Bob Donaldson, Post-Gazette Dale Peoples has been living in the Third East Hills Park housing development all her life. Now the residents are being forced to move so HUD can turn the project over to a private developer. Many of the residents have already left, leaving many empty and uncared for units. A U.S. district judge will hear their arguments on Friday. Click photo for larger image.

When Dale Peoples first moved into Third East Hills Park more than 30 years ago, the two-story townhouses had just been completed.

It was a neighborhood to be proud of then -- one where lifelong friendships were formed and children were watched over, not only by parents but by neighbors, too.

Now, only 23 people remain in the subsidized housing cooperative, located on the edge of Wilkinsburg, Pittsburgh and Penn Hills, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is trying to foreclose on the property to sell for redevelopment.

Last week, a group of residents of Third East Hills filed a federal lawsuit against HUD, trying to halt the foreclosure sale and save their community.

A hearing on the lawsuit will be held Friday before U.S. District Chief Judge Donetta Ambrose.

The eight plaintiffs are seeking to have their lawsuit certified as a class action to include all others "similarly situated." They have asked that HUD be permanently enjoined from foreclosing on the property; stopped from displacing any other residents; and forced to help manage the property.

According to the lawsuit, HUD wants to sell the property to developers -- like what happened to First and Second East Hills Parks in 2002 and 2003. Those neighboring plans were sold, with the intent to revitalize the whole community with mixed-income housing and apartments.

The new Second East Hills community sits in direct contrast with the old Third East Hills.

With brightly colored units trimmed in soft yellow, the homes of Second East Hills are bright and welcoming. A playground with a small rock-climbing wall sits out front, and there are no broken windows or graffiti.

Just down the street in Third East Hills Park, though, it's a different story.

The units that have been abandoned are missing windows and trim. Some are even missing the entire front door.

But it's evident that some residents still take pride in Third East Hills. At one house, tropical potted plants and lawn furniture are interspersed with children's toys.

Ms. Peoples agrees that the units need some work, but the idea of having to move is overwhelming to her.

"This is our home. I'm comfortable here," she said.

According to the lawsuit, the Urban Redevelopment Authority will buy the property for $1. It will then sell it to development companies at a nominal fee.

Under the "East Hills Visioning," plan, the homes of Third East Hills would be demolished and redeveloped.

The authority and the companies working on the project have obtained and committed $60 million in public and private funding, the lawsuit, filed under the 1968 Fair Housing Act, says.

Under the co-op plan at Third East Hills, residents were able to become shareholders by paying a fee up front, and then contributing 30 percent of adjusted household income each month toward rent and utilities.

Under the current deed for the property, it must be used as "affordable housing," the lawsuit contends.

For that to change, the deed must be nullified. To do that, HUD is foreclosing, based on a failure in four consecutive physical inspections.

The plaintiffs, however, claim they never missed a mortgage payment and should not be foreclosed upon.

"You can't just kick us out like that and give us nothing," said Yevorn Gaskins, 59. She raised five children there and three of them now live in their own homes there.

Her son, Konota Gaskins, 33, is raising his two children there.

"It's a shame, but we're going to fight it," he said. "We're the owners. Why can't HUD sell it to us for $1?"

Most of the plaintiffs, several of them elderly, have lived in the development for many years, including two who have been there since the co-op's inception.

Since November 2004, according to the lawsuit, 65 shareholders and 22 non-shareholder families have been displaced by HUD.

The vandalism visible in some of the units occurred after those people were forced out, Mr. Gaskins said.

Included in the lawsuit's allegations are claims that HUD did not provide appropriate relocation assistance to the residents who have been forced to move.