And those are the ones that are giving me the biggest amount of pain, by the way, but go ahead.
Right. We have those three homes. They are three properties on 13th Street in addition to the store that Bob Latimore presently owns and occupies as a commercial property. And so, basically, there are seven properties that are occupied.
There's nothing on 12th Street that's on the list, I believe.
Okay, yes, I'm sorry. The bar, and so it would be two commercial properties on the list.
Do we agree that that property should be kept on the list for the taking?
But we also did have some discussion about that 1000 block, it's 1000, if I'm not mistaken, or 1001 South 12th Street is the exact address of the bar, from 12th and Carpenter to 12th and Kimball.
There's one structure that only a part of the facade is still remaining.
The next property is actually pulling away as a result of that. And in order to have some continuity on that block, I thought we agreed that that block, maybe with the exception of the property at 12th and Kimball, which would be the northeast corner, should all go. 64 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
We've talked with the developers, and the agreement that we've come to is that the property on 12th Street between Carpenter up to 1009, we would not contest.
We're basically concerned about our neighbors that we have lived with for these years. We've lost a thousand people from Martin Luther King, which were relatives, family members, neighbors, and now we're being asked to add more pain and misery to what we've already suffered.
Well, I think that that's where you and I have always had somewhat of a disagreement.
Because I think 65 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 the pain and suffering that exists today is what really needs to be removed. And by doing -- we can't do it piecemeal; you have to do it in a much more broader scheme. And I think that the only way to do it is to do what we're trying to do here. We've worked the list down considerably from where we were in June. And we did it with your help and with the help of the task force, which I've said several times today. But something has to be done -- dramatic. You just can't do it where you pick a house here, pick a house there. You're not going to be able to do any major redevelopment or any major rehabilitation of that neighborhood where we want to do the in-fills. The 1100 block of Carpenter, there's opportunity to do some in-fill, so that people who may have to be relocated from -- just using 13th Street, as an example -- will all have to be relocated, but they won't be pushed out into West Philly or Northeast Philly. They're going to be moved within two blocks from where they live today.
And I agree with you, 66 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 Councilman, but you see this present development as the answer to our problem.
Yeah. But I submit to you that when development takes place that there will be a continuing process of development throughout this community for years to come, just as a result of what is already transpired. Banks will be more interested in lending money and the homeowners will be able to further develop their properties.
And I just don't see this plan as being the total -- you know, this is not the last shot we have.
But, Reverend, the development you're speaking to is already happening because people see hope, they see a change.
Miss Adams, I believe, owns several properties on the 700 block 67 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 of 11th Street --
They are now under -- and I'm not suggesting she's doing anything wrong. I'm saying it is a positive, it is a positive -- it is something that is very positive. (Ms. Adams continues to interrupt.)
I'm speaking to the Reverend. No, you'll have to wait.
Excuse me, you're going to have to take a seat and we'll be happy to recognize you once the Councilman has had the chance to --
We allowed you to 68 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 speak for minutes, now I want to have a few minutes myself. A positive thing is happening in that community already because people are seeing that positive changes are occurring. Properties are starting to be rehabbed that people would not touch for years.
And I do not disagree 10 with you. What I'm saying is that that process is 11 going to continue. Even if we remove some of 12 these homes off the list, it's going to continue. 13
Thank you, Madam Chairperson. First of all, Councilman DiCicco, you are lying. I have never -- you're lying, you're not misrepresenting anything (sic). You have access to the records down here in City Hall. And don't ever --
Did you not submit 69 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 this to me?
Let me tell you something. Yes, I did, and get a good look at it.
Then why did you put them in your exhibit and represent them as your properties that you're rehabbing.
I invite you -- can I speak? Can I speak? (Interruption by audience members.)
Excuse me, I beg your indulgence so I can read to him what that is. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He should have read it. 70 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
He sure should have read it. (Interruption by audience members.)
Excuse me. Let me say what I have to say. I assumed that everyone would read this because that's -- excuse me, excuse me.
I got this at 12:30 yesterday afternoon, okay? Thank you, Louise. I got this yesterday at 12:30.
Okay, because I was busy working on other people's properties.
And I was out of the office at the time so I just perused through it this morning. 71 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
Okay, that's okay, that's allowable. But I'm going to correct you 'cause that is wrong. Can I have my mike, please.
Now, you have been working with the task force for seven months and you asked yesterday that 827 be removed, and we removed it.
But I thought you would have enough sense by now to take it off.
You had seven months, and you drop this on my desk just yesterday.
And I wasn't concerned so much about my property. (Parties speaking over each other.)
(Pounding gavel) I am sorry, we're really getting out of hand here.
I'm sorry. (Audience members shouting.) 72 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
Please, please, please, let's have respect for each other. Thank you.
Pleased allow me to proceed because I submitted this to all of Council and I really think it's important that I be allowed to explain what that was. And please bear with me 'cause I'm going to make it fast. This letter serves as my formal petition that my property be removed from the developer's list of properties regarding 827 South 13th Street, removal from list of acquisition under eminent domain. Because I was busy fighting for other people's properties, my mother made a good point: Olivia, when are you going to get down with yours? But I wasn't concerned 'cause I knew once Council saw what I was doing, that it would be removed, as I told you when I started this in January. This letter serves as my formal petition that my property be removed from the 73 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 developer's list of properties targeted for taking under eminent domain. There are several reasons why my property would be excluded from the list, and they are as follows: 1. I have the desire and the financial ability to fix the building. 2. I have owned the building for less than a year and have already secured an engineer and contractor who cured all the violations against the property that were put up May 13th, right after a meeting I came out of, objecting to what was going on. 3. I have architectural drawings showing a rendering of the finished product, and such will surpass the standards set by the developers. Bear with me. On or before July 7, 1999, you attended a meeting at New Hope Baptist Church with members of the Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition. At this meeting, you promised that the properties undergoing substantial renovations would not be touched. More specifically, you stated that your concern was that people would acquire permits in bad faith; that is, get permits 74 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 and have no intent to do work. My work has already commenced and will be completed before Thanksgiving, weather permitting. Moreover, I can demonstrate the financial viability of this project. 5. By the developer's own admissions, at a recent (unintelligible) meeting, they are $62 million short of the funds needed to actualize plans submitted to HUD and the City of Philadelphia?
Bear with me, Councilman. Be patient. Moreover, the developers said their first unit --'cause you didn't read it and I worked on it and I want it read -- would not be completed. 75 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 I will take you down to number 9. Number is the relevance of that picture. 4 Equal protection -- is it number 9? 5 Okay, equal protection. 14th amendment concerns 6 are disturbingly evident when one considers that 7 properties owned -- not by me, DiCicco, but by 8 Alvin Levin and Anthony Ruffo, a Realtor -- wait a 9 minute -- and a developer, whose dilapidated properties are within the target area were not slated for acquisition. Ironically, the properties are far worse off than any on the developer's acquisition list. Exhibit E. You were looking at Exhibit E. Thank you. (Applause.)
Please read my documents. I put a lot of time in them. Oh, sorry. Any more questions Mrs. Councilman (sic)?
Madam Chair, I think that the position of this community is that we've 76 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 been asked to endure too much pain. We've already endured a lot of pain. And out of the 231 properties that were originally on the list, our total request is for 61 properties. We've asked that occupied homes be taken off, but we've also asked that people who own property -- and you'll hear from some of them as they testify -- who recently purchased, and some have owned as a dream, be given an opportunity to develop and to remain in the community so that they can prosper with the rest of us after having endured so much for such a long period of time. It's not much to ask, from our perspective. We've even scaled down our list from the original 86 that were really in contention or the list of 107 properties that we errantly submitted in the beginning. We're just down to 61. We're not fighting for drug houses or speakeasies, but we are fighting for the opportunity to keep our community as contiguous as possible. There is -- one of the best homes in our community is in the 1300 block of Catharine 77 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 Street.
It's one of the best maintained properties. It's a property that a lot of work has been put into. A property that was in the family owned by a mother, and now the son and daughter-in-law have moved in and have put extensive work in that house, had to replace the plumbing because the house had been stripped, and that's now one of the most beautiful homes in our neighborhood. But it is said that this property is a part of the Broad Street Gateway. Again, we have not seen any plans of a Broad Street Gateway, we have not be made aware of what the gateway is. We're just told, This is it. And so from the beginning, this PHA project has become as though all of Hawthorne belonged to PHA, as though they have the right to randomly choose properties and to decide the fate of that properties. They've even used language like, "I'm not going to let this stay" or "This is what it's going to be," and it's that kind of arrogance that just makes my blood boil, because 78 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 it leaves no room for negotiations. And I -- you know, our request is that if these properties are going to remain on the list, then people need to be given more than a year rehabilitative agreement in order to be able to come into compliance. Developers don't have their money and they don't plan to finish before four years, so why should these property owners be put under the gun and be given just 365 days to come up with the financing and the plan to do what can be done with a little cooperation and help from others. And that's where we've stood.
When you were in my office with Miss Gordon a couple weeks ago, and I think you recall when we were speaking about Catharine Street, I even said that they are the best houses by far being maintained on the 1300 block.
And there are four 79 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 properties there?
So your request -- of the nine occupied, those are three of the nine; am I correct?
Thank you. Okay, our next witness is Claudia Gordon. And after Miss Gordon, our next witness will be Tyrone Tollifero.
Good morning. My name is Claudia Gordon. Good morning or good afternoon.
I have before me -- after the last session that we had with everyone here, we went to work. We put together a comprehensive plan, we actually went through our neighborhood 80 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 just to see exactly what was in our neighborhood, who was in our neighborhood, and so forth. And this is what we've come up with. The Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition was formed in the summer of 1999 in response to a redevelopment proposal affecting the community immediately surrounding PHA's Martin Luther King public housing project. That community is known as "Hawthorne," with boundaries from South Street to Washington Avenue and Broad Street to 11th. To date, there has been no adequate input by Hawthorne residents in regard to the MLK redevelopment project that proposes to eliminate 231 private homes and properties and gentrify a neighborhood with long-term cultural roots, unnecessarily uprooting families and essentially tearing apart the fabric of a viable and self-staying community through the use of eminent domain. Following the issuance of the list of the 231 properties, task force members of the Hawthorne Coalition met with Planning Commission Director Barbara Kaplan. Miss Kaplan informed the task force members that the City Planning 81 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 Commission had not been directly involved with the acquisition of the 231 properties. Dialogue between the developers hired by PHA, City Council representatives, and the Hawthorne community was unsuccessful. Developer presentations were perceived by the community as a done deal at the community's expense. Developer and Council representatives perceived the community as hung up on emotional issues and impeding progress. Objective study and research reveals that the issues described above are clearly not that simple. These issues are historical, political, legal, social, and economic. The emotions exhibited by the community are an expression of these major issues and need to be seriously considered. A comparison of the Society Hill and Hawthorne communities from the 1990 consensus and existing data compiled by the Hawthorne representative clearly outlines the race and class distinction. The 1999 data compiled by the Hawthorne representatives also shows that the proposed acquisition of 231 properties as 82 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 deteriorated and dilapidated and of danger to the neighborhood is in gross error. Several of these homes, lots, etc. are privately owned and maintained and are in various phases of rehabilitation and development. Some of that personal rehab and development has come to a halt when the word of the proposed acquisition spread through the community. The community is well aware that the City's Avenue promotion of the Avenue of the Arts and the revitalization of MLK Plaza has substantially raised the value of their homes. Contrary to what the developer and the Hawthorne Council representative have stated, they would not be totally reimbursed or made whole by the eminent domain acquisitions but will be diminished by these acquisitions as the land values increase. The Hawthorne community does not wish to impede the progress of the City's rehabilitation efforts. However, the community will not allow itself to be impeded by this development. Community members have invested in their properties, and they, like the developers, want a piece of the American dream. 83 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 There is also a major legal issue in regard to the right of eminent domain, as it pertains to Hawthorne. Eminent domain cannot be legally applied in the face of the data that shows a viable community. The data also shows that the majority of stipulates affected by eminent domain are among the protected class and will be negatively impacted. Hawthorne will pursue that legal course if relief from the proposed acquisitions is not forthcoming. Subsequent pages are following this.
We actually did our surveys, we did our homework, we went block by block to see how many land parcels there were, how many single families, were the incomes, because initially, all of that information that was originally given to City Council, or whomever compiled that information, was incorrect. So that is in this proposal also. Next, it gives us a position. What is our position in reference to all of this? Where do we stand? What exactly do we want? The following pages will tell us what's our comprehensive plan, what can we do, what do we want to help make this happen? 'Cause we do want 84 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 it to happen. We do want the growth and development to come forth, as everyone has said before me, because we've persevered through all the nonsense. Last but not least, in the final analysis, the comprehensive plan, as proposed by the Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition, is beneficial both to the City and to the Hawthorne community. Because of its modest renewal proposal, millions of dollars of federal funds are freed up, allowing the City to utilize the money in other ways. Secondly, a viable, safe neighborhood joined with the proposed MLK Plaza and community center close to the Avenue of the Arts is a marketable tax base and a welcome improvement for the neighborhood. Finally, the process of true neighborhood planning breaks the historic pattern of displacement and disempowerment. As a cooperative effort, as outlined in this report, it offers to City government a new and better way of doing things that is beneficial to all. Citizen responsibility and government accountability, what a better way to enter the new 85 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 millennium.
Tyrone Tollifero? (Carolyn Hayes comes forward.)
Good morning. We're going out of order again. My name is Carolyn Hayes. I don't think I'm on the list.
Well, we have a list of people that called in yesterday.
I was added late because I'm one of the owners of a unoccupied property.
All right. Well, 86 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 I would like to consider the people that are on the list first, if you don't mind.
I would like to give you a brief history of one of the owners of an occupied property that you're attempting to take. I was born and raised in the 1241 building of MLK. I graduated from St. Teresa's, which was at Broad and Catharine Streets, which is no longer there. St. Peter Clavers Elementary School, which is no longer a school, at 12th and Lombard. Graduated from St. Maria Goretti High School, Drexel University, and am currently taking 87 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 classes at Temple University's Real Estate Institute. I am the president of my own mortgage broker company. Over the past four years or so, I have attended every class, seminar, and course available to get into the real-estate business. I have pounded the pavement, done my own extensive research over thousands of properties in City Hall, and attended many unsuccessful hours at over 40 sheriff's sales and had endless negotiations with private sellers and Realtors to procure properties. On April 21, 1999, I finally was successful in obtaining a property from the sheriff's sale. It was one of the happiest days of my life because I persevered through all those endless hours of stays, postponements, and sales back to the attorney of record. I obtained my first house, and better yet, in the neighborhood I love. God is good. At the end of May, I became aware of the plans of the knocking down of the towers and the 231 properties up for eminent domain, and the property I had just bought was on the list to be 88 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 taken. Well, I'm here today to fight -- not only for my one house, but to also support the many friends that helped me not to become one of the negative statistics of 13th Street. I am here to fight for the American dream. I deserve the same right, the same time frame, and the same opportunities to get finances that the developers have to rehab the properties -- whether I decide to live in it, whether I decide to lease it, whether I decide to sell it. Give the smaller investor who has been born, raised, and educated and is now financially able to give back to the betterment and beautification of our community the just opportunity that I have worked for. My property is 909 South 13th Street. I have had work assessments completed, contractors' estimates done, prepared grant proposals, and qualified for several home-equity loans. I could have began my renovations but had to put it all on hold because of this. My dream began in one of the towers that will be demolished on Sunday, October 17, 1999. Please do not implode or demolish my dream 89 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 today. Thank you.
Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you. And thank you for your testimony, Miss Hayes. You're about three or four properties in from the barbershop; is that correct?
What's the condition of that property? I know it from the 90 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 outside, but what's the condition of the interior of that property?
A fire? What do you estimate the cost of rehabbing that property to be?
I had several estimates done, and they range from 80,000 to 120,000.
And you believe that you will get a return on your investment --
Well, you're a lot more optimistic than I am. And I hope you're right 'cause I'd love to see that happen.
Okay, thank you, thank you. 91 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
Mr. Robert Totaro, would you mind taking the stand, please. (Robert Totaro comes forward.)
My name is Robert Totaro, and I'm with Penrose Properties. My name is Robert Totaro and I'm with Penrose Properties, a partner in the UniPenn Development entities.
Mr. Totaro, excuse me a minute. (Unidentified person addresses President Verna off-mike.)
I'm sorry, I can't hear a word you're saying. Yeah, we have other speakers.
I asked the President to have Mr. Totaro come back up because I want to go back to the three properties on the 1300 block of Catharine Street and what they mean to the proposed development of the Broad Street development part of the project, and what the -- 92 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 what this bill actually means when we speak to the issue of authorization to take, and how the developer could continue to work with folks whose properties may be on this list but who may be able to work things out, either -- I won't say take them off the list, but either work for relocation or other types of things that could fit into the overall development project. So if you would, you and I had a little sidebar earlier. If you could explain why it's important to the development for those three properties and the time involved in which we can maybe work through some of those problems.
Those three properties constitute a part of a larger parcel, which is intended for, as Reverend Coger indicated, a gateway development for the MLK Plaza and Hawthorne revitalization. The properties comprise the former hospital site on Broad Street and the former nursing home site on Broad Street joined with the residential properties behind those sites through to Park, which will be a newly-created street slightly relocated in the final development. So 93 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 that block now constitutes a major commercial development opportunity. When we were all involved, the advisory council, the developer, the Housing Authority, from the outset, we said that we would like to have that block as a gateway. There was already a developer proposing to develop a portion of that site. We intervened to dissuade that developer from going forward so that the entire tract could be assembled for a meaningful commercial development. Now, the developer did, in fact, present to the community several plans, schematic plans, for the redevelopment of that property. So it is not true that the developer has never put forward any idea of the reuse of that property, as there have been plans that have been presented -- in fact, fairly elaborate plans. The current plan is to redevelop that site for about 45,000 square feet of retail commercial space, neighborhood convenience retail space, and up to 75,000 square feet of office space, which will support between 500 and 650 jobs for the community. It is a particular type of 94 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 office use which is very job-intensive. They are not minimum-wage jobs; they are job providing a living wage. The overall redevelopment of this community is not just bricks and mortar. We committed to upgrade the lives of the people who lived there. We committed to stimulate economic development which would produce jobs for the residents of this community. This is a critical part of the overall revitalization of the area. To your question as to the significance of the proposed action this afternoon relative to the final implementation of the plan, as I understand it, action of Council will authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire property through eminent domain. As I understand it, it does not mandate the Authority to take the property; it provides them with the authority to do so. So I have said to you, Councilman DiCicco, that from the outset, and as I think we've demonstrated by the concessions that have been made to date, we are prepared to continue to work with all families who are affected by this 95 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 action, and we would seek to relocate and provide acquisition opportunities for those families who will be displaced if, in fact, this planned development proceeds. There is even the possibility that this plan development could be modified so as to avoid the necessity of taking those properties. That is possible. We are pledged to work with the community to protect their interests. And those who are in the community who have entrepreneurial aspirations, we are determined to work with them to promote their interests. And if it can't be achieved through the acquisition and development of one property, perhaps it could be achieved through the flowering of their business, which would generate further economic development opportunity or for that individual or that business. Part of our commitment is to grow indigenous business in this community, to work with residents and business owners business owners to help them grow businesses, to help them participate in the overall and ultimate benefits of this revitalization. That's a critical piece of this 96 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 overall revitalization. We have focused in this hearing on the taking of property, and that's, of course, the subject at hand. But the revitalization is much broader than that. And it is not to displace folks who live here.
Residents of MLK Plaza who have been temporarily relocated have the right to return to the redeveloped site, provided that they are in good standing with the Housing Authority. The residents who will be displaced who live in the surrounding community, we are prepared to work with them to help them, if they choose to and qualify, to relocate to this communities. This is not gentrification. All of the rental units, which represent about half the development, will be limited to families with incomes not more than 60 percent of the median income for the area, with the possible exception of a handful going up to 80 percent of the median. These are not rich folks, these are people who already live in the community. The sales housing, 85 percent of them will be available for people with incomes up to 97 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 100 percent of the median income for the area. And percent of those sales units will be 4 available for people up to 115 percent of the 5 median. The median currently is $55,600 for a 6 family of 4. 7 So we are not redeveloping this 8 community for outsiders who are of great income. 9 This is a revitalization of the existing 10 community, protecting the interests of the 11 existing residents, and enhancing their 12 conditions. 13
Thank you. 14 As plans evolve, there are always 15 adjustments made, and there's a possibility that the adjustment or modification may not require some of the takings that would be authorized under the act.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments of Mr. Totaro? (No questions or comments.)
Thank you. 98 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 Reverend, I know you've had your hand up. Do you want to be recognized?
Would you approach the table. (Reverend Coger returns to witness table.)
Yes. The only plans we've been shown of the community, especially as those relating to the 1300 block of Catharine Street, are the plans that are in the front here. And in the same area where those three houses are located, it shows that they will put five houses there. There's nothing to prohibit them from putting two houses on a vacant lot that are right beside those three houses and leaving houses and homeowners with all the sentimental value and all the work that they put in there and their lives intact. To keep them on the list and to say, Well, maybe we'll modify them later does an injustice to them. It adds to their stress, which affects their mental health, their physical health, and it just puts their whole life in 99 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 turmoil and in jeopardy. You can easily do an in-fill of two houses on the end of those three houses, which is what the plans say that you're going to do there without, disrupting the lives of those people who live there. You've done it on 16th Street, you've done it on Christian Street. (Applause.)
And all we're asking for is to be fair. The McLaughlins, you know, they put one of the most beautiful on that block in our community. They don't have to lose it, all of the hard work they've put in put in. Put two houses beside it, leave them alone. That's what we ask. (Applause.)
The addresses of those properties, are they 1331, 35 --
Thank you. Our next witness is Yvette McLaughlin. (Yvette McLaughlin comes forward.)
Good afternoon. My name is Yvette McLaughlin. Good afternoon, City Councilmembers and Madam Chairperson. My name is Yvette McLaughlin and I am here as one of many representatives of the Hawthorne community, but mainly as a voice for the residents of the 1300 block of Catharine Street. My recommendation pertains to the removing of three existing homes located on the northeast side of the 1300 block of Catharine Street -- which are 1331, 1333, and 1335 -- from the demolition list. These three homes are cited for absorption and demolition; yet the plans clearly show three homes existing at that same location. These properties exist solely on their own and do not, and will not, interrupt construction or revitalization if you simply build around them. This has been done with Universal Homes at 1444 Christian Street on the southeast corner. New homes were built around that 101 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 property. These three homes are in good to excellent condition, and I believe they may and can be in conformity according to the City's standards or codes. I myself cannot understand why the City wants to remove families from their homes and expect them to return or to be made whole, relocating after 35 years of sweat, blood and tears with the upkeep of their existing homes. When I say sweat, blood and tears, I mean I've watched my father's ankles swell. . . I've watched my father's ankles swell to the size of elephant legs on Christmas Eve in 1985 while putting up a tile ceiling single-handedly. I rushed my brother to the hospital after severing his index finger with a table saw. And I myself cried many times trying to use a hammer correctly after banging my thumbs. These are just a few of the memories my family share at 1331 Catharine Street. Each day, when I walk into my parents' home or into the Hawthorne community, it's a family atmosphere we all share. This is what makes us whole and a community. 102 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 I have an aunt who lived at 1205 Catharine Street, which is now a parking lot for MLK. She was promised the same thing -- you will be able to return after we build new homes. The price was too high so she never returned to South Philly. This is history repeating itself. The City now want to do the same things to my parents. This isn't progress; this is regress, where my family is concerned. Please give the families of the Hawthorne community a chance to grow with the changes you propose. Considerable progress is the removal of all occupied homes from the list. How can you upgrade lives that are at their highest level presently? Thank you.
Robert Latimore? (Robert Latimore comes forward.)
Good afternoon, Mr. Latimore. Please identify yourself 103 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. My name is Robert Latimore. My wife, Barbara Latimore. My daughter was supposed -- I think she went outside for something, but she's supposed to be here also. Good afternoon to the Council and the Council President.
Council President, I am Robert Latimore. I have been in the community for 57 years. I've raised there, I married there, have family there, business there, and I intend to die there. I managed, all of these years, to occupy a few properties. Due to a illness, it was a delay in fixing them. I have every intentions of fixing all of my properties, and here's a few proposals that I have to prove that. I have all of my properties intended to be rehabbed from top to bottom.
Mr. Latimore, for the record, can you tell us what properties 104 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 you own, please.
Well, South 13th. It's the corner of Christian Street. Okay? I have 800 South 13th Street, I have 804 South 13th Street, which is a lot, which I have intentions on expanding 800. I have 1312 --
I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you. Do you have 802 also?
But how can you expand 800 to 804 if you don't own 802?