Philadelphia’s Washington Square West neighborhood — which is home to the city’s Gayborhood — was awarded a historic designation in 2024. While many LGBTQ+ Philadelphians were excited by news of preserving approximately 1,500 residences, religious spaces and business properties spanning the 26 included blocks, the designation was not celebrated by all.

Advocates, including the Washington Square West Civic Association and various LGBTQ+ residents, partly framed the designation as long-overdue recognition for the area’s LGBTQ+ culture and Black history — but opponents argued it would impose costly restrictions on property owners and limit new development. A group of property owners — which also includes LGBTQ+ people — took the city to court over the designation and successfully overturned the decision.

The judge cited a lack of substantial evidence as a leading cause for his decision despite the Philadelphia Historic Commission’s nearly 1,500-page nomination packet. Attorney Dan Auerbach, representing the residents who opposed the designation, told WHYY that the documents submitted didn’t explain why many of the properties hold historic significance. Just 173 properties were described as historically significant, he argued. However, 773 of 1,509 properties included in the boundary — more than half of the neighborhood’s properties — are already listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

In March, the judge’s ruling was vacated after an appeal — effectively forcing the process to start over. The historic designation stands in the meantime. The Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia is now drafting its own brief — due May 18 — to support the city’s position, which the organization’s executive director Paul Steinke believes will elaborate on the merit of the designation as a supplement to the city’s arguments.

Scholars have found that Philadelphia’s local historic designation offers a more protective effect on buildings facing possible demolition than the national register. Because zoning and construction is overseen by local laws and leaders, local designations play a stronger role in preservation. But that doesn’t mean buildings with the designation are guaranteed to be preserved.

The outcome of this lawsuit could affect a major re-development project that would benefit the LGBTQ+ community but has been met with mixed feelings. William Way LGBT Community Center (WWCC), which is currently housed in a pre-Civil War era building that would be harder to demolish under the designation, is set to be leveled (along with a famous LGBTQ+ mural on its facade) to build a more accessible space for gatherings and queer-centered low-income housing units.

Steinke underlined that it’s possible for the project to move forward as-is. Historic designations do not prevent every demolition. There are standards in place that allow for demolition, which WWCC would need to meet for the project to be approved.

WWCC leaders would need to appear before the historical commission to seek a demolition permit before applying to the city, but that obstacle would be removed if the historic designation is overturned.

Historic designation is mostly used to preserve the character of buildings through recommendations about how owners can restore or maintain exterior facades. Steinke hopes WWCC will adjust its plans to maintain all or some of the most important historic elements of its current home (the facade, historic marble and wooden staircases, entryways and ballroom) rather than demolishing it all outright. He hasn’t lost hope, but he admits he hasn’t convinced anyone at WWCC to change the current plans.

It’s a project that seems to place competing interests in tension. There’s a need for housing — especially income-specific, LGBTQ+ centered projects — in that neighborhood. This, as Steinke hopes, could be pursued without demolishing much-loved cultural landmarks — but WWCC has emphasized that the price tag for pursuing its goals this way makes preservation out of reach.

The Washington Square West litigation is one of three active lawsuits pending against historic districts in Philadelphia. Six newer proposals are also currently in various stages of the nomination process — but if approved, they too could be contested and overturned.

A 2002 attempt to designate Spruce Hill was unsuccessful due to resident opposition that may have been fueled by politics. It was the third attempt to nominate the neighborhood. A case study published in 2023 by a University of Pennsylvania student about the matter found that the opponents feared increased maintenance costs, the loss of personal freedom and gentrification.

“Ironically, in the two decades since that campaign, Spruce Hill has become one of the most gentrified — and threatened — neighborhoods in the city of Philadelphia,” the study notes.

Residents also feared displacement. The case study underlines that residents who are displaced by gentrification tend to move to neighborhoods with lower property values, less access to resources, and fewer opportunities for upward economic mobility.

Following historic designation, the number of college-educated households in a community tends to increase while the poverty rate drops in contrast to its adjacent neighborhoods, which do not receive the designation. These and other factors contributing to economic mobility are visible on maps created by the Opportunity Atlas, a project of Harvard University which presents information collected by the census in an effort to tangibly discuss economic mobility in localities across the United States. It shows the same patterns in many of Philadelphia’s historic districts.

But the Washington Square West neighborhood outperformed the surrounding blocks even before the historic designation took effect — highlighting that the designations themselves may not always be the cause of disparities.

“It’s true that in most cases, historic districts aren’t the most affordable neighborhoods in any city — no matter where you go,” Steinke said. “That’s not the fault of the historic district.”

Historic districts tend to protect properties and neighborhoods that are historically, architecturally, or culturally significant — properties that already tend to be expensive.

For example, Steinke underlined that Rittenhouse Square was expensive before it was officially designated as historic — and some neighborhoods, like Graduate Hospital, have become pricey without the designation.

Historic preservation may actually promote some protective factors that act as a buffer against gentrification and rising rents, contradicting the most common fears. For instance, the designation makes it harder for developers to tear down smaller, older, more affordable homes or significant community hubs that sit on desirable land in order to build newer, larger, high-cost housing units in their place.

Many LGBTQ+ locals opposed the redevelopment of the Gayborhood’s former 12th Street Gym — which held cultural significance and a meaningful mural of queer activist Gloria Casarez. It was removed alongside a neighboring building of note for its connection to Black history. A luxury high-rise apartment complex now takes its place.

Residents of a working-class neighborhood in Durham, N.C. hoped they would stave off developers and prevent or slow gentrification by pursuing historic designation in 2016.

Steinke explained that this has happened in Philadelphia too.

The Parkside neighborhood, which is situated near the Please Touch Museum, has been a historic district for 15 years, Steinke explained. It was a low to moderate income, majority minority neighborhood when it was designated in 2009 and it still is today, he said. The same is true for West Diamond Street in North Philly, which was designated historic in the 1980s. It was a low to moderate income neighborhood then and has remained one today.

“Real estate prices are a factor of so many other things — proximity to work, public safety, access to schools, access to shopping and other amenities, transportation,” Steinke said. “That’s really what determines property values and neighborhood value.”

Those are also factors that have strong correlations with upward economic mobility.

Despite a poverty rate that is lower than it has been in decades, Opportunity Insights ranks Philadelphia as last among large metro areas for upward economic mobility — with some children experiencing even worse economic outcomes than their parents. It’s a problem Mayor Cherelle Parker has addressed with new initiatives she hopes will support young people who hope to break free from cycles of poverty.

The supplemental programs that offer economic support to historic homeowners in Durham might have helped its anti-gentrification efforts succeed.

Steinke said it’s true that some preservation-oriented maintenance costs may be higher upfront, but many of those options also last longer and could even cost less than cheaper fixes that must be repeated over time.

“One real weakness in Philadelphia is that there is no publicly available funding to help homeowners maintain their historic homes, and that’s something that we have talked about with city officials, with city council, with the mayor’s office,” he added. “There really needs to be a fund that homeowners can apply to if their property is designated historic — especially for low to moderate income homeowners.”

Although there isn’t a city fund or initiative to help offset maintenance costs for historic homeowners in Philadelphia, a few state and federal tax incentives could be helpful to some historically-designated property owners — including landlords and developers who might not otherwise pursue preservation.

“Not many property owners or homeowners have a lot of expertise about what’s best for a historic building to maintain its value and its appearance,” Steinke said. “So when historic districts are in place, you actually have access to experts who know the best practices and can share them with you and help you find solutions to the problems you’re trying to solve.”

The Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia collaborated with the Washington Square West Civic Association to publish a manual that will be released in late spring or early summer. It will provide information about historic practices for windows, doorways, carpentry, masonry and roofs pertaining to the area’s buildings.

There’s been an increase in low-income households in Philadelphia’s historic districts and top earners are moving in at a slower rate than in neighborhoods in the rest of the city.

Racial diversity is shifting in there, too. Although these districts tend to have whiter populations, a report published by the Preservation Alliance shows that non-white homeownership in Philly’s historic districts has increased significantly since 2010. The number of non-white homeowners and Black and Hispanic residents is on the rise in these districts, even as diversity has slowed in other neighborhoods.

“We think [this report] shows that historic designation is not an obstacle to housing production or population growth,” Steinke said.

Steinke argues that the buildings in Washington Square West have economic value not only to those who own or utilize the buildings but to the city as a whole. They’re an economic engine — creating jobs and drawing tourists. Almost 6% of Philadelphia’s jobs are in historic districts, including nearly 10% of small business jobs, 13% of new jobs, and almost 17% of creative jobs.

The 250th anniversary of the United States will bring visitors hoping to immerse themselves in Philadelphia’s history. Visit Philly estimates the events could contribute up to $2.5 billion to the city’s economy.

Some funding is making its way to historic districts in preparation for the events by way of grants for programming and beautification projects. But that doesn’t make them an accessible place to do business.

Historic districts aren’t necessarily start-up friendly. Commercial rent tends to be higher there too — a frequent complaint among LGBTQ+ business owners who want to open brick-and-mortar locations in the Gayborhood but are priced out.

(This article was originally published by the Philadelphia Gay News and is part of a national initiative exploring how geography, policy, and local conditions influence access to opportunity. Find more stories at economicopportunitylab.com.)

A Germantown, Md., man arrested by D.C. police on a charge of simple assault with a hate crime designation for allegedly assaulting a gay man while using “homophobic slurs” has agreed to an offer by prosecutors to plead guilty to simple assault without the hate crime designation and with the promise of having the charge dismissed if he completes, among other requirements, 48 hours of community service work.

Dean Edmundson, 26, standing beside his attorney, officially accepted the offer of a Deferred Sentencing Agreement at an Aug. 18 status hearing in D.C. Superior Court after Senior Judge Hiram Puig-Lugo explained the details of the agreement and confirmed Edmundson’s decision to waive his right to a trial.

Among other things, the judge said the agreement offered by prosecutors with the Office of the United States Attorney for D.C. includes the requirement that he successfully completes 48 hours of community service work, stays away from the victim of the assault, writes a letter of apology to the victim, and does not violate any other laws or get into trouble for the next 12 months.

Puig-Lugo then announced he scheduled a sentencing hearing for Edmundson for Aug. 18, 2027, at which time a determination will made on whether he has fulfilled all the requirements under the agreement and whether the simple assault charge will be dismissed. The judge added that if it is determined that Edmundson did not fulfil the terms of the agreement the charge would remain in place and he could be sentenced to a possible maximum penalty of 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Edmundson, who appeared in court wearing a business suit with a dress shirt and tie, was released on his own recognizance following his arrest by D.C. police on Feb. 7, 2026.

Police and court records show he was initially charged by arresting officers with simple assault with a hate crime designation. In a statement announcing the arrest, D.C. police said, “On Saturday, Feb. 7, 2026, at approximately 7:45 p.m. the victim and suspect were in the 1500 block of 14th Street, Northwest. The suspect requested a ‘high five’ from the victim. The victim declined and kept walking,” the statement says.

A follow-up arrest affidavit filed by police states that Edmundson followed the victim and called him “bald, ugly, and gay,” and then “pushed the victim with both hands, shoving them, causing the victim to feel the force of the push.” The affidavit adds, “The victim stated that they felt offended and that they were also gay.”

According to the court records, the Office of the U.S. Attorney filed its official charge of simple assault against Edmunson on Feb. 9 without the hate crime designation. The office has not responded to a request by the Washington Blade for its reason for dropping the hate crime designation. The office has also not immediately responded to a follow-up inquiry from the Blade this week asking if prosecutors consulted the victim to obtain the victim’s thoughts about the plea offer.

The Blade, which has a policy of not disclosing the identify of crime victims in cases like this without their consent, could not immediately obtain contact information to reach the victim for comment.

Court records show that Edmundson rejected an earlier plea agreement offer by prosecutors and he was scheduled for a non-jury trial on Aug. 18. The records show his attorney filed a motion earlier this month asking the judge to convert the trial into status hearing on that same day after his client accepted the Deferred Sentencing Agreement offer by the U.S. Attorney’s office. The judge approved the motion without objection from prosecutors.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced last week that federal funding could no longer be used to pay for gender-affirming care through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

The rule prohibits federal Medicaid dollars from covering puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and rare instances of surgery for enrollees under the age of 18 in the Medicaid program and under the age of 19 in CHIP. It does not prohibit coverage of counseling or psychotherapy as part of gender-affirming care.

The decision to restrict what healthcare is covered by federal dollars is part of a longer, more aggressive stance the Trump-Vance administration is taking toward LGBTQ healthcare.

Since taking the White House back for his second term, Trump has signed three executive orders that directly target transgender Americans. They include Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” that requires the federal government to recognize only a person’s sex at birth, not their gender identity; Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which attempts to remove transgender service members from the military and prevent them from enrolling; and an executive order that helped spur this change by restricting gender-affirming care.

The administration’s choice to villainize gender-affirming care, despite it being considered a best medical practice recommended by nearly every major medical group for gender dysphoria or gender incongruence, including the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American Psychological Association, comes as KFF, a source for health policy research and polling data, estimates about 130,000 young trans people with Medicaid or CHIP coverage could be impacted by the policy.

“Today, we are ending federal taxpayer funding for sex-rejecting procedures on children,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said last week when announcing the change. “These interventions carry serious risks and can cause irreversible harm. The federal government will no longer use Medicaid and CHIP dollars to fund procedures that fail to meet the evidentiary standard our children deserve.”

“Children deserve our protection, not experimental interventions that pose serious risks and convey no proven benefits,” said CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz. “By cutting off federal funds for these sex-rejecting procedures, we’re following the science, saving taxpayer dollars, and, most importantly, protecting children from potentially irreversible harm so they can truly flourish.”

The administration’s push is having a chilling effect on state healthcare legislation — more states now prohibit gender-affirming care than ever before. States with gender-affirming care restrictions jumped from four in 2023 to 27 states today.

The funding change has been met with fierce pushback from LGBTQ advocates, health experts, and government officials across the country before the rule goes into effect.

Some of the first actions against this policy began in July 2025.

Twenty-one states have attempted to restrict this effort in some fashion from going through as the White House intends. They include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro on behalf of his state.

The coalition of attorneys general filed lawsuits challenging nine separate provisions of the final rule, arguing that they would make it harder for consumers to get coverage through the ACA, increase costs for states, and weaken key ACA protections.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Aug. 15 struck down a key provision of a Trump-Vance administration final rule that would have excluded coverage of certain types of gender-affirming care as essential health benefits under the Affordable Care Act. Essential health benefits are subject to the ACA’s financial protections, including limits on out-of-pocket costs.

“Everyone deserves access to health coverage,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta. “The Trump administration tried to exclude gender-affirming care from qualifying as an essential health benefit. We fought back, and the court’s ruling means this care can — and in many states must — qualify for the ACA’s financial protections, ensuring transgender people have an equal opportunity to benefit from the ACA.”

“The Trump administration tried to make essential care unaffordable for transgender Marylanders by stripping it out of the ACA’s cost protections,” said Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown. “We fought to keep that care covered, and we won. My Office will always defend Marylanders’ right to the care they need.”

The final rule at issue — the “Marketplace Integrity and Affordability” rule — was proposed by the Trump-Vance administration in March 2025, purportedly to “curb ACA enrollment fraud” and reduce federal spending on subsidies that help consumers afford ACA coverage. Among other changes, the rule would have removed certain types of gender-affirming care from the ACA’s 10 essential health benefit categories.

“This president would rather target young people than lower costs or expand access to health care. It is reprehensible that our federal government is intent on hurting and isolating the adolescents it is supposed to protect. I will use every tool at my disposal to fight this proposal and protect transgender Americans and their families,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James in December after the policy was announced.

In addition to state government resistance to the change, multiple LGBTQ advocates have committed to protecting the right to healthcare for LGBTQ children.

Rocky Mountain Equality CEO Mardi Moore affirmed those in Colorado would continue to help people most at risk if the change goes through.

“First, to the families impacted by this news: you will not be cut off immediately. The rule takes effect Oct. 13, 2026, and providers can continue to bill Medicaid and CHIP for youth already receiving gender-affirming care for up to six months after that. Rocky Mountain Equality is here, and we can help you understand your options to continue your child’s care.

“This is discrimination dressed up as rule-making. Government healthcare policy should expand what people can access, not strip away care that families and doctors have already determined is medically necessary,” Moore added. “We’ve seen this pattern before with other kinds of essential care, and it rarely stops with just one restriction. Any effort to ban or limit care opens the door for more restrictions on more kinds of care.”

The Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ lobbying group in the U.S., issued multiple statements following the announcement, and has filed a similar lawsuit against the federal government for prohibiting gender-affirming care to federal employees using federal health plans.

HRC President Kelley Robinson said taking a hard stance against what the administration is presenting as a win for the American people that will ultimately restrict healthcare options for thousands of Americans.

“Every young person is entitled to the health care that they, their parents, and their medical providers agree that they need, without politicians interfering with these important and highly personal decisions. And yet, rather than working to make healthcare more affordable and accessible, the Trump administration continues to obsess over the healthcare needs of trans youth, this time by cutting off health insurance coverage for those who rely on Medicaid and CHIP to access that care,” Robinson said. “The Trump administration is terrorizing trans youth and their families with these kinds of actions, and it has to stop.”