but it’s absolutely evidence of an intent to deceive. The frequent repetition of claims that have been disproven or challenged represents a campaign based on disinformation.
That campaign will not deter or panic Council. Its role in any project considered for this borough is to do its due diligence – ask questions, get as much information as possible, understand the pros and cons, ensure compliance with its laws and regulations, gather community input and address concerns, facilitate transparency and communications, and ensure that projects align with the borough’s comprehensive plan and development goals.
The process that we are currently engaging in allows us to fulfill those responsibilities and to do the job for which we were elected. We will continue to be transparent, provide information to the public on action steps and share information as it is received – and we will continue to push back when there are lies, false information, and misrepresentation that are impacting you, our neighbors and constituents.
CLAIM: By using vape shops as a distraction, the borough’s administration is opening up the master blueprint under the radar. This opens the door to alter the rules on property density, vertical building heights, and our neighborhood parking minimums for high-density corporate projects.
FALSE: Ordinance No. 1660 amends the existing Development Code to change the process by which future vape shops seeking to locate in the borough are handled. The draft ordinance has been on the borough’s website for months and has been discussed nearly every month for the last six months as Council considered these amendments. It doesn’t make any changes to property density, vertical building heights, or neighborhood parking minimums for high-density corporate projects.
CLAIM: Borough Council just called a snap public hearing to pass Ordinance No. 1660.
FALSE: Council voted at its August 3, 2026 voting meeting to advertise the public hearing and subsequent special voting meeting. This action was also discussed at the July 20 and July 27 supercommittee meetings.
CLAIM: The original version of Ordinance No. 1660 smuggled in hidden Chapter 210 master zoning loops. But because we blew the whistle, Council was forced to strip out every single sneaky addition. The version that passed unanimously tonight was a 100% clean bill that only regulated vape shops.
FALSE: This is an absolute falsehood. The legislation has not changed in months as it has gone through the process outlined by state law.
CLAIM: TribLive just confirmed the transit agency has ZERO completed safety checks on traffic or sewers for the 180-unit project.
We don’t know what “safety checks on traffic or sewers” for the project means. If the reference is to a traffic study, or other research and plans into what existing infrastructure is on the site and what other investments may need to be made, that’s a responsibility of the developer – not the transit agency – that is part of what’s being outlined as expectations in the ENA that is being negotiated now between all parties.
CLAIM: Developers and architects need to start providing real, verifiable answers to the major engineering flaws underneath this project layout instead of trying to minimize concerned residents online.
We don’t know what “engineering flaws underneath this project layout” refers to and so have no way of responding to this allegation.
CLAIM: The borough’s own official “Storm Water 101” documents admit they spend $0 on storm sewer maintenance and don’t even know the size of more than half the pipes under our feet – some dating back to the early 1900s.
These are historical documents that were created when the creation of the Dormont Stormwater Authority was being debated. The Authority was formed on August 3, 2015, by Ordinance No. 1609.
The Authority is committed to completing stormwater management projects, controlling sediment, contaminants and pollutants, implementing State and Federal clean water regulations, facilitating public education and public involvement and improving the water quality of Saw Mill Run Watershed and the Ohio River
CLAIM: PennDOT explicitly confirmed on August 7, 2026 that the required traffic impact study hasn’t even been submitted yet. Because West Liberty Avenue is a state highway, they cannot legally move an inch without state engineering clearance.
TRUE. That’s correct and not surprising in any way. A traffic impact study would be part of what’s being outlined as expectations in the ENA that is being negotiated now between all parties. No one involved in this process expects that it would have been done at this point in the process.
CLAIM: Some members of Borough Council don’t even live in the borough.
FALSE: To run for office – or to be appointed to any vacancy – you must be a resident of the borough for at least one year. Each candidate running for office signs a candidate affidavit that they meet the requirements for the office; similarly, any person appointed to a vacancy on council must also sign a residency affidavit.
CLAIM: A 45-year LERTA tax break is being discussed for the developer. It threatens our shared school budget and pushes deficits onto local homeowners.
FALSE: No tax breaks or other incentives are being discussed at all. It is too early in the process.
If, at some point in the future, there is a discussion about a LERTA, Pennsylvania law allows for this incentive to be offered for a maximum of 10 years and is usually decreased by 10% each year of those 10 years.
To be implemented, it will require all three taxing bodies (municipal, school district, and county) to approve it to be implemented.
Additionally, any LERTA is on future tax revenues, not existing ones, and does not impact any existing budget.
CLAIM: We need to press our school board reps for answers before this moves further.
FALSE: The Keystone Oaks School Board is not currently a party to any discussion regarding the proposed development. The only three parties involved are the Borough of Dormont, Pittsburgh Regional Transit (PRT), and the developer, Pennrose.
The School District issued a statement to families on Friday, July 31, to clarify this point.
CLAIM: Once Pennrose builds high-density housing right on top of the Dormont Junction lots, we won’t have spillover parking or a clear view of the fireworks.
FALSE: No final determinations related to parking, line of sight, or other details have been made. It is too early in the process.
CLAIM: We have built a master folder of facts on the underground mines, traffic gridlock, and the 45-year tax break trap.
UNKNOWN: If any such folder exists, it has not been presented to or shared with Council.
FALSE: The organizer who posted this statement has submitted a right-to-know request for mining and subsidence audits. That request suggests that they do not have any such information. Specifically, the request is for “[a]ll structural engineering reports, geotechnical reviews, subsurface mine subsidence risk evaluations, and historical mapping analysis regarding the Pittsburgh Coal Seam or underlying Oak Mine voids for the 1428 Biltmore Avenue parcel from January 1, 2024, to the present date.”
FALSE: No tax breaks or other incentives are being discussed at all. It is too early in the process.
CLAIM: People are confused because the potential development isn’t listed on the July 6 agenda. Instead, they have it hidden deep inside Councilmember Eason’s Public Safety, Building & Code Enforcement Committee packet.
FALSE: There are no items currently before Council for its consideration related to this project.
There is no Council Member with a last name of Eason, past or present.
There are no committee packets specific to any committee of Council. Instead, meeting packets are for all committees having items for discussion during the twice monthly supercommittee meetings.
CLAIM: The borough officially ended the broadcast and closed the virtual room the exact second the meeting adjourned in July.
TRUE: This is the process that Council has followed for its online meetings since they first began broadcasting them via Zoom.
CLAIM: Our presence made this project so politically toxic that the council panicked and publicly announced they are stripping the developer vote off the upcoming August 3 agenda.
FALSE: There are no items currently before Council for its consideration related to this project.
The announcement made by Council advised that there are no items currently before Council for its consideration related to this project, and specifically noted the false information being posted by the organizer and its supporters.
CLAIM: Council took the high-rise vote off the immediate agenda for Monday, August 3 – seemingly to stall our neighborhood’s momentum.
FALSE: There are no items currently before Council for its consideration related to this project. No votes were ever listed on the agenda or removed.
CLAIM: We have reviewed the project files and have major concerns regarding the Raleigh Street parking trap, traffic gridlock on the Mt. Lebanon border, and the developer’s (Pennrose) regional track record elsewhere.
FALSE: There are no project files available as it is too early in this process. The poster is likely referencing proposal documents that have been provided to everyone on the publicly available website but are in no way final.
CLAIM: We completely broke their summer timeline.
FALSE: There is no summer timeline for this project. It is too early in the process for any timeline.
CLAIM: When our star speaker stook up, they tried to use a slick bureaucratic loophole to silence him because he lives in Green Tree, but the audience stood their ground so fiercely that the council panicked and had to halt the meeting to hold an emergency verbal vote on live camera just to let our data be heard.
FALSE: There was no bureaucratic loophole. As a matter of practice, public comment is typically limited to Dormont residents.
There was no emergency vote. The Council indicated that they wished to allow the speaker from Green Tree time, and the solicitor noted that it should be done formally with a motion and second and formal vote. Council did that.
The vote was recorded live, as was the entire meeting. Every meeting of council is recorded live.
CLAIM: The borough panicked and abruptly canceled tonight’s Safe Mobility safety meeting because they are terrified of facing our neighborhood block captains two nights in a row.
FALSE: The Safe Mobility Commission is advertised at the beginning of each year and automatically on the calendar; however, if there is no business before the body or no published agenda at least 24 hours before the meeting, it is canceled.
The Commission had no matters before it in July, and so the meeting was canceled.
Wondering about another claim you’ve seen? Email the Council President (adowns@boro.dormont.pa.us) with your question, and we’ll get it added to the website with response as quickly as we can.