Councilman, I 177 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 appreciate your enthusiasm for the first half of my statement, and I appreciate your desire to assist individuals in this situation.
It's not my desire; I think it's the City's responsibility.
Councilman, I'm not here to disagree with you at all. I'm simply here to say to you today, as the Redevelopment Authority, that the City administers a series of housing programs, and many of those programs apply to the rehabilitation of vacant units. Some of them are for people who wish to use as their primary unit, some are available if they wish to take a unit and make it available for rental status instead. I can assure you that we can -- in this situation, the City housing agencies can give priority in working with you all, and you know how to find the Redevelopment Authority, and people 178 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 here know who we are. We can attempt to direct -- we can work with individuals who are going to rehabilitate their units and help fit our programs that exist where possible under the current guidelines to these programs. Beyond that, let me still be very clear. The Authority is not here today offering any additional financial assistance or financial subsidy to assist these people who wish to rehabilitate their houses. We're not prepared to do that. As you know, the City has a Community Develop Block Grant Program that's administered by the Office of Housing, and you understand how that funding cycle works. I do believe that a series of our would appear, having spent time in the neighborhood, should be able to assist many of these individuals who wish to utilize them. They're still going to require that these units, in fact, meet a rehabilitation standard. There may be a disagreement that someone may argue that a house can be rehabilitated. In between our staff and L&I, we may have a substantive agreement that, in fact, it cannot be rehabilitated because it is so 179 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 far damaged or structurally imperfect. I can't make those determinations today. I can tell you that those are real issues. Similarly, some of our programs will require a certain amount of credit history. I can't tell you that everyone in the world meets every credit check. At the same time, the Authority has history of working with folks who've been some credit interruptions or difficulties to correct them, and over time, make them credit-eligible to utilize our programs.
Just very briefly, the City had an obligation that it assumed with respect to Wissinoming residents with respect to sinking homes? It's trying to meet that. The City has an obligation with Logan's sinking homes. The City's trying to meet it. I think the City has the same kind of obligation here 'cause frankly, I don't see any difference between sinking homes and losing homes. You lose them either way. (Applause.)
And I don't know why there should be hesitation. I know you're not 180 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 ready to say today all the specifics, but I would like to hear you say today that if there are existing programs, you're going to try to use all existing programs, but if not, the City has obligation to come up with another program. Why can't we have that statement, that you will work in the best possible way to see that that can be done?
Councilman, maybe I can answer that. As the District Councilperson who's been involved in this process, I can assure people going forward that will have every agency available to meet with folks in the community to discuss their needs. I can make that statement. Mr. Eisenstat is here from the Redevelopment Authority, and if he's still around, I'll be dealing with him. If he's not here, it will be the next director. And that is a commitment that I've made to this community from the beginning. Although at the end of the day, as I said several times today, there are some folks that still won't be happy with the results of this hearing. 181 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Eisenstat, just to try to finish off the earlier discussion. I recognize that you only represent the Redevelopment Authority, and that there are other agencies that are involved in this. But it is certainly possible, and I think probably appropriate, as there are people who will be responsible for the proposal that's in front of us today, I think at a minimum what we should at least ask in working with Councilman DiCicco is that someone either from your office or from Housing has the affirmative responsibility to contact each of the homeowners that we're talking about, and not in a not in a way that, Well, you know where we are, give us a call. But from the other side, which is a passive kind of response, but from a more assertive response, you already know who they are, I'm assuming. There have been a million lists floating around. And that a game plan be developed that allows the various agencies to contact the individual directly, we'd like to 182 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 sit and talk with you about your house and what it is that you're trying to do with your house. This is a list of the programs that we have, and in your words, let us see where we can make something fit for you.
I think what you've suggested is more than reasonable, and I'd be happy to articulate what I believe you've told me -- you've suggested, which is that the Redevelopment Authority, being the entity here at the table here today, take the affirmative responsibility in reaching directly out to each of the individuals who wishes to rehabilitate their house.
To affirmatively contact them by letter and by phone, to organize meetings and such to lay out for them the programs that are available and work with them to make these programs fit. And if those programs don't fit, see what other resources might very much be available.
Letter, phone, or you can go knock on the door. 183 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
However the contact is made is fine, but I think you have to be able show that the effort was put forth.
Could I just follow on the top of that to maybe complete this part? Would you be agreeable to accounting the President of the Council, the Chairman of this committee, with a response so that if there are outstanding problems, we can attempt to deal with them, hopefully, with your cooperation?
I've said this before and I said it about a half an hour ago to Reverend Coger. Today is not the end; today is the beginning. We're going to keep the task force in place, we're going to work with folks in the community going forward. So the agencies that need to be brought in will be brought in at the appropriate times, 184 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 just as brought the Redevelopment Authority in to talk to people about what relocation may mean to them and things like that. So we're just going to keep working at it. There's a task force involved, and we're going to work with the task force.
Well, just one comment on that. I think literally the language of Councilman DiCicco is probably accurate, but it's the same language that I think people have heard before. I think what they're anxious to have is very clear, direct language -- (Applause.)
-- and I think then we're going to come to something that everybody can accept.
Maybe they won't be happy. I think Councilman DiCicco is right. You 185 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 know, when you're going to have something happen to where you've lived a long time, if there's any change, you're going to be unhappy, and we recognize that. But we need a sense of fair play down every step of the road, and that's all I'm suggesting take place here. (Applause.)
Mr. Eisenstat, is it my understanding -- or it's my understanding that the housing component of this particular proposed development is estimated to take about two years; is that correct?
That is my understanding. However, for more specific detail, I would refer to our representatives in the chamber from the Housing Authority and from the partnership. It may be longer than -- I mean, I would assume that it would be probably two years from today. I don't -- I have not -- I have not looked at the schedule recently in a few months to be able to speak.
I understand that. My question was, it was my understanding that it 186 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 will take about two years to do the housing component of this. Based on that, it was also my understanding that that was basically the reason that you had proposed in your testimony earlier today, about minutes ago, that for the occupied 7 houses that are not a part of this development 8 where people want to have rehabilitation, that 9 that was the connection, or that was the basis for 10 the decision of giving those homeowners on rehab 11 approximately two years to do their work, because 12 it was about the same time frame as the housing 13 component of the development. 14
Actually, my suggestion 15 to yours was somewhat independent of that, just 16 basically realizing people might be approaching 17 the winter today. It may be that by the time this 18 bill gets out of committee and signed, that would 19 allow people basically to figure out their rehab 20 and start it up in the spring.
I really wasn't thinking of that. I just thought two years -- a year to start and a year to finish -- was reasonable and within two years should be enough. 187 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
But based on that timetable, however you thought about you it or however anybody else thought about it, don't those time frames just about match up between the project and its housing start and completion and non-project housing rehab and its starting completion? Don't those --
Don't those basically end up on line around and about the same time?
Okay. Thank you. I was just trying to understand that and then see if everything was going to be moving along around and about the same time with, again, the affirmative and assertive action by the City agencies to help the rehab homeowner as compared to the project people.
-- this larger project. I know that public housings are called development. Thank you.
Thank you. As a result of -- Mr. Eisenstat, as a result of Councilman Cohen's discussion with you relative to potential assistance or technical, and I think he even alluded to or said, financial assistance from the City, this entire project is being funded by the federal government, is that correct? Is this a HUD --
A large portion of the project is being funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The program is known as Hope 6. The funding award was awarded to the developers and the Housing Authority. The primary goal of that is to rehabilitate housing units and to revitalize the existing Martin Luther King development.
As a result of the 189 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 tenants being removed from the M.L. King development and the ultimate implosion of the properties?
Yes. There will be other sources as well, including City capital, to pay for certain streets and improvements, and tax credits from the State as well.
But this whole entire discussion and project came about as a result of HUD's desire to remove high-rise public housing and to lower the density and integrate those former public housing tenants into the existing community that they have lived in for 20, 30, 40 years?
And whether it's public-housing tenants or future public-housing units, that is correct.
Okay, so this is not a City-motivated project; this is a project that is a result of what the federal HUD policy has been on the removal of high-rise tenants.
And in this situation, the Housing Authority, with its developer, responded to the funding opportunity made 190 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 available by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which meets their federal goals, and the City attempts to achieve those goals by accessing those specific funds for that specific purpose.
Mr. Eisenstat, in addition to some of the other things we were discussing during the recess, I'm going to read from a list, and we can go over this. This is the list that, in addition to the original list of properties that were removed from the original list, this is in addition to that removal list. Property number 1118, Carpenter Street?
Right. 1123 Carpenter Street? 191 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
To not be acquired under the urban renewal bill that is now being considered.
To be rehabilitated. 192 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 Last page, I believe.
South 13th. It should come from the previous page. It should be 909 South 13th Street.
Hold on for just one moment, please. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: These addresses here are at South 13th but are also known as --
There were some other properties that were discussed earlier today, and I just wanted to make sure that we -- there is one correction. 1130 Carpenter will remain on the list?
Originally we said it was off the list but that was a mistake, it was the wrong sheet.
Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? (No questions or comments.)
There being none, this will conclude. . . (Yvonne Hicks returns to witness table.)
Would you stay where you are, Mr. Eisenstat. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name's Yvonne Hicks. And the property he had mentioned for rehab, 1345 Christian Street, is still on the list; is that what you're saying? 194 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
No, it's off the list. What we just read are the properties that are coming off the list.
You said for rehab; you didn't say it was deleted off the list.
They're deleted but they're deleted for a specific reason. Those are properties that people have testified that are either under rehab or will be under rehab, and they have the two-year period in which to be completed.
You can go ahead and rehab 1345. It's not a part of the development plan.
Okay, so what you're saying is that we are going to have to enter into an agreement with the Redevelopment Authority to redevelop our houses within two years? Is that what you're saying?
Okay. The Redevelopment 195 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 Authority wants to -- and is eminent domain going to be issued at that particular point to gain control of our properties in two years?
No. If you complete the rehabilitation of that property within the two-year period, it's your property. If you don't complete it or if you're not sufficiently completed -- I mean, if you have 80 percent of the work -- I think Mr. Eisenstat testified about that earlier -- and you're not 100 percent complete, obviously, they're not going to say you haven't completed it in the two years. What we're trying to eliminate here is for people to sit on these properties for another two years and not do anything with them.
So we're giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, that you are going to have either completed, or sufficiently completed, rehabilitation of those properties or that property within the two-year period.
I understand what you're saying, but what I want you to understand is that these are our homes, we should have the right to 196 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 say who -- if it's not completed, who we may want to sell it to or give it to within that particular time span that is given. Why does it have to be the Redevelopment Authority?
Excuse me for a moment. The Redevelopment Authority would have no 13 problem, in the midst of your rehabilitation, if you wish to convey the property during construction.
Let's assume someone owns a property and they've started construction and they wish to give the property to their son or their daughter, or sell in the midst of the rehabilitation or before they start it. That's fine. Redevelopers large and small start projects and, in the midst of their construction, their lives change and they decide to move in or out of the piece of property. 197 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 The only thing we're saying today is that at the end of two years, that building needs to be substantially rehabbed. There is a real tension here between wanting to address the needs of individuals who come forward to say, I'm prepared to rehab, rehabilitate these properties. There are representations made to other investors who will be investing in the development and other entities, including HUD, that in fact, these units don't remain in the condition they're in for the next 5, 10 or 15 or 20 years.
Okay, I understand what you're saying but it should also be specified that other people should have the same opportunity as you're having to come in and to do what they need to do to our homes within two years.
The Redevelopment Authority's capacity here is only in an event that rehabilitation has not happened within two years; then the Authority would have the right to acquire the property.
Why can't other individuals have the right the property such as -- why does it have to be you? 198 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
They do at any point in time -- they do, subject to the agreement that the rehabilitation will be completed.
Why couldn't it be subject to -- I mean, at the end of two years, if it's not completed, we should have, as private owners of our own property, the right to sell it to or to give it to whomever we deem, and not go back to you, because the relationship we have with you is already a hostile relationship. So we should -- and you may not fulfill your promises that you have promised to us over and over again. I mean, you're saying that you're going to do these things, provide us with people that can give us money. I'm not asking for your money; I'm asking for that, financially, if I feel as though I do not want to give it to you, I can sell it to or give it to whomever I want to. This is my property and within those two years that are coming up, there are a lot of people that may want it. I want it myself, I want to have a doctor's office for my son there, and I want to practice out of it. But if things that are unforeseen happening, God forbid I drop dead 199 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 or something happens, I want to make sure that my son and his generation is taken care of -- not your $7,000 that you're going to give me for this home when he could sell it for -- to somebody else, another prospector that may be come along that could give him adequate money that he may want to take his office and put it in a substantial area where he could prosper from that, not just somebody that wants to rob me of something that I worked for so hard, and for my generations after me not to have anything. (Applause.)
So I feel as though because it is mine, all right, what gives you the right to come in and tell me that --
Mr. Eisenstat, would you please address that. I think you did, but would you do that again, please.
The use of a rehabilitation agreement has been used historically in the City of Philadelphia when large-scale redevelopment has been proposed and individuals come forward as part of the redevelopment ordinance process and say, I'm 200 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 prepared, I'm acting in good faith to rehabilitate their units. And, consistent with that, that's what the Authority has done in the past and is prepared to do in the future. We believe that that agreement is a fair one and provides you to transfer your property at any point in time, subject to an understanding that whoever acquires the property will rehabilitate the property within two years. That, we believe, is a reasonable period of time.
Before I vote, I would like to hear the solution to what we're talking about. I cannot be here, I have to be away for about a half an hour.
Madam Chair, we have all changed our schedules today and canceled appointments and have done other things to do this 'cause it's important. If Councilman Cohen is so interested, he should stay. I mean, we're all 201 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 going to be here for as long as it takes.
I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Can I have your attention, please.
We've asked for that home to be deleted from the list. The Hicks live directly next door to that property, and they are maintaining the property. At first, it was abandoned, it was a problem to them. They took it over, they secured the property, and they are working on it. They have --
I understand that, and that's why we removed it for the rehab because their testimony was that he has the permits and he's in the process of rehabbing the property.
They're not going to cease rehabbing. Even if they don't have a rehabilitative agreement, they're still going to continue to do what they've been doing all this time without an agreement. 202 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
What is the concern? That they won't have it rehabbed in two years?
Well, my concern is, at the time when they're trying to secure the college education of two of their children who are in college, that it might take three years. You know, I don't think that the limitation that's being placed is fair.
Well, you know, Reverend, with all due respect, we have been working this process, keep giving and giving. There's been concessions made all over. This is a property that, through their testimony, that they were in the process of and they wanted because they're in the process of rehabbing it, and we understood that. Because they live next door, we believe that will happen. So we put it in a category of rehab.
The problem is that 203 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 the rehabilitative agreement --
May we have your attention, please? I know everybody's getting tired and they're getting restless. Can we conclude this in a timely fashion, please? Reverend, please proceed.
The problem is that, you know, I guess not being able to look at promises and writing and things of that nature, that it just leads to --
Reverend, I don't understand what the fear is with this particular case. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: The fear is --
My problem is this: that they're being placed under a restraint now to complete a project within two years, that they may need more time because of trying to educate their children who are in college and doing other things. They are in the process of rehabilitating. They have been in the process 204 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 even before they've come to this point. They're continuing in that process, but they have to do things as they have the opportunity and the financing to do it. To put a noose around their neck --
But, Reverend, I believe that these properties have been owned by them for about three years now, you've owned these properties? Three or four years already?
It's six years now, you've owned the property for six years. We're asking that you have another two years to finish rehabilitation. So cumulatively, it will be eight years that these properties will have been in your possession.
Excuse me. When we first obtained this property, the City made us pay $10,000. And during that time, we have also had two college kids in school. It's 19,000 per child per year.
I understand that, 205 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 I understand that. And I also understand that you're residents there and you want to fix up your neighborhood and the house next door to you. And that's why we removed it from the list for taking. Now, we have given a certain --
Not for rehab. It hasn't been deleted from the list. You want me to enter into a contract with him, which I prefer -- if I wanted to enter into a contract with anybody else within those two years, then I could do that.
They've been doing a lot renovations, and this particular house was going to detract from that, different story. But they're not planning to do anything else on Christian Street, and the neighbors there are in a better situation now because the Hicks have secured the house and are doing the development. It has been a relief to the community more than it's been the eyesore that it was before they took it over. The same with the house on 13th Street. The Redevelopment Authority, the developers are not doing anything on that block, but now there's someone from the community who's 206 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 going to make sure that the house is secured and it's not going to become a drug house, that people are not going to be going in and out. And, you know, they may need more than two years.
And we took that under consideration but I believe the testimony, as it relates to that property was, she's about several days or a month away from getting the financing to begin to do the rehabilitation.
Sir, could I ask you, would you have any other time in mind? You're saying we could do it. What we're anxious to do -- and I think fair play requires both sides to have some time limits. I know we'd all like unlimited time, but we're not going to get -- we've made a lot of progress today with everybody's help on the committee working. Tell us what you would like. What would you feel is reasonable, two and a half years? All we're trying to do is to make sure that if an agreement is reached to go ahead with the development, we're trying to help homeowners who've talked about rehabilitating housing, and we 207 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 want to put in language that will give you protection. If you're in the process, you know, of rehabilitating, we want you to have the time to complete it, provided you're really moving ahead. We can't -- I don't see how we can justify an unlimited time. I think the young woman to your left made a very sound point. She's right about that. She can sell the property during the two years, but right now, they're talking about two years. Is there some language that you would like to have that gives you the kind of protection? This is here, I want to make sure there is genuine protection, I don't want the Redevelopment Authority. They'll have me out on that physical property if they dare try to, you know, in bad faith take away your property. I don't think they intend to do that, but they do intend to develop a process that means indefinite delays cannot exist. They have the feeling that there's got to be movement forward. And I think if we're going to have a development there, it's got to be movement forward or the community in turmoil all the time. 208 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
Reverend, would you mind answering the Councilman's question, please.
I think that at the end of two years, if there's significant progress, that an extension ought to be given within the five-year period that the developers are going to have.
Well, what percentage would you say has to be done at the end of the second year?
Well, I think they ought to evaluate the work from year to year, just do an annual inspection to see if a significant amount of work has been done.
Enough that would say 209 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 that it's being completed within the five-year period.
Yes. It's going to take them five years to get all of the construction and all of that. You know, they have a hardship. They have children in college, they're working, you know, two jobs. You know, even though it seems like we're stuck at a point --
Let me ask you, Reverend, would you agree to a provision that indicated there had to be a substantial beginning of the rehabilitation within the first year?
Well, when you say "substantial,' are you you're talking about half.
Well, to show what a reasonable person would assume is a real genuine effort to begin a rehabilitation which looks like it's going to continue onward. That's all they're trying to bring 210 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 about here and. If they don't do it reasonably, I'm going to be the first one down there, and they'll have to chop me down, you know, if they try to chop your house down. We're not trying to play games here, we're trying to be honest and fair and give reasonable consideration.
But I think the Council has a right to feel that there's good faith on everybody's part.
Mr. Eisenstat, would you consider permitting the Reverend to draft language, you know, following this hearing, and probably the reporting out of the bill, to try to come to some agreement on language? Maybe Councilman DiCicco would agree to do that. You know, we want a reasonable approach. No, it can't be five years. 211 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
My problem with that suggestion -- and it's a good suggestion, but what may be reasonable for these folks may not be reasonable for someone else. There's somebody out here who has five or six properties. I suspect, given the fact that the person has owned those properties for about ten years now, he will probably say he needs another ten years to rehab. We have to draw the line somewhere in order to make this thing, as you say, move forward. And I think two years is a reasonable amount provided -- and again, if there's substantial rehabilitation, I won't stick to 80 percent. If there's substantial effort to rehab that property, I think we can work --
A substantial effort to rehab the property within the two-year period and an indication of it going forward.
Now, if you get an agreement that incorporates that kind of language, 212 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 I think it solves everybody's problems. It won't help if there's anybody who's just trying to stall -- maybe for good reasons, I'm not saying they have bad reasons. But if they're just not in any position, nothing has worked out and they can't move forward, something's got to happen and that person is going to, you know, have to lose their property.
Excuse me, Councilman, I think Mrs. Hicks has been trying to be recognized.
Yes, excuse me. Already we have a $18,000 home. You know, we've made a substantial -- we've tore it down to the foundation, we're waiting for L&I to make an appointment with them to come and to approve the foundation that the part of the house has already been torn down. Owing to weather, we put it off a little but, but we are -- I mean, and we have the prance plans and everything for the property to go to do. But like I said, there are two children in college, and you're talking about four years $1900 (sic), and then you're talking about medical 213 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 school. And then the other one wants to go to law school. So, therefore, there are hardships there. And then I'm going for my practitioner's degree. There are hardships there, and we have been working on it diligently. But to have a person who has owned a property to be put under the restraints of a hostile environment under people who are coming to try to take a property that you own and say, Okay, now here's what we want you to do, and this is the time frame we want you to do it in, and we're going to evaluate whether you have made significant process, it's something to me that doesn't seem fair. And to put everyone under the same category I don't think is fair. (Applause.)
What date would the agreement start? When would it commence?
By passage of the bill, ordinance by the Mayor. I don't have a problem with -- I mean, January 1, 2000. I mean, I think a specific time would be a good idea. 214 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
Mr. Eisenstat, would you be agreeable to the language that Councilman DiCicco said as being incorporated into the agreement?
Yes, I am happy to incorporate the language as previously described by Councilman DiCicco.
Because I think it makes sense. And I think you can tell this Council is working very hard and we have different ideas, different members, but we're really trying very hard as a five-member panel to satisfy the basic needs of everybody.
Well, I think somebody ought to prepare that language and both sign on -- you sign on behalf of the community and have Mr. Eisenstat sign on behalf of the Redevelopment Authority.
I think 215 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 substantial rehabilitation within the two-year period is in the bill. It's in the bill. There's no signing off, it's in the bill, okay? Thank you.
And the meaning of what's in the bill will be the language that appears in the notes of testimony for this hearing, you know, as it was defined by Councilman DiCicco, you, Reverend, and you, Mr. Eisenstat, so that we have an interpretation as to what this Council means. (Olivia Adams addresses the committee members off-mike.) (Robert Latimore addresses the committee off-mike.)
Mr. Eisenstat, Mr. Eisenstat? I'm sorry. I thought your previous testimony was that -- what are these agreements called, 216 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 "redeveloper agreements"?
They're known in short as rehab -- "rehabilitation agreements."
Right. The rehabilitation agreement is between the individual homeowner and the Redevelopment Authority; is that correct?