1118 and 1121, you 138 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 said? They are not on the list.
Okay. They were on the list. Now, you had mentioned 1001 South 12th Street.
Not at this moment, but we will shortly, but what I want to find out is to get some sort of an assurance that when we get 1001, 1003 and 1005, that when we develop it, that somebody doesn't --
That assurance I can't give you because those are part of the -- Yes, Bob, do you want to come around.
But we can't sit back and assume that negotiations will work out to anyone's advantage to purchase these properties. Deals may fall through.
We can't speculate on what may or may not be negotiated.
And the bar -- I don't know if you're familiar with the history of the bar, but it was actually closed down several times.
It's been a problem property and it's ongoing problem property today, according to the residents who live nearby.
Correct. We see it as if take the bar, that it will improve the value of the properties that we're working on. We're not philanthropists in this matter.
Well, I think that the plan, as it's presented by Universal Homes will also enhance the value of your properties that you presently own.
Councilman, I'm becoming a 140 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 little bit concerned because I've heard several comments about properties not being on the list, and I believe that some of them actually are. I would defer to the RDA to confirm the official list that is before you for consideration. But -- and I don't have that list in my possession. But it is my understanding that several of the properties that you've indicated to some of those who have testified as not being on the list are indeed on the list, and they may include properties to which this gentleman referred.
I'm going by a list that was provided to us this morning.
And I need -- you're right, we needed an updated list 'cause I don't want anyone to leave here thinking --
Okay, the other thing that I would simply ask you to consider is that we are delighted that there are now developers who see an opportunity and are now coming into this community to capitalize on that opportunity. 141 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 Please take -- please take account of the fact that we have worked for several years with the community, with the RDA, with the Planning Commission, with the Redevelopment Authority, with the Housing Authority, and with HUD in devising a plan, the implementation of which requires the acquisition of the properties that are on your list. We have worked with all of those stakeholders in developing the plan, and we have worked with them in securing the funds that enable this plan to go forward. Please don't --
Could I hear the end of your sentence? I don't know what you were going to say.
Please don't take special account of others' interests which would conflict with ours who have not made the investment in the planning and in the financing that we have to date. I mean, this is a big city, this is a big community, and there are plenty of opportunities for people to piggyback on the initiative of those who tackled the hard problems. 142 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
Well, I'm troubled by a number of aspects of this, and I don't know where my thinking leads to yet. But it is a natural thing, where a community has been in disarray for many years, has not received support from governmental agencies, and I think it's wrong for government to point the finger at the people in the community and say, You didn't do anything. (Applause.)
We know people in the community generally don't have the economic capacity to do it. It also seems to me natural that when some people, whoever they are, come into a community and begin to show interest in the community, it gives new hope to the community. And I'm not sure that the best way to go, when that interest begins to develop, is to get rid of all of the people that were in the community. So I have questions about that. (Applause.)
I recognize your 143 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 interests. Apparently, there's been a lot of time spent, I know, by Councilman DiCicco, I know by developers. But apparently what you have done has been to arouse a lot of interests of this community for the first time. It seems to be a community that is at the point of getting the assistance it's wanted for many years and hasn't been able to get. And, therefore, I worry about just pushing through. You know, I understand your interests, sir. You're a businessman. And you say, I've done the initial work. But that happens all the time. When the Convention Center was built, speculators, by large numbers, suddenly showed interest in parts of Philadelphia, you know, that they never showed interest in before. We didn't go with the first group that worked. You know, we worked with everybody. You know, I think in Philadelphia, we call ourselves "a neighborhood of homeowners." There are homeowners here that have lived in their community many years. I'm just concerned about a process which may result in eliminating the original homeowners or long-standing homeowners 144 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 from continuing to live there. And I'm waiting for some assurance that everybody in that neighborhood who was in that neighborhood will have an opportunity to go right back into that neighborhood. (Applause.)
Now, you know, if there is to be development. But these are my concerns, I've put them on the table. I don't think you summarily dismiss long-standing, you know, occupants of homes from their homes. Now, I don't have the same sympathy, I have to say, for somebody that owns five or six or seven properties 'cause that becomes not just a home, it becomes a business interest. Now, that may be different, you know. But I just have a lot of concern about a development program that threatens to move people out of their neighborhoods when, over the long years, they contributed so much stability to the neighborhood. I've been down there. I see the difficulties that the neighborhood had, but I also see the strength of that neighborhood. You know, there's some homes there you look at and you say, 145 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 My God, these people must have worked awful hard, you know, to maintain them. I don't know whether they're on or off the list, but I would like to feel that if change takes place, and maybe in this direction, that the interests of all the homeowners, you know, are fully guaranteed, and those that ultimately had to be moved, that there were assurances given of concrete help to see that they can go right back into the community. But before we agree on that, I want to know why -- I can understand your reason why you don't want newcomers to come in, but from the interest of the whole City of Philadelphia, from the interest of the folks that live in the community, why shouldn't other people be able to come in now?
Because they may have good ideas. It may hurt your profit picture, but it may help your community.
I introduced my comments 146 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 by welcoming others into the community. My only point is, do not accede to this request to deny us specific parcels that are important to our plan that has been in the development for several years. There are plenty of properties for this and any other developer to undertake, and we welcome that. Nothing would be better for this community than for it to stabilize and grow. We are making a major investment. I heard Councilman DiCicco say earlier, it's true, this is not the sole solution to this neighborhood; it's a part of it. I am not dissuading others from coming in; I am encouraging them to come in. I'm simply saying, let us proceed with the development that all City agencies have participated in formulating and let them carry on in other areas, in the immediate area. If you look at the plan for taking, there are hundreds and hundreds of units within the target area. We're only taking something less than 200. There are all kind of other properties available.
Well, I don't know. It seems as if that argument, which, on the 147 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 surface, sounds persuasive, does not seem persuasive to the people who know all the facts.
Okay. Have you done any other development in this neighborhood?
They're the people you represent. I noticed on one of your cards that you have a 610 area code?
And I moved back in, yeah. I lived in exile for a couple years.
I'm not -- again, 148 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 the company that you represent is a suburban company?
And this is their first attempt to develop housing in the City of Philadelphia?
They did some development years ago in the far northeast, but downtown --
The first time, and I specifically encouraged them to come down here.
I one last question, Councilman. Can I get, or can you direct me as to where I can get an updated list?
As soon as I get the updated list, I will be glad to make sure everybody sees the list.
You might be 149 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 right, we're going to double-check.
The gentleman that was ready to testify, if he would please approach the table. And is Mr. Eisenstat in the room? (No response.) (Alfred Hicks comes forward.)
Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Lady Chairman. My name is Alfred Hicks, and I own the property at 1345 Christian Street, and I'm here to let the Council panel know that I'm doing work on that property as of now. I've already invested $18,000 in getting that property together. And right now, I'm waiting for funding to come through to finish the project.
Okay, thank you, 151 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 thank you.
All right. So I have plans on this property here. I have architectural drawings, I have permits that I pulled from the City. I'm doing the thing legally, and I'm already invested as far as debt. And I'm trying to get my home off this proposed list, 1345 Christian Street. And it's being rehabbed as a single-family dwelling.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify?
My name's Yvonne Hicks, I'm his wife. And if I could just add something to that?
When we purchased this property, it was because when we came into the neighborhood, the property beside us was filled with mounds of trash, maybe 10 feet high -- it may have been higher than that. And people were constantly breaking into the property with the threat of our property being broken into and fire 152 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 being into it. We found the owners of the property who had a lot of liens and encumbrances on her. We took on some of those and we also made a deal with law enforcement and paid $10,000 just to secure the property at the particular time, which we couldn't really afford. But we secured that property for $10,000 within a span of no more than -- was it six weeks, honey?
Around two months because they made us pay large installments just to get it so we could secure it to have some type of life beside this particular property. Since we've had it, this property, we have secured it, put roofs on, it cleaned it out, and made it so that it wouldn't impede on our lifestyle. And in doing this, we also have two kids in college, presently right now in the first and second year of Howard University, that we are also supporting in the same -- you know, with finances. And at the same time, we're trying to get this property together, which we've already secured loans for and are trying to secure more 153 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 loans for that and to put two children through college. We are asking you that you please take this 1345 Christian Street off the list. We do have plans for it, and it does include a family -- a single-family dwelling. And my son is going to be a doctor and I'm going to be a nurse practitioner, which later on, we were going to request to the City for the first floor to become our office in this property adjacent to us now.
Yes, I have. I have a building permit and I also have a plumbing permit that was secured. I can give you copies if you like.
All right. It's matter of public reported. 154 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
Okay, thank you. We just wanted to double-check on that.
What do you anticipate the time and the financing obviously?
Well, the financing should be secured by earlier November. That's what they tell me.
All right, and I could go ahead and finish the property, and I'm looking to be finished in January.
So we'll comply with your means and needs for the community as a whole.
Thank you very much and good luck to you both. (Applause.)
I believe you testified before. I'd rather hear from someone who didn't testify before, and then we'll come back to you. (Lisa Gregory comes forward.) 155 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
Oh. My name is Lisa Gregory, and I'm a resident at 902 South 12th Street. I'm here because there's a vacant lot next to my home. I think that address is 900 South 12th Street. And I'm inquiring about that lot because I had wanted to inquire about the lot to see, could I purchase it? The building that was there was a bar but it has been demolished, knocked down, and I'm inquiring because I want to be able to beautify the community or be able to do something with that lot there. But I inquire about going down to 1234 to see about it, and they told me it was in a collection agency, in collection or whatever, and that I had to put my name down to be put up for 156 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 sheriff's sale or whatever. But also, my concern is that when they knocked down the building that was next to my house, I had damage inside my house, and I had called Licenses & Inspections to come in and to see and then to have written a letter, and they had taken pictures and everything, and I still haven't had any work done as far as the problem being resolved, them coming in and taking care of the matter that was done to my home by them tearing down this building. So I'm basically here to find out, you know, to inquire about the lot to be able to beautify put into the community, and also to see what I can get done as far as Licenses & Inspections never coming back to care of the problem that they did, you know, due to knocking down the building that was next to, you know, my house.
So you're the first house in off of the lot at 12th and 157 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 Christian?
Okay. I believe that someone may already either acquired it or are in the process of acquiring that lot, but you might want to do is, you can go to my office, Room 8 332, and speak to Nick Schmanek, S-C-H-M-A-N-E-K.
S-C-H-M-A-N-E-K. He's one of my staff personnel. And you should speak to him about that. I know we've had it cleaned a few times, the graffiti was removed and cleaned.
We've been trying to keep it up, but we would love for somebody to make use of that. I mean, that's what the developer is saying, that begin to correct some of the problems here, that's why the developer has it on their list 'cause they want to do something with it, to remove it as a blight and a place which there was really a lot of dumping going on. 158 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 And you may also want to talk to the developer about it, also.
Because even though we've authorized to take these, they can still negotiate with folks like yourself. If you have some positive needs for that, you should talk to the developer.
Okay. And I also was told that by me being the house that's closer to it, I would have first preference. Is that so? Or I would still have to speak with that person to find out if that's true or not? Yes?
Yes. But, again, you should talk to my office about whether someone has already made the attempt to acquire that piece of land and about the L&I problems that you may or may not have, and also to the developer.
So what do I do about the damage to my home? Can I get some kind of funding? You know, I've been inquiring about thing, and I think I've been done injustice about my home, you know, as far as the damage done to my home. 159 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
My office could advise you as to what your rights are, okay?
Could I hear the question that you had again? What is the last question you were raising with Councilman DiCicco?
As far as the funding for the damage that was done on my home.
They demolished the house next to hers and she claims there was damage done to her house.
It's been over four years, and I've been writing letters. They came in, even the people from Licenses & Inspections came in, and nothing was done, you know, as far as me being funded for the work that was -- you know, the damage that was done.
Well, Councilman DiCicco, respectfully I say, I think that ought to be one of the issues you try to help resolve.
I've already she suggested she call my office to try and get help.
Now, I just want everybody -- and Councilman DiCicco and the President maybe won't like this statement, either. But, you know, everybody has more than one Councilmember. The District Councilmember has the main responsibility. He has been working very, very hard on what he believes is needed for the area. Whether you agree with him or you don't, I think you all know he's been working hard. Sometimes maybe you felt he was on your side, maybe sometimes you felt he was against. 161 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 But if there are other problems, you know, there are Councilmembers-at-large, there are seven of us who are not elected by a district but who are elected by everybody. If there are specific problems, we try to work very closely with the District Councilmember who has the basic responsibility in this case. He's elected by the people in that district. That's the reason he plays a bigger role than, say, a Councilman- at-large in any of the local area problems, like the one we're talking about here. But you can also call a Councilman-at- large and raise the question. If she's not thinking, we will also meet with the Councilman. If it seems to us that you have a genuine problem. I know he's been working very difficult. You can see from time to time we talk, we don't always have smiles when we talk to each other because we have some disagreements. But he's got to live with whatever happens later, you know, right in that area, and the voters in that area hold him directly to account. While the at-large- Councilmembers, you know, are elected by the whole Council. So if you have problems, we're trying to 162 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 deal with them. It seems to me -- I've not been in the discussion -- that there's been a lot of progress made. Has that been true? You say no? Well, use the fact that there are also Councilmembers- at-large to also talk to us 'cause we can also try to assist. We would love to see this thing come about finally, with everybody feeling that they were treated fairly. Maybe not everybody can be fully satisfied because, you know, sometimes some physical structure can be in the way of progress, and you have to answer on behalf of all the people in Philadelphia. You know, can you put the interests of one person above the interests of many other people? Sometimes that occurs. We try to avoid that, and we try to make everybody as whole as possible. So we're all going to be available. I know President Verna has worked very hard to see that there's enough time for all of these problems to be considered. So nobody -- I don't think anybody's pushing it, but how long has the developer been in, this particular developer? How long has he been working? A number of years? 163 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
Two years. You can understand that he wants to move ahead, but we're going to try to see to it that the interests of everybody in the community are fully respected. That's what we're working toward. And the kind of problem you raised and others, we ought to be able to help on that.
My name is Yvette McLaughlin. I want to know, where do the three properties on the 1300 block of Catharine Street stand? I've noticed that you've told several other people that their homes were off the list. Where do they stand -- 1331, 33, and 35?
We're still negotiating on that, and before the end of this hearing, you will know.
When everyone is 164 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 done testifying.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? Yes, no? (No response.)
Okay, we'll have to wait for the Chairperson to come back, so we'll take a short recess about five minutes. Thank you. (Louise Hannibal addressed Councilman DiCicco off-mike.)
If you want to testify, Louise, would you please come around? Thank you.
Councilman DiCicco, as a resident of the Hawthorne community, we are very upset about this. We will not allow you all to take the name of "King" down and bring a name of "University City" into on our community. And we will appreciate it if the name Martin Luther King stand. It's an insult to take a leader's name down and bring up some University City name. We resent that, and we hope the name will be the same. 165 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 I'd also like to bring up the house at 1331, I think, Christian Street. The lady that lived there died.
It's 1321. The lady that lived there died. The house belonged to the niece, who is a committeewoman in your district, Frank, Vernelle Warrick, you know her.
It's not a threat. I'm just telling you, she now owns the house, has intentions -- the front has been done but it needs more work on the front. She has intentions of going in there and fixing up the house, so I would like you to just pay close attention to 1321.
We will do that. And, again, I apologize for some of the statements I was making earlier. I was going off the list that was handed to me this morning. So before I say again that that is not on this list, I won't say that until I see a completed list -- a more accurate list, I should say, all right? 'Cause 166 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 it's not on this list but it may be on another one. So I won't --
Can you make clear to me what's your concern about the name Martin Luther King? It's a very revered name, and it ought to be appearing in Philadelphia much more than it does and, therefore, we don't want to get rid of the name; we want to expand, you know, and spread it out and not cut it down. But what's the concern about the change of name?
The concern is, when you tore down the four high-rises, that was named after Martin Luther King who stood on the corner of 13th and Fitzwater and gave a speech. In return Hawthorne Projects was renamed Martin Luther King Plaza. Now that that has been tore down and you are redoing the community, we do not want to see the name University City in the place of Martin Luther King's name.
Well, we have to keep that name in that area, you know, as a remembrance and maybe spread it out over more places stay. 167 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
I would be very concerned about seeing the name Martin Luther King disappear from that community. And I have to agree with you that no other name can match that.
Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? (No response.)
No? Would everybody like a five-minute recess? We will stand in recess for five minutes. (Short break taken.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)
Thank you again for your patience. We will now resume our public hearing. Mr. Eisenstat, would you take the witness table, please. 168 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 (Mr. Eisenstat comes forward.)
Good afternoon. My name is Noel Eisenstat, the Executive Director of the City's Redevelopment Authority.
Good afternoon, Mr. Eisenstat. During the hour that we've been in recess, several discussions have been going on. Would you explain for the Council committee here and the folks in the auditorium here today what exactly we will be doing when it comes to properties that are going to be taken off the list that we have been told are either being rehabbed or will be rehabbed? Could you talk about the process and how we will be able to accommodate those properties?
A procedure that's been used in Philadelphia and in other areas where there's a desire to improve the overall area where we have vacant houses, vacant lots, and we have individuals who have expressed interest to rehabilitate their properties, structures that they currently own today, the Authority is prepared to enter into what are known as 169 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 "rehabilitation agreements. " And that would be for --
It's a form of redeveloper's agreement. And that would simply mean that the Authority would have the power to acquire the property through eminent domain if necessary. However, it would enter into a contractual legal agreement with the party who owns the property who seeks to rehab it. And the purpose of that agreement is to assure the public that, in fact, that rehabilitation will occur. And it's a reasonable rehab agreement which we would suggest to the Council here today, and the Authority would be willing to implement it. And I will state this on the record and assure those individuals who have come forth, who've indicated they have rehabilitation plans, 170 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 they would enter into an agreement with the Redevelopment Authority. It would be a legally binding agreement. They must commence -- have an agreement with the Authority and commence rehabilitation within a year of the passage of this ordinance. And then they will an additional year at that point to complete rehabilitation. At that point, if none of this is -- if the first test was not met, the Authority would have the opportunity to acquire the property because the rehab did not commence. Similarly, we would think two years, as a general rule, would be sufficient to complete a unit that is ready for rehab, which is what's been represented to you today. I would also say on the record that we were in a situation where we had a building that was under rehab and two years passed and we were 80 percent, I would assume reasonable people running the Redevelopment Authority would also make sure make sure that we would make sure that property was completed, and we would not condemn or acquire for eminent domain.
How do we assure, 171 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 with a new administration coming, that the people at the Redevelopment Authority will be reasonable?
I believe the reason -- I believe the glass is half-full, not half-empty, Councilman Cohen. I think that people who rehabilitate their houses who are substantially done will have a sufficient legal claim as well and will know how to enforce that claim under the spirit of what I said today.
Well, I would just feel better if we could find a form of language to incorporate that.
I believe that in general, what I'm saying to you is that two years should be more than enough time for anyone that's come forward today to rehabilitate their housing units, and that's a reasonable time here and anywhere else, and we would propose that. I could leave it at that and go from there, but I mean, we're talking about basically months to rehabilitate a unit. And that's a 24 reasonable time. It basically allows two full years. 172 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
I would just like to hear some comments from the people who were talking about rehabilitation, whether that seems -- on the surface, it appears to me to be fair, but I'd like to hear what other people's feeling is about it. (Audience members respond off mike.)
Everybody has to come to the front and be recognized by the Chair of the committee. I think you can stay there in case there are questions, Mr. Eisenstat. Very good.
Good afternoon. My name is Olivia A. Adams. I think that it's reasonable to give time limits. I think the concerns that are raised are legitimate. However, what I would like to have is fairness here. And I think if they're going to give the developers a certain amount of time, that the people who are doing this need a certain amount of time to fix it. We want the same amount time they're giving the developers. If they're giving the developers -- when they drive their last nail, if the people are not 173 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 finished, then that's reasonable. Also, they have to think about securing funding and everything else. I think we do need time constraints on this. That's a legitimate point. But by the same token, why should we get a year or two years and the developers are getting five years? We want equity here, we want what's right, we want equality. What they get, we want, because they're even getting assisted by the government. We're not being assisted by anybody.
Excuse me. My name is Robert Latimore. And I want to ask if PHA entered into an agreement with us, will we be presented with the funding that other people are to develop our property?
Mr. Eisenstat, why don't you come back up to the table, please, and address this. And perhaps you can explain what, if any, assistance is available.
The Redevelopment Authority would be the entity entering into this 174 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 agreement. On behalf of the redevelopment area, it would not be an agreement with the Philadelphia Housing Authority. The funds that have been secured for the Hope 6 are funds that have been directly secured by the development team, being the partnership of UniPenn and the Housing Authority. And in this situation, the Redevelopment Authority is soley acting as the acquirer of land. There -- there is no -- there are no -- there were no specific plans to fund the rehabilitation of these units that are being discussed today. This is the first time they've been discussed in the way they are today. The City of Philadelphia's Office of Housing and Community Development does fund a series of programs. Those programs include the Home Ownership Rehabilitation Program, which allows individuals who own vacant houses to receive a subsidy of up to $25,000 if they meet income restrictions to make the difference available between the cost of the rehab and the after-construction value. It's a construction subsidy that allows you to basically mortgage at 175 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 an appraised level and a subsidy to help fund the gap between the appraised value and the construction costs. The Redevelopment Authority also administers a series of low-interest loans and other loans. Beyond that, I am not in a position today to make any representations that the City's housing director's made any commitment to fund anything here. But I believe that the City could avail itself to all of its housing programs to individuals who are interested.
Madam President, I'm not sure whether there could be a solution that's going to make everybody happy. But one thing I want to know is that we don't talk in circles or talk in words that sound good but mean nothing. Obviously, rehabilitation hasn't occurred for a number of reasons, one of which may very well have been the inability of the people living in the area to obtain the necessary financial assistance. I think there would be an obligation to -- your proposal sounded very 176 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 reasonable at the beginning, but I think it's got to be matched with some real effort to meet rehabilitation needs. I'm not saying we have to agree to everything somebody wants, but I think you have to sit down with people and arrive at a sensible agreement on funding. And then I think the City, since it's a city, whether it's through the Redevelopment Authority or anybody else as the moving force, I think the City has the responsibility to provide financial assistance somehow. Not to put these people on the burden of getting it all by themselves. They will have enough of a burden when we expect them to work hard to try to help get the assistance, but they need help from the City. And for this to be meaningful, you've got to add another piece. You've got a good first step, I think, but you've got to add another piece to the puzzle and tell us -- how soon can you tell us when the City ready to deal with that? I think you've got the making of something that makes a lot of sense.