COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, Oct. 13, 1999 10:25 a.m. - - - BILL NO. 990254 - An ordinance amending an ordinance approved December 14, 1971, as amended, which approved the redevelopment proposal, the urban renewal plan, and the relocation plan of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of South Central Urban Renewal Area by approving the 10th amendment of the redevelopment proposal, the 10th amendment to the urban renewal plan, and an amendment to the relocation plan, which provide, inter alia, for certain additional land acquisition of approximately 231 properties, provision of certain relocation services as required by law for the individuals, families, and business concerns which will be displaced, and certain land use changes, and updating the property rehabilitation standards, all as contained in the 10th amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the 10th amendment to the urban renewal plan. PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 I N D E X Noel Eisenstat, Exec. Director, RDA . . . . . 5 Rahim Islam, Universal Community Homes. . . . 10 6 Richard Redding, City Planning Commission . . 21 Olivia Adams, Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition 22 Tina Robinson, Concerned Citizen. . . . . . . 31 Francesca Copper, Task Force Member . . . . . 49 Reverend Coger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Claudia Gordon, Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition 79 Carolyn Hayes, Vacant Property Owner. . . . . 85 Robert Totaro, Penrose Properties . . . . . . 91 Yvette McLaughlin, 1331 Catharine Street. . . 100 Robert Latimore, Multi-Vacant-Property Owner 102 Tracy Green, Daughter of R. Latimore. . . . . 110 Abdo Ellakany, 15-Year Vacant Property Owner 116 Anna Biggs, 1217 Webster. . . . . . . . . . . 123 Louise Hannibal, Concerned Citizen. . . . . . 126 Jack Tinney, Meadowbrook Developers . . . . . 132 Alfred Hicks, 1345 Christian Street . . . . . 149 Yvonne Hicks, Spouse of Alfred Hicks. . . . . 151 Lisa Gregory, 902 South 12th Street . . . . . 155 3 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 P R O C E E D I N G S
I truly apologize for the delay. We're waiting for a quorum and we're expecting another Councilmember to be arriving very shortly. Thank you for your patience. - - -
Now that we have a quorum, we also have some competition with the noise outside, so if you'll bear with us, we'll close the windows, and hopefully, we can get started. Again, I want to apologize for the delay. This is a public hearing of the Rules Committee regarding Bill No. 990254. I would like the record to note that a quorum is present. We have, to my left, Councilman Cohen, Councilman DiCicco; to my right, Councilwoman Miller and Councilman Kenney. Would the clerk please read the title of the ordinance.
An ordinance amending an ordinance approved December 14, 1971, as amended, which approved the redevelopment proposal, the 4 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 urban renewal plan, and the relocation plan of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of South Central Urban Renewal Area by approving the 10th amendment of the redevelopment proposal, the 10th amendment to the urban renewal plan, and an amendment to the relocation plan, which provide, inter alia, for certain additional land acquisition of approximately 231 properties, provision of certain relocation services as required by law for the individuals, families, and business concerns which will be displaced, and certain land use changes, and updating the property rehabilitation standards, all as contained in the 10th amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the 10th amendment to the urban renewal plan.
Thank you. Our first witness this morning is Mr. Noel Eisenstat. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam President and good morning, everyone. 5 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 Before we begin to hear the testimony from the witnesses, I would like to take this opportunity for the purpose of bringing Council up to date and also to the people in the audience today. Back in June, when we first had hearings on this bill, there were a lot of issues at the time. Primarily there was some concern from to residents expressed to me and the other members of Council that during the last couple years, there may not have been enough community participation. At my recommendation, the Rules Committee suspended the hearings until today. And I want to take this opportunity to thank all the folks who, during the summer months, participated in the task force, especially Reverend Coger, who basically was the point person for me with the task force in providing his church facility for those meetings. I said back in June, and I'll repeat it again today, that I believe in the end, that although all people would not be totally pleased with what the results are, we will never have a hundred percent for either side in this matter. The one thing I did promise was that all people 6 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 would be a part of the process. Again, the results of the process may not be something that you accept or are quite pleased with but at least I am confident to say, and I believe in my heart, that we did make an attempt to bring all parties together to at least to be heard during those six or seven months since we recessed. So I do want to take this time again to thank all of the people from the community, the Redevelopment Authority, and the developers for the time and effort we put into this since June. Thank you, Madam President.
Good morning. My name is Noel Eisenstat. I'm the Executive Director of the City's redevelopment agency. I have provided you written testimony concerning Bill No. 990254. I would like to make my comments brief so that I can -- so that other discussions can happen with other parties involved in this transaction. The Redevelopment Authority's involvement here, as the bill states, is to assist 7 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 this development and the acquisition of certain parcels adjacent to what is known as Martin Luther King Plaza. The City of Philadelphia's Housing Authority selected a developer well over a year ago, a joint venture of Penrose Properties and Universal Community Homes into a joint venture known as UniPenn. This developer, along with the Housing Authority, submitted an application to the U.S. Department of Urban Development -- Housing and Urban Development, and received what is known as a Hope 6 grant. The Hope 6 program is a program to revitalize public housing and, as part of that strategy, realized that in order to improve the quality of life in the neighborhood and in the MLK Plaza, undertaking land acquisition and rehabilitation of adjoining properties was important. When the Redevelopment Authority was with you last spring at the request of the developer and the Housing Authority, what was before you was an acquisition plan of acquiring 231 properties, including a total of 51 residential relocations and 3 commercial relocations. 8 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 At the time of the hearing, as Councilman DiCicco explained, there were some concerns about this list, particularly certain properties and sites. The result of that was that the Councilman asked the bill to be held, and subsequently, a series of community meetings were held with the Councilman facilitating those meetings and meetings with community groups, residents, block captains, interested parties as well as the developer and the Housing Authority. Based on that analysis and the give-and-take that has gone on for a number of months, we're back here today to revise our acquisition list down from 231 properties to 118, limiting the total number of --
A total of 17 residential units and 2 commercial properties. I would note that particularly the bulk of the properties that have been removed from the acquisition list are occupied units on Webster 9 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 Street as well as occupied units on 12th and 13th Streets. This will -- the elimination of these parcels will also impact on the off-site development, which originally had a projected total development of approximately 128 housing units. With the elimination of these parcels, the acquisition and activities will go from 128 new housing units to approximately 110. That's a brief description. As you may wish to know, we have representatives of both Penrose Properties and Universal Community Homes and the Planning Commission and the Housing Authority, which is the applicant for this grant who will be administering this program after land acquisition is completed.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Eisenstat, we may need the developer up here at this time, I think, because the question to you and to the developer is, there are several lists that were actually submitted 10 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 during the time that the task force meetings were taking place. Councilmembers have in front of them a numerical or percentage breakdown of those lists, so I'd like to deal with the list that was created by the Hawthorne community or at least the list that the Hawthorne community was concerned about, which was 126 units, and then break that down. I think the 231 is significant, but more importantly are the 126 that was a list that was basically put together by the developer and the Hawthorne community. And explain to the Council where we are today with that list. Thank you. (Adbur-Rahim Islam comes forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes. My name's Rahim Islam. I'm with Universal Community Homes. I was a part of the communication between the Hawthorne community and the developer on this reconciliation of the list. There was a total of -- in the process, there was a total of three lists that were 11 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 actually submitted. But the bottom line is that that list represented roughly 126 properties that the Hawthorne Community Coalition indicated to us that they wanted removed from the list -- off the original list for taking.
The 231, yes. Of significant strategy around the taking, the combination, the original combination was the removal of Webster Street. And that was highly contested by the Hawthorne community. We have since revised our concept, and we went back on Webster Street on a number of occasions to look at what could be done on Webster Street in light of taking the entire block. What we found was roughly 33 occupied families on both the 12 and 1300 block of Webster Street. And we said basically with some modifications, some street improvements, demolition of vacant properties, and the taking of other vacant properties on that street, we could make that street a very good block as opposed to its original intention of removing the block 12 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 completely. So the bottom line is that, of the 126 properties that the Hawthorne Community Coalition requested be removed, we revised that list. And 51 of them, we agreed on the removal. And 78, we did not agree with. And I'll give you the breakout of what that represents. Of the 51 that we agreed to remove off the list -- and I'll talk about the strategy of why -- 3 of them were vacant, and those 3 properties were properties that were being used by either an existing homeowner who was using the property for either a back yard or a parking lot. So those three properties were removed and they were vacant lots. Of the 51 properties that were removed, 48 of them were occupied families. And what we did was, we walked the block with the Hawthorne community, representatives of the Hawthorne Community Coalition, and identified outside of Webster Street the additional properties that were in that revitalization area that people were actually living in. Some of them that were maybe mistakes on our part because we did not think 13 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 people living in them, some we determined later that they were living in them, some of them we weren't sure about and we kind of confirmed them. But the both bottom line is that of the 51 properties, 48 of them were occupied and were removed from the list. What's important also to note is that of the 48 that were occupied, 33 represented Webster Street, so there were 33 occupied families or houses on Webster Street that were removed off the list. That gives you the breakout for the total of 51. Of the 78 that was not removed, there were 69 properties that were not removed because they were also vacant and dilapidated and were also a part of the strategy, the original strategy of revitalizing this area. So there was no cause or reason that we could justify not removing them off the list, so we remained (sic) them. So of the 78, 69 remained on the list, the developer would like to leave on the list. Of the 78 that we did not remove, 9 were occupied. And those occupied properties represent either very blighted situations or were 14 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 part of a tract that demanded that basically the removal of those properties, in order for to us develop the entire tract, was necessary. For example, you might have one property in the midst of roughly a half a acre sitting right in the middle of half a acre. That property would have to be removed in order for us to completely build that area. And then there was some properties -- of the nine, there were a couple properties that were involved in a lot of activity, illegal activity and drug activity, but also was in very dilapidated conditions but also a part of a tract. So that was the rationale behind the nine-number of occupied units being on the list. So that basically represents it. Our strategy, again, was to remove all of the blighted and vacant properties and lots in this revitalized area to complete the revitalization. We did go back and see what impact it would have to remove the properties off the list, and we came to the conclusion that 51 could be removed off the list without significantly impacting the development and the scheme of the development.
We're having some discussion. Can you tell us how many properties on the list are presently occupied?
The total number of family residences that we're able to identify are approximately 17. There's a -- you appreciate that we count families in units. In some cases, one family may live in a unit, some single structures may hold more than one family, have more than one family named there. We've estimated that there are basically families that would be impacted by 16 the revised list and 2 commercial structures. 17
I believe that's correct, yes. Now, appreciate, all this may be subject to change because in any given day, someone may move in or move out.
Just one question 16 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 for clarification on the 9 existing buildings that are on the list with 17 families.
No, let me clear that up. We were talking from two different lists. Noel is talking from the general 231 list. I was talking from the list that was contended and given to us by the Hawthorne Community Coalition, which represented 126 properties of the 231. So of that number, I was basically giving you a blow by blow of what the outcomes was from that 126. So the 9 occupied represent the 126. But as Noel said, in the overall 231, it's roughly families. 15
So the list that 16 you're recommending today that was worked out as a 17 result of some activity over the summer with the community, your testimony is that it's 9 buildings and 17 families.
No. I'm saying that it's -- I don't know exactly what the number is. It's probably more like 15 or 16 buildings.
It's 15 or 16 occupied building. 17 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
But one or two of those may be a duplex, which would increase the number of families.
My question is, in your testimony, you indicated that some -- or many of those properties are in dilapidated condition or in a deteriorated position and may be used, you said, for drug or illegal activities. No? That was -- I may have misunderstood your testimony, but that was --.
Okay, some of those 15 or 16 properties. My ultimate question is, of the 15 or 16 properties that are currently on the list and unoccupied, are all of those individuals in there legally residents of those properties? Is there any squatting activity, is there any people who are in there illegally, is there anyone that, you know, moved into a house that they really didn't 18 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 own? Any of that kind of situation.
It's impossible to quantify that without basically taking possession of the property and it's hard to determine that specifically. It is our impression, looking at public record, that what -- the bulk of these 8 residents are, in fact, renters versus owners. 9 And from our investigation to date, the bulk of 10 them appear to be long-term residents. 11
"Long-term," meaning 14 they have not been there for three or four months. 15 I can't -- 16
Okay, but the 17 owners of the 15 or 16 properties, have they been identified? Contacted?
We know who they are. As a matter procedure, we do not contact property owners specifically about an urban renewal activity beyond public notices until after the authorization has been granted by ordinance and signed by the mayor. So we have not contacted the owners of the properties directly. 19 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
But of the 17 families, they're all, in your estimation, long-term residents.
It would appear that way based on the visits and site visits and the conditions and what appear to be water, sewer, and tax records and whatnot.
Are there any other questions of Mr. Eisenstat? The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam President. During the meetings that were held over the summer, there was a suggestion that came out of the committee that -- as it relates to vacant properties. We spoke about the facts that if someone had a vacant property and they were actually in a position of rehabbing it at the time or had some financial documentation to support the fact that they were in the process of taking that building and rehabbing it and putting it to use, 20 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 as long as that property was not one of those properties that would interfere with a tract or a contiguous development, that those properties would, in fact, be removed from the list. Yesterday, about 12, 12:30, I was left a document by Olivia Adams concerning 827 South 13th Street. It's the northeast corner of 13th and Christian. And I've observed that property 'cause I drive up 13th Street when I come in to City Hall in the mornings. We had a little sidebar earlier. Is it agreed that that property would be one of the properties to be removed from the list because there is, obviously, activity going on in there?
Yes, and it's consistent with the overall strategy, as you indicated.
If I may, to incorporate that list, the Redevelopment Authority, at the end of the hearing, is prepared by formal transmission, specifically property by property, will forward to the clerk a list of all properties to be deleted. We're in a legislative 21 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 process for the general public now, and I'm sure Councilmembers know that at this point, we may undertake this deletion at the time; we just cannot just add any additional properties.
Thank you. Are there any other questions of Mr. Eisenstat? (No further questions.)
Does Universal Community Homes want to testify? 'Cause they're scheduled to testify, or were you just going to talk about your list of 126 properties?
Fine. Thank you. Do we have someone here from City Planning? (City Planning representative comes forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yes. Good morning. I'm 22 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 Richard Redding. I'm here representing the Planning Commission.
Closer to the mike? My name is Richard Reading. I'm with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, representing that agency today, and I would like to give a very brief statement that on April 15, 1999, the Commission approved the 10th amended redevelopment proposal and urban renewal plan for South Central Urban Renewal Area. So if you have any questions of me, I'd be happy to entertain your questions.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Good morning. I thank Council for the opportunity to be able to speak 23 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 here today, and I'm thankful that my property was removed off the list.
I'm sorry. Just identify yourself for the record, please.
My name is Olivia A. Adams. I'm member of the Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition, but I'm not here to speak for the coalition today because they have their own speakers. A lot of things have been stated and I really would just like an opportunity to just take a minute 'cause I realize that you guys have been very patient the last time, and we've tried to be more organized. Just to say what it is I feel I need to say. I'm here because my neighbors and I, we came together and we've been fighting for a long time. As was mentioned, there have been several lists that went back and forth. We were only able to have one meeting this summer with the developers and Councilman DiCicco. Councilman DiCicco did attend other meetings with us, two or three, but with the developers and with the RDA, there was but one meeting. My purpose for telling you that is to let you understanding actually what 24 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 has happened up until this point. First of all, when we started, we asked for a certain amount of properties. We looked at the list because, as Councilman DiCicco said, he was not in the business to support speculators and neither are we, that was why we were in such a bad condition. We looked at our list and we came up with not 126 but 86 properties, after we looked at them and said, These are the people that came out to the meetings, we know from the neighborhood, and we all gave them strict instructions that you have to be able to fix your property, and if you don't have the means, yes, I volunteered my time and I've just completed helping them file for grant papers, which is not a guarantee but it's a start. We're going to look to private foundations. A gentleman by the name of Willy Gary, who's a very prominent attorney and friends of mine, we're sending them information, to Oprah Winfrey Angel Network to assist these people in being able to rehabilitate their homes. The issue was brought up about vacant properties versus those that are owned. That's an important issue because that deals with 25 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 speculation. The vacant properties that are on this list, we have properties left that are in 4 dispute. This is not about 231 properties. This 5 is not about 86. And because they have publicly 6 said they were taking off the number, it's about 7 18 properties. With mines being removed, it's 8 about 17 properties. With the properties that Mr. 9 Eisenstat and Mr. -- More specifically -- 10 Abdur-Rahim Islam spoke about with the drug 11 activities, that's up to them to -- we're not here 12 to defend any of that. 13 But we are here to defend -- there's a 14 gentleman by the name of Mr. Robert Latimore, and 15 I'm going to take the liberties to speak for him 16 this morning, and you will hear from him, but he 17 asked me to help him prepare something for him to 18 speak because, he's not a speaker he's a doer. And this is a gentleman that got me involved in this process. I'm always there, I'm always on the streets, but everything he owns is on this list to be taken. Nine families are involved here, they say, and then they have the remaining buildings that are vacant. They are vacant but they are not abandoned. 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 And that's a distinction that needs to be made here. Why is it that these people who were in the community when nobody else would come. They're the truest investors that this city will ever find. Why? Because they invested, not because of what's going on, but in spite of what's going on. This man that I speak of, Robert Latimore, his store's in jeopardy and so are other properties. Now, every year since I came home from law school, me and him stand on the corner and talk. He's overwhelmed with his economic situation, and I said, Mr. Bob, we got to do something, it's next to my building where I'm living. He's been trying to do something about it. I've been so busy, I haven't helped him. You're going to hear from him today.
But these are the people that we need to focus on as well. It's not about giving people a free ride. These people don't want a free ride. They are not speculators asking for your help today. Of the 17 remaining properties, you have 9 people, and you're going to hear from many of them today. Councilman DiCicco approached a lot of 27 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 the people in this audience and asked them, What are you doing here? Your property's off the list, why are you here? They're here because they understand that, unlike what Mr. Abdur Islam Rahim (sic) said in today's Inquirer, he said, We're not about empowering individuals, we're about empowering a community. Well, I submit to you, Mr. -- to the Council, that you cannot empower a community without empowering the individuals. And we are not asking for empowerment. Because as a Christian, my power comes from the lord, and I believe most of these people believe the same. We're not asking for anything but an opportunity. I'm not asking for anything. They're asking for an opportunity to develop their property. And my challenge to Council today, you know, I know you've heard different things, what are your connections to the Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition? And I'll end with this. The community, you put $30 million in that beautiful school. It's called the "High School of Creative and Performing Arts," and some of the best and brightest jog around there while they're at gym. 28 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 That's the same place we jogged around, having track at Ridgeway with Mr. Hubbard. Before it became the Avenue of the Arts, it was a recreation center where our community met and played and where we formed most of our associations. And they asked, Well, what happened there? The bottom line is, this is where the community met, where we organized and where we came together. We're a part of this, we want to a part of it. If it's their point that they don't want the properties to be left and the people would want renovate 'em, we give them the same challenge -- we'll take on the same challenge they have. As it says in the paper, they need $93 million to finish their proposal. Mr. Abdur-Rahim Islam said at the meeting with (unintelligible) that they have $30 million and they're $60-some million short. I submit to you on my word, give us the opportunities you're giving these people. They said their first unit will be built the year 2001. Mr. Gamble, with all due respect to the good things he's doing and a lot of good things he's doing over across Broad Street, he's doing. 29 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 One of the problems I have is, since 1976, by his own admissions, on the Mary Mason Show, he's owned properties and he started acquiring 'em, and I know where a lot of them are and a lot of them are the worst properties on that side. And I'm glad that the government is helping him to fix these properties and do something about it. The point of that is, if you've had 20-something years to fix yours, give us some time to fix ours. We're not on the same time limit. Mr. Abdul-Rahim said he's confident that the City, the State, and the banks will give him the money before the project is over. Give these people the same opportunities. We are not protecting speculators. Anyone we thought was a speculator, that's how we got down to 61. There was no back-and-forth, don't be misled. It was one meeting where we gave 'em a list of properties, and they were going to walk out. It was their way or the highway. We had to calm them down for them to sit down, and we gave them a list of 86 properties. You know when we heard that the 43 properties were going to be taken off? A week ago because they thought it 30 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 would diffuse power base. Hence, the question, what are you doing here? I ask that Council give all these individuals an opportunity.
If they could -- Noel Eisenstat made the suggestion, let us take the properties at a meeting with Claudia Gordon and Pastor Coger, and if you fix it in a year, we'll give 'em back to you. You know that's not just, it's not right. It's wrong for you to tell somebody you're going to take -- how 'bout giving them the same time frame you give the developers? And if they're not finished at the time, then that's it, they'll have to face the hardships. But do an agreement like that. It's not argued that these people's properties should be dilapidated, but give them an opportunity now, and I'll give you my word, I'll help 'em in any way I can, and I just ask that you give 'em the same chance that these developers want to come in our neighborhood. Thank you very much.
Are there any 31 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 questions or comments from members of the committee? (No questions or comments.)
Francesca Copper. (Tina Robinson comes forward.)
Good morning, Councilwoman Verna. Due to scheduling, we've changed -- the schedule had to change. I'm Tina Robinson. Francesca's, I think, going to be third. Francesca was first and I think Tina Robinson was second or third.
President Verna, members of the panel, neighbors, friends of Hawthorne community, good morning. I'm Tina Robinson. 32 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 I've lived in my neighborhood for about 48 years now. I've played in the area, attended school in the area, made lasting friendships in that area. I secured my first position working for City government in that area. I learned to walk with caution, most of all faith, that things would get better. I was determined to persevere. I walked through debris, broken glass, derelicts, illegal substances, and mostly violence. I used fear as my companion to reach my place of work at Broad and Lombard. I was determined to persevere. I endured my coworkers constantly harassing me and asking me, Tina, are you still living in that part of South Philadelphia? And I'd proudly answer yes. I've rehabbed my property, and I know my neighborhood will eventually get better. I respect my neighbors and my neighborhood, and I know it will thrive again. Finally, I thought that there was an end to the long tunnel. I thought that there was light and progress and hope. But, however, what I found, members of this panel, was deceit. 33 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 UniPenn, PHA, RDA, they didn't act in good faith. They misrepresented to the community the properties included in the acquisition. The few members of the task force that we had as representatives of our community were led to believe that the properties taken were lots, vacant houses, properties cited for demolition -- certainly not properties owned and occupied by residents in the community. We're now being threatened with the eminent domain law. We're being advised that our dedication our tenacity, our financial commitment, and our right to the legacy left to us by our parents is null and void. We're being told that we're being wiped out. We're terminating your lease, they tell us, your right to an improved life in the neighborhood in which you choose to live. No matter that you've earned the right and, as a matter of fact, we like your neighborhood. We want it, we'll do anything to get it. Sunday's Inquirer, May 23rd, Mayor Rendell was quoted in reference to the Hawthorne and also MLK properties. MLK, of course, is not issue here. The Hawthorne area, he was quoted as 34 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 saying, "We want to make a real neighborhood out of this." I suggest to you, members of Council, I am real. These people are real. (Applause.)
Thank you. We're not afraid of change, we're not afraid of growth. We recognize the need for revitalization. We look forward to improvement and economic stability. We always have, that's been our focus from the beginning. However, we do rely on members of City Council to protect the rights of us and all citizens who reside and vote in its jurisdiction. Traditionally, minorities have been shifted from one area to another, but it's time now to put a stop to it. We've persevered, we've earned our right to stay. I implore you, do not pass this bill as is. Thank you. (Applause.)
Miss Robinson? Thank you, Madam President. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for hanging in there and for living 35 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 in that community in the conditions that you so eloquently stated are deplorable. But I'm confused a little bit about one of your statements where you suggested that there was some deceit on behalf of the panel or the members of UniPenn, of which I was a part of. The list that we are referring to today is the list that was submitted by the task force, of which I -- in my opinion, was well represented. At my suggestion, I had asked that at least one representative from every block in the area, the designated area, become a member of that task force. I didn't choose who those persons were. I left that up to the residents from Hawthorne. And in most cases, there were more than one representative for each block. So I'm a little bit concerned about the statement that there were only a few task force members that were represented and that there was a list that was submitted by UniPenn and a panel that really was inconsistent with what the community was concerned about. The list we are working from, the original 126-property list, was the list that said 36 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 submitted to the panel by the community. And from that list, we are now down to properties of the 4 126 list, 9 properties that are still occupied. 5 There will be some debate as to whether a property 6 is abandoned or vacant. In my opinion, they're 7 one in the same, but we can disagree on that. 8 But as far as misrepresentation, I'm a 9 little taken back by the statement that you were not represented 'cause this is the community's list, which, in the beginning, there was no 12 community list. And I will grant you that. It was a list put together by the developer, it was a list of over 230 properties, with no real community input. And as I said earlier today and what I said back in June and during the several meetings that we had from July through a couple of independent meetings with Claudia Gordon and Reverend Coger in my office, we worked out -- I thought we made considerable progress here. And, again, at the end of the day, everyone is not going to be a hundred percent satisfied with the list. But decisions have to be made, and I 37 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 want to do my role -- although as unpopular as it is in that community -- to change the conditions that you've had to live with for the last 38 to 48 years. And in the process, as I've said all along, there's a certain amount of pain that goes with that. And there is an emotional issue here that goes beyond numbers. There's bricks and mortar, there's families that were born and raised in that community that may have to be relocated, and I said I would do my part to try to make that as painless as possible. What I've also asked the developer to do, and he has agreed to, is, at some point in the not too distant future, maybe in the next couple of months, is to take a property that they had in their control that is subject for rehabilitation and rehab that and create a sample house in that community so that people who may have to be relocated or who want to be relocated back into that community who are moved out of the MLK facility or whatever, have an opportunity to go through a property and see firsthand the type of house that they will be entitled to move into when the project is completed, or at least the first 38 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 phase of the project.
In reference to -- let's first answer -- I respect what you said, Councilman. In reference to the question you asked concerning the representation, at the beginning, when this project first started, the representation that we had -- now I'm not referring to the MLK representatives. MLK is, as you know, not an issue here. We know those towers are coming down, that's not an issue here. The representation that we had as private homeowners and as individuals that live in the area was very sparse. And when they came back to us, they gave us the impression, as I said in the beginning, that the properties under acquisition would not be owner-occupied. And when I referred to deceit, I'm referring to the way it was presented to us in the very beginning.
And I understand, and I believe that I stated in June that I had some concern for that, and I apologized for not being totally involved in that process 'cause I was under the impression, based on the information that was coming back to me, that it was a total 39 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 community involvement. That being said, I took the position in June to recess the hearings, to work as long and as and hard as it took and as many hours as it would take to get to a point where we could get this list to a reasonable number of properties. And I think we have been very successful.
Well, that was a misrepresentation. As I said earlier and will stick to and stand by, as you said, in the beginning, we were misled and deceitful. Now, if you remember, when I started out, I said we were given -- I was given deceitful information. But when my reps came back to me in the community meeting, they made us understand, they made us want to be a part of this. And as I stated, we were a part of empowering the neighborhood, but we were told that it would not touch -- we knew nothing about eminent domain.
That was -- that was -- and I understand that. But from June of 1999 to the present date, wouldn't you agree that there has been community involvement as a part of the process? 40 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
I grant you that, there has been some -- only when we decided to get together and to try and come to an understanding. One question, one thing you stated --
But, Councilman, with all due respect, that was after the fact. We wouldn't have been here today had we been given the correct information from the beginning and the onset, and this would be totally unnecessary. (Applause.)
And I understand that and I respect that. All I said was from the beginning of the process that I've been involved in, you've been a part of the process. And, again, it may not make everybody happy at the end of the day, but everyone has been a part of that process. There were approximately 40 people in the Reverend's church. The first meeting, as I 41 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 recall, was about hours and minutes long. And the following meeting was the second meeting for which I had said I would invite the developer, and then I was told that the task force didn't want the developer, that they wanted to go over the ground rules again as to what the agenda would be going forward. So the developer did not attend all the meetings because -- the reason for that is because the community did not want the developers at the first meetings. We met together as a community. As your elected official, I met with all of you to find out what the problems are and to create an agenda to meet with the developer going forward. And as a result of that, meetings took place, the Redevelopment Authority was brought in to talk about what possible relocation benefits there could be, subsequent meetings to that in my office with Claudia Gordon and Reverend Coger where I instructed all parties to do a thorough walk-through of the area in question, a house-by-house property inspection. And that's what got us here today. There was considerable amount of time on behalf of 42 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 all the folks in this room, including the developer, in this process.
Would you not agree that in the beginning of this process, we were being deceived?
I will not use the word "deceived." I will not suggest --
I'm not going to label. All I'm saying is that from my point of view, there was a lack of information in the community. And I believe I saw fit to correct that wrong, by making the community a part of this. This is the task force list. They presented it to the developer and said, From the 231, we would like 126 of those properties removed. And then they worked on that list on a property-by-property basis. The 1300 block of Webster Street was the biggest bone of contention back in June. It is no longer on the table, and that wasn't because I decided to remove it; it was a result of negotiation between the community and the developer. 43 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 And we all agreed, and Mr. Islam testified to that this morning, that with a lot of improvements that we suggest going forward, the 1300 block of Webster Street could be a very desirable street going forward to live on. We're going to create some green space. You had a fire back there about three weeks ago, where two or three properties were damaged. Claudia called me up. Within a day, we had those properties being demolished. We're going to move, we're going to work, we're going to get stuff done. But we have to make some hard decisions today. And to suggest that we need more time -- there are people who are going to testify today that have had properties that have been sitting vacant -- no windows, roofs caving -- in for 15 years. And I am being portrayed as the bad guy. That's one of the statements that Olivia made that somebody said to somebody, Why are you here today? Fifteen years of property remaining vacant, that created some of the blight. Those are the people who shouldn't be rewarded. It's the people who hung in there and 44 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 took care of those properties, and we're not going to be able to do everything for everybody -- I will admit that, but we are going to make our best effort to do something to protect the people in that community. And I stake my reputation on that. I'm up for reelection. This is not popular for me to do, but I've got to do what I have to do that is the right thing. When you look at this in the big picture, you got to do the right thing. And I'm going to bite the bullet and do what I have to do.
Councilman, we're being treated as tenants. We're not tenants.
And with due respect to what you've said, yes, there has been some cooperation lately. Yes, there has been cooperation. But the bottom line is, we still wouldn't be here had we not --
I'm not going to get into semantics. I believe there was a lot of 45 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 cooperation to get this down from 231 to 126, and now we're only down to occupied properties. 4 That's a considerable achievement in a relatively 5 short period of time. 6 I don't think we're all that far away 7 from total agreement here. We just removed one 8 more from the list this morning. 9
You made a statement earlier. You said that it was very unpopular as far as you were -- or the impression that you had was that it was unpopular to --
Because it's been suggested to me that this is a political move on my part. This is not a very popular political move for me to do. All of you out here voters in my district.
And I suggest that the majority of the people here are not happy with what I'm going to do today. So as far as a popularity contest, I lose today. But this is not a popularity contest for me. This is about trying to correct a problem and changing the lives of people and making it a 46 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 better environment in which all of us can live. I only live five blocks away, six blocks away, you know. I don't live miles away. I was here before the projects were built. I went to St. Paul's School. I remember when they demolished the houses to build the high-rises.
But we just wish you would remember -- we would like for you to remember that your district in South Philadelphia goes beyond Tasker Street.
I understand where my district. My district goes to Wissinoming Creek. I know where it goes.
And I am trying to do something. There is real economic development that could become a part of this whole project, a lot of economic development. We can get things going in that community -- together.
We counted on you. And as I said, I'd like to close with: please, do not pass this bill as is. Thank you. 47 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
I just have one question, I just have one question. First of all, in defense of Councilman DiCicco, he lives north of Tasker Street. He lives --
No, I wasn't referring to where he lives. I said, Please remember that your South Philadelphia constituency goes beyond Tasker Street.
And just for the record, he lives beyond Tasker Street.
Oh. And how did you house get off the -- was your house originally on the list?
Okay, I just wanted to make sure the record was clear that your house wasn't being taken.
Claudia Gordon, please. (Francesca Copper comes forward.) (Applause.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning. I'm Francesca Copper. I'm a longtime resident of the Hawthorne community, and I'm here today to --
I'm sorry. Just so I understand. I'm a little confused on the list here 'cause I just took over for --
Oh, okay, but you were here from the beginning? 49 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
Okay, all right. Just so the record's clear, this is not Claudia Gordon.
First of all, I would like to thank City Council for giving me the opportunity to testify here today.
And one of the things that I would like to start out by saying is that I am a longtime resident of the Hawthorne community. My involvement is the involvement of a task force member. I belong to the actual task force that sat along with the developers to develop the plan for the Hawthorne community. I also sit on the advisory board at the Hawthorne Family Center. I'm also active in United Communities Advisory Board. I'm also a member of the Mayor's Cabinet for Children and Families. So my interests go far beyond just being here today to represent housing, although this issue today is very dear to my 50 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 heart. I met Frank DiCicco, first of all, in our neighborhood in order to sit down -- my main intent was to sit down and to be a part of the development process so that we would have key views in our neighborhood and to have a full understanding of how this process would evolve. I was selected and invited by PHA and the development team to be a part of this process. I did attend meetings over a two-year period. In those meetings, we have had a lot of misrepresentation. And today, I would like to show some of things or some of the issues that we, in the Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition, have problems with. I'm not sure about how I should attack this because some of the information that I do have, it begins to get quite difficult to explain to people who did not attend those meetings. One of the things that -- one of my main purposes in attending those meetings and in being an active liaison was to deliver the message of the developer as truly and as close to what it really was as I could. 51 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 In doing that, we had quite a few problems with the bill, as it is presented here today. And some of the problems that we have we had with the bill was that the bill -- can I continue?
Oh, I'm sorry. The bill today, as it is represented in front of City Council today, is a lot different than what we actually saw, and I would like to show you exactly what we voted yes to. We voted yes to this. This is was what we were given as task force members as being the real plan which community workers worked on along with the development team. This is what we were given to show our neighbors exactly what was going on in our neighborhood. But in actuality, during the submission process, this is what was submitted to HUD to receive the grant monies. So that there's a lot -- there's a big discrepancy in the two. And some of the thing are, it is the taking of 231 properties. We were never told 52 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 initially exactly where, how many, or what exactly they intended to do with the properties that they acquired. In fact, instead of the 231 properties being told to us in acquisition beforehand, it was delayed, and we really didn't find out until we came to City Council. And that kind of like disheartened me as a member of the task force, because now my neighbors see me as a liar, or not really reflecting the true idea of what the development package was. And that in itself really made me sick, it made me sick to my stomach. We knew that in the meetings, under the directives of City Council, that we were obligated to go back and talk to the developers as well as Councilman DiCicco. We asked at that time that 86 properties be taken from the list. We have now revised the list. We have done a block-by-block survey. We have done it twice with the representatives that Councilman DiCicco speaks of, with the proposal or plan that we have submitted to City Council today in representation of exactly what our intent was or how we thought our neighborhoods was going to be. 53 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 This plan in itself shows ideally that what the neighbors expected was a phasing process, not just with PHA property but even in the design of how the rest of the neighborhood was going to appear. And in the 86 properties, we have now condensed it down to 61 properties. We realize that, just as Mr. DiCicco does, that there is a problem with some of the existing properties that are still on the list. But what we were promised was that there would be no taking of occupied properties. There would only be vacant lots and properties that needed to be demolished. We really did not expect to get a list of the 231 properties in this acquisition. Instead, when we went to the meetings with Mr. DiCicco and the developers, what we got were demands from them. Rather than them actually listening to us and us actually sitting to the table and being able to talk, there was a lot of rhetoric and a lot of arguing between the two of us in order to come to terms that would bring us to the 61 properties that we asked to be removed. If there were 51 occupied properties initially, and occupied properties wasn't what 54 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 this plan says, the plan that you see it today, more properties, what's the big deal? We also asked for -- what we asked for in this plan is a blending of the neighborhood, not a total change of how our neighborhood appears. The words that are used in this plan represent what the developer planned to do to our neighborhood. And that's not what we said yes to. We did not agree in the total overtaking, the elimination, and the annihilation of our neighborhood. What we agreed to is that we should remain there. There was even a promise that the people in the housing development would not have to leave, and we know in the long run what happened to that idea -- it went out of the window, just like everything else. So we, as longtime residents, who plan on not really going anywhere, we look forward to blending.
Blending to me means that -- or what was promised to us was that if there was a three-story building on a block, if we take the 1300 block of Christian Street, which is primarily intact, if we take three of those heaviest three 55 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 houses on the list in that block and we blend in with in-fill, that does not change the structure of our neighborhood. But if we take our Webster Street, we already lost tenants when we lost the housing development. When we take out another 231 properties in our existing area, we're destroying the heart and soul and fabric of what our community is really about.
I'm sorry, I just -- because I brought this witness on, as Vice Chairman. I'm just a little confused.
My understanding, as we walked into here today, was that Webster Street is off the table, that Webster Street will not be taken. And yet, your testimony today indicates -- and you've said it maybe two or three times, 231 properties, which, I also understand, are no longer -- is no longer the situation we're talking about. So I'm just -- for someone who hasn't been intimately involved in the task force and project, I'm just a little confused as to what people's understanding is. I mean, I -- perhaps 56 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 Councilmember DiCicco can --
I mean, 231 is not the number we're talking about, and I understand Webster Street is not even on the list anymore.
Well, Councilman DiCicco speaks of 126. We never asked for 126; we asked for 86.
But that -- excuse me, if I may. But that number was very fluid. It started at 126, then there were --
No, it did not. It started at 86. It went from 86 to 81, and from 81 to 61.
But Webster Street's not on -- a part of the list anymore. They have been removed from the list for taking. 57 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
Well, the problem with that is, we've been lied to so much that the people don't really trust anybody.
And because one of the promises that you make, Councilman DiCicco, the people, we're not sure for real if you meant it or if you were still holding it over our head like you did eminent domain. I mean, we have a lot of problems here. We really shouldn't -- because if we were in agreement from the --
With all due respect, we're amending that. That's going to be in the legislation. You will see that Webster Street will not be in the legislation. The 1200 and 1300 block are off the table. It's not a question of trusting me -- it will be written, it will be printed.
Yeah, but just like you have several numbers from us, we've had several 58 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 numbers from you.
Several numbers from you. We've had three revised lists from you, just like you had from us.
But I keep repeating, this is a list that was created by the task force; do you agree?
The list that was created by the task force was a list of 86 properties from the onset, not 126.
And of the 86 properties, how many do you claim are still on that list?
So if we took Webster Street out, it's 33 more properties from 61.
No, no, no. Then you're right, then it shouldn't be 61, because you deleted 41. And then we got the list back, there 59 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 were still remaining. 3
And of -- using 4 your numbers, how many of those are occupied 5 properties? 6
And the other 8 properties are vacant lots or vacant buildings, 9 right? 10
Is that correct? 12 So we're back to number 9. We all agree on 9, 13 that there are 9 occupied properties. 14
And the other 17 properties -- the other -- what are we saying, 18 we're using 61? So we're talking about 52 properties that are either vacant lots or empty buildings.
Not -- not -- they're already off the list. There's only 18 remaining -- excuse me. There's 18 remaining properties on the list.
Nine. That was with the 43 -- excuse me, that was with the 43 that you had already gave us.
I thought it was or of the 18. Reverend Coger, is it possible for you to come up, please. (Reverend Coger comes forward.)
You and I had a telephone conversation a day or two ago and you mentioned to me that there were additional 16 properties. And could you state your name for the 17 record, please. 18
We're grateful for the 61 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 opportunity again to address Council. I think what originally happened is that the list that we originally submitted included more than the 86 properties that we were really in contention for. Subsequent to that, we had another meeting in which 43 properties were removed of the properties that we requested, plus an additional 9 properties that were not on our list but were on the list of 231 properties that were originally submitted by the Redevelopment Authority, which brought us to this hearing today with properties remaining in contention by the 14 Hawthorne community. This morning, you removed 1 15 of those properties, which leaves us now with 17 16 properties. 17
Out of the 15, we have homes in the 1300 block of Catharine Street that are occupied, we have homes on 13th Street.
On the north side 62 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 of 13th Street.