I'd like to address some of the myths that have grown up around the One Hill Community Benefits Coalition's attempt to reach a community benefits agreement with the city of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. The aim of the agreement is to leverage the publicly subsidized Penguins arena project to improve the adjacent neighborhood.

• Myth No. 1: "Hill Residents are trying to shake down the city, the county and the Penguins."

If someone takes something from you, and you demand it back, does that constitute a shakedown, or charity? Of course not.

Many people cannot relate to the Hill's requests because their communities have been physically and culturally intact for the last 50 years, with responsive, funded programs and services. Where were the cries of foul play from these people when local government displaced thousands of Hill District residents to build what is now Mellon Arena for the Civic Light Opera and eventually the Pittsburgh Penguins, followed by a series of broken promises? Can you imagine your entire thriving neighborhood being destroyed?

It is inconceivable that anyone who knows the history of the Hill could fail to understand that Hill residents are trying to avoid the repeat of a devastating act of divestiture. Hill residents are trying to rebuild what was taken from them in the first place. The passage of time has resulted in the advent of insensitivity in the wider community, but on the Hill, our pain is as real now as it was 50 years ago.

• Myth No. 2: "All they want is a handout."

It is a statement that is both insulting and hypocritical. The implication: Why don't they just do for themselves?

In fact, most Hill District residents are hard-working citizens just like everyone else in this largely blue-collar city. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that the Penguins are not doing for themselves. They are using hundreds of millions of public tax dollars to reconcile their debts, give investors a nice return and take advantage of prime real estate conveyed for free. What private business group couldn't thrive with that kind of public financial support?

To suggest that Hill District residents should create miracles in employment, health care, public accommodation and quality of life on their own is to ignore the source of the Penguins' funding: the public.

A community benefits agreement could help transform the entire culture of the community, and if Hill residents weren't fighting for equity, they'd be criticized for being apathetic.

As it is, we're criticized for seeking a community center, but expected to keep our kids off the streets. We're excoriated for wanting a master plan by those who have a voice if development is proposed in their neighborhoods. We're the targets of condescension for wanting a grocery store by those who have conscientious grocers nearby. We're ridiculed for seeking life-sustaining jobs by those who already have them. We're blamed for wanting a role in the development of land that was taken by our own government to benefit others, including the Penguins.

Residents of the Hill are very much trying to do for themselves, but certainly a level playing field is not too much to ask.

• Myth No. 3: "The community benefits agreement would benefit only Hill District residents."

Community benefits agreements exist all over the country. The first one was established in connection with the development of the Staples Center in Los Angeles, Calif.

The concept is simple. What is so hard to understand about a publicly funded major development project investing in the community that is helping to finance it and which is most affected by it?

In San Diego, such local investment yielded a community-owned nonprofit organization that lifted up its residents. In Milwaukee, a landmark workforce and hiring program for local residents is lauded for its ability to unite open-minded unions, developers and local officials.

Pittsburgh can do the same thing. The same individuals who criticize the Hill's residents would demand a legally binding understanding if major development was proposed in their neighborhoods with their public dollars.

For example, when projects such as prisons or waste-treatment plants stir up the NIMBY syndrome (Not In My Back Yard), outraged suburbanites fight them. And they argue that if such projects must go forward, they are entitled to be compensated for the adverse effects. But, of course, facilities of this sort usually end up being built in or near a low-income neighborhood, as the suburbanites' concerns disappear.

It is easy to be judgmental, but when you can't sleep because of traffic or take a shower because of decreased water pressure, when your property values go down or crime increases, the fight for community investment takes on a whole new perspective. A stronger Hill District would make for a stronger Downtown, encouraging business investment and residential opportunities while luring more visitors, conventions and commerce.

The Hill should not have to legislate morality. I encourage each and every resident of the city of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County and Western Pennsylvania to support our efforts to acquire a meaningful community benefits agreement so that all of us can say with a straight face that Pittsburgh truly is America's most livable city.