Okay. Now, what is your understanding, in your plainest language, of what the agreement was, as articulated by Councilman DiCicco?
That individuals will have two years, I believe, from a date January 1st of 2000, to substantially complete the rehabilitation of the units they have, as described earlier today. And substantial completion would mean -- is a term that could be defined. I would assume it means that the substance of the rehab, that the systems that were to be replaced, that they're substantially being replaced. That doesn't mean the development is finished; that would mean if an entity needed a new roof and 217 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 needed a new heating system --
But you're going to know the scope of the work because earlier in the hearing, at my discussion with you, you're going to have the City agencies work with the individual homeowner to say, All right, this is your house, it's two stories, it's got these things that 9 need to be done. 10
And you estimate 12 that they will cost X. We believe that that will 13 take Y-amount of time to do it. And then, you 14 know, whenever the person starts and starts their 15 pulls permits and all that, but certainly, by January 1, the clock starts ticking.
At some point in time, in 01, someone's going to come along, meet with that homeowner again and say, This is the document that was put together sometime in late '99, early 2000 about your house. You had 15 things that needed to be done. Twelve of them are now completed. It's June of '01. You think a reasonable person would say 218 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 that has got to be considered -- what is the term? Substantial completion of what was laid out some now months prior to it. Is that your 5 understanding? 6
Okay. Now, that 9 language and that understanding is going to be 10 incorporated in the document that is the 11 rehabilitation agreement signed between the 12 individual homeowner and, as the lady said, on a 13 case-by-case basis, between that homeowner and the 14 Redevelopment Authority; is that correct? 15
Okay. All of which 17 is subject to the work that either RDA or Housing 18 or PHDC or whoever gets the call to go out and deal with the individual homeowner about what the story is with their property and what needs to be done.
And I would just 219 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 like to suggest that a written agreement in the form that Councilman Nutter has just expressed -- basically the same as Councilman DiCicco's -- be put together with you and the Reverend so that the citizens, when presented with it, will have an understanding that this is the approved-upon agreement. Would that be agreeable as a technique of getting it done?
Excuse me. So am I under the assumption that my home is off the list? Or I'm supposed to go into a contract with the Redevelopment Authority?
I have to make a rehabilitation agreement with the Redevelopment Authority?
It's off the list from the immediate acquisition. And rather than it being taken completely off the list, it is subject to entering into an agreement with the Redevelopment Authority that would require the substantial completion --
It would require the substantial completion of the rehabilitation within two years.
Mr. Eisenstat, how long would it take the City, if it had to use the legal process, in your experience, how long does it take the City to acquire a home? I want to get everything out on the board, I don't want anybody to have -- suppose at the end of two years or two and a half or three years, at some point, the Redevelopment Authority were to conclude that there has not be sufficient, substantial compliance, all right? And the 221 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 Redevelopment Authority feels that it has to move forward. Tell us what happens then. You have to file a suit in court?
Provide notice that we felt that the property was not complete. Appropriately in this agreement, you would have a period of time to cure. That cure would probably be at least a minimum of 60 days, could be as long as 90. At that point, you could have the right to substantially have a proof that you had undertaken this. If you did not come forward with any proof that the property had been completed within the period, the Authority would then appraise the property and start the acquisition process that, at minimum, is another six to nine months.
No, no one is suggesting that you would ever be giving the property to anyone. If it came to pass that we entered into an agreement with someone who did not 222 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 rehabilitate their property, the Authority would still be responsible to compensate that individual for that property, and that individual would have the right to challenge that compensation in court. And, therefore, no one is taking anything for free, no one would be taking away. The Authority would still have to compensate the owner if no rehabilitation occurred.
That is the -- my understanding of this is that the rehabilitation agreement is the mechanism which gets your property removed from the acquisition list in the first place. And that unless the rehabilitation agreement is entered into, there is no legal basis to remove your property from the list of properties to be acquired. That is your agreement or your hurdle in getting the property off of that acquisition list.
Those that are being rehabbed, I understand, are also going to 223 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 enter into a --
All those properties will have to enter into agreements, also?
Those that are not under renovation. There are some that are under renovation now as far as I understand, Councilman DiCicco.
And they will not have to enter into a contract? Well, mines is under renovation.
Sorry, I -- Mr. Eisenstat, could you please comment on the properties that are on the new list, the new group now to be removed from the list. Will they all or not have to be subject to a rehabilitation agreement?
I have read into the record a series of properties attached, and I can show this list. There are two sets of properties. There are three properties that we've agreed will not be removed from the list because of the nature of their condition and their 224 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 location, and that has been done with the concurrence of the Councilman and the developer.
So the record's clear, those are the three properties on Catharine Street that are currently inhabited and also in good condition. They're off the list?
They're off the list, but the reason that they're off the list and not subject to a rehabilitation agreement is because they are fully occupied, have been occupied for generations, and are in good condition, correct?
That's correct. The other properties that we're speaking about today, which I have read into the record with Councilman DiCicco, are properties that are all vacant and have been vacant for some substantial period of time. 225 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 So where these properties are not the cause of -- these actions should not cause displacement of an individual because the unit is rehabilitation, then there's no reason for the Authority to acquire it, and there would be no 7 displacement.
All right. And that's to give the individual owners of an unoccupied property the opportunity, as expressed at this hearing, to rehabilitate that property their own use or for sale.
That's correct. And then can sell the property in the midst of their rehabilitation, to the agreement.
Now, let's back to the earlier question -- excuse me, ma'am. The earlier question was, I'm sorry. The other properties that were taken off of the list today, putting the three aside, the vacant properties that on the list got an R designation, the question is --
-- will the owners 226 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 of all of those properties, because they are vacant, be subject to a rehabilitation agreement?
So today, three properties were taken off because they are owner-occupied, not vacant, and in good condition.
Versus the other properties which are vacant, owners have come forward and said, I have an interest in rehabilitating this property in some way, shape, or form. They said yes. The condition for getting those properties off of the general list automatically subject to eminent domain is, you sign a rehabilitation agreement with the Redevelopment Authority, subject to the terms that we've discussed here earlier.
Sir, before you say something, could I ask a question of Mr. 227 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 Eisenstat, and then you go ahead. What is the advantage to the Redevelopment Authority to get this signed? Why isn't it sufficient to say, We're going to give those who have asserted at this hearing their interest in rehabilitating their property, we're going to give them two years from the effective date of the bill, and we're serving notice now that if there is not substantial completion, we will institute the legal process. Why isn't that enough?
So that the concerns that the young woman expresses about having signed something disappears.
It goes back to Councilman Nutter's comments earlier that we've committed agency staff to work with folks, which means that there should be -- there should be some real clarity that, you know, if a roof needs to be replaced and windows need to be replaced, a Redevelopment Authority staff person shouldn't come back two years later and say you didn't do the bathroom. 228 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
But you can serve them with a letter saying subsequent to the hearing and our statement that we're not going to start any action for at least two years from the date of the passage of this act, we want you to know we will regard substantial completion as requiring such and such, like the installation of a roof or whatever you refer to. Why isn't that enough? What does the RDA gain by getting the tenant to -- is it that if they sign this agreement, that they basically will lose their legal rights to contest the action in court?
Well, then why not do it without compelling somebody to sign something?
Councilman, the Authority has -- I did not bring my legal counsel with me today who has worked on these matters for years. I believe this is the conduct and form by which the Authority has applied its programs citywide for a series of years, and I would feel there would be no reason to deviate from it at 229 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 this time.
Excuse me. I know automatically right away that anybody with business sense is not going to sign a contract or agree to a contract that they know nothing about from a person who already is hostile. I know right away before I do sign this contract that a lawyer will be present. And who is going to pay those fees? Since I already have hardships. You are putting me under the gun, under somebody who already I have a hostile relationship with as far as their taking something that you own already.
But if they take it, they have to go through a legal process, you know.
Yes, and I would have to go through that same legal process because of the fact that I'm trying to keep something that I already have, and they're trying to put me under their gun, their time limits to do something that I have to do with my property. Not to say that -- all of this is not to say that I'm not going to do it. I am going to do it. But the thing is that they're giving me 230 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 stipulations of what I have to do with my property and I have to sign their contract, so therefore, I need legal representations because if I'm going to sign a contract, I've got to know what it all involves. So, therefore, in order to get those legal representations that I have, 'cause I'm not going on anybody's word because their word don't mean anything. People say things by their word when they don't want to sign formal contracts and then say, Well, I didn't say that and then deny it later. But a contract is binding and has signatures. So in order for me to enter into any contract, that means I'm already going to have to have legal counsel, which is going to cost me a fit. Now, other people are made not to have contracts, so I don't understand why I should 'cause this is incurring another fee on me also, being a business person taking business and going into being a professional person.
So I understand what you're saying, and I do respect that. And I'm not 231 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 signing a contract saying I'm going to rehab my home or anything like that. But why should I have to sign his contract when other people are not put to sign contracts such as that? And I don't know what it includes so this is why I am very leery of it anyway. So, therefore, I am going to have to get legal counsel, before we have anything, to go over the contract and to do whatever needs to be done.
But if your primary residence you live in was subject to one of these takings, it would have been removed from the list today and you would not have to sign any rehabilitation agreement, just like the three people on Catharine Street, who have been living there as their primary residence for generations and have no interest and no need to rehabilitate that property because they live there. This is only subject to properties that you own, or a property that you own, that is vacant, has been vacant for six years, and is now going to be subject, as a result of this bill, to a rehabilitation agreement where you agree, over the next two years, to substantially rehabilitate 232 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 that property. The reason that those other three people on Catharine Street are not subject to that agreement is 'cause they live there, it's their primary residence. So they're really apples and oranges that we're comparing when we're comparing an investment property of yours to their primary residence on Catharine Street.
But what I'm saying is that the other 120-something houses that you took off the list is not going to have to come into a contractual agreement, are they?
No, the original list was 321 homes and you came back with 100-and-something homes.
Based on the agreement with the community. 233 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
Reverend Coger just came to you about my particular home and he talked to you about that to take off that list, and now I hear that it's on a rehab list and I have to sign a contract -- I'm subject to a rehab list and I have to sign a contract with someone.
You asked us to remove it because you said that you were planning to rehab the property.
Excuse me, sir. We have to hear one person at a time.
Your word was that if a property was under rehabilitation, that you would delete it from the list. Their property is under rehabilitation and should be deleted from the list. That was your word.
The deletions were the three properties on Catharine Street, as Councilman Kenney spoke to, because they're occupied. These are vacant properties that have been vacant for a certain amount of time, and we have to make sure, going forward, that something 234 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 is going to be done with those properties.
And if you complete the rehabilitation within the two-year period, it's off the list.
While you're under duress and restraint, and that's not necessary.
Is that the one property that is currently under rehabilitation?
You're going to have to speak clearly into the microphone, please.
Yes. I have a question, here. Did -- the development authority is going to give some kind of a grant for these people who 235 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 have to rehabilitate the houses or not?
Is the City going to give any grants to help these people to rehabilitate the property or not?
So why on earth do you want to take my property and you are giving me a certain time and you won't even give us any money?
Madam Chair, I just have to make a comment. My understanding from the last time this gentleman testified is that he's owned this property that he's talking about for 15 years. Sir, part of the -- let me finish, let me finish. For 15 years you've owned dilapidated property, which is basically an eyesore and that community, and now you have the courage to come in here and sit with these people who have some legitimate claims about their properties and the length of time they're lived in that neighborhood and tell me that 15 years is not enough time for you to develop that property? I can't believe 236 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 that you actually would hide behind some of these community people after years of being a slum 4 landlord, and come here and ask us to help you out 5 after 15 years. I think it's disgraceful, 6 disgraceful, sir. 7
Now, Councilman, I'm not 8 asking for myself; I'm asking for everybody. 9
I have 15 years because 12 of what Councilman DiCicco did. 13
So you just decided 14 you're going to rehabilitate this house after 15 15 years. Well, congratulations. I hope you don't take as much time to make your mind up on everything.
All right, thank you, thank you very much. Mr. Latimore, I would like to recognize you.
Yes. I'd like to ask, is this a special situation? Isn't it a special situation here? 237 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 You have an eminent domain. You don't invoke eminent domain on a community every day. This is a special situation, and I think City Council here should develop some special situations for this community when they are just about to lose property that they saved and they tried to keep for as long as they, you know, possibly could. They held on this, they did anything and everything they possibly could. City Council, it's your responsibility to help us just like you're helping -- they're helping UniPenn and any other group around. In the northeast, when you helped them when their homes were falling down. You have the same situation here. These people need a little help from Council, and you have the -- you have the -- the -- you have just the power to invoke anything you want here, but you choose not to. You choose to put us through this heartache and this pain. For what?
Excuse me, may I address the Council one more time? 238 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254
Excuse me, Mr. Hicks. The noise level is much too high in here, and we're still hearing testimony. Thank you. Mr. Hicks, please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Councilman Cohen, his ideal is pretty good, as far as just giving us time to repair our properties within a two-year period, and I don't think that's unreasonable. But then for you to come back and take a look and say, Well, look, if you didn't do this, you didn't do that, then we can start proceedings. But for me and my wife to sign an agreement now, dictating for the Housing Authority or PHA to have power over us with a gun over our heads to make us do this is ridiculous. See, I have no problem waiting two years or have the two-year period there, as Councilman Cohen has suggested. But for me to 239 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 sign anything, that's something different.
I believe Councilman Cohen suggested that we reduce this to writing. If you don't it in writing, I'm okay with that because that was not our original suggestion. I believe Councilman Cohen made that offer.
Well, the record here is in writing. You told me this is in writing, this is already written down. I mean, we can't take it back now 'cause it's a matter of public record, all right? What I'm suggesting to you is, why you going to keep putting the nooses around our necks to improve a community that we want to improve anyway? I'm going to get this job done but I'm not going to get it done under duress. I refuse to put myself in that position. When we came in here initially, there were properties that was more or less the focal point of our attention here today. Automatically, you took one off the list because it was being rehabbed. You, sir, said yourself that you ride down 13th Street to come to work and you seen it 240 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 and that's why you took it off, with no problem. Why do we have to be subject to now, at this late hour? Stick to your word. I'm under construction now. I'm already investing finances to make this project happen. I'm down to the foundation that my wife emphasized here. What's the problem? Why do you keep this noose around my neck, this hammer over my head?
Are you suggesting that I put 827 South 13th Street back on the list and with the same rehabilitation agreement?
What I'm saying is that you should take mine off just like you took that one off the list.
But maybe I should put that one back on, you're right. I think that's something that I will consider.
I think we're going to have to conclude this public hearing. Miss Adams, please identify yourself for the record.
For the record, my name is Olivia A. Adams. And basically, I don't have a 241 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 problem because it's my intention to do my property. Can you hear me?
Okay. Is this good? 'Cause I'm tired, just like you're tired. We're weary and I'm a bit confused here. As a group, we came here. I don't need any special attention, any special -- they said 827 should be subject to an agreement. First of all, I'm not going to sign an agreement because they say two years so just sit back and let's see what happens. I know when mines is going to be finished, but everybody doesn't have that same thing. I understand what the people mean. I'm a bit frustrated because my argument was, let's give us a chance to fix it. And if give us a chance to fix it and if you're acting in good faith, then that should be okay. So, of course, we go back and forth for different circumstances. My point is this, Madam Chairlady, that 242 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 if the developers get extensions, let there be correlation between those things that are going on, but then the developers may have circumstances that we may not have. So I'm not asking for an unfair advantage or anything else. With my property 827 South 13th Street, like I told you, on the list or off the list, I'm going to fix it. If it's your attention to let somebody fix their property, then I don't want to be acting under duress. It's not about coming to this hearing and just worrying about whether my property is on the list. It never belonged on the list. I didn't feel it belonged on the list when they knew that they put it on the list, and I sold them seven properties and they knew that I had the money to fix it and that I planned to fix it. So that was never the issue. The issue here is a community functioning under duress. It's not about, Well, we don't want to fix it. If the people don't fix it, I told them this in the meetings. We are under the gun. Why? Because in some situations, the fault is ours and not in our stars, and we put other put other things before it. But just like 243 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 with my situation, I live at home with my mother, 818 South 13th Street. I put over $40,000 in that building. And you know what? I can't even afford to put the door on it because my grandmother passed and I had to move home and help my parents. The bottom line is, if you intend to fix it, give 'em a opportunity. If it's your thing that we want to come to some agreement, 10 properties, take 'em off the list, and if the 11 people don't do what they say, they have to retain 12 counsel. Let them have to go to court. 13 Us as a group, if we don't do what we 14 say we're going to do -- I think as a group we can 15 agree, we don't want to operate under duress. 16 Even the law don't hold you accountable for 17 actions that you take under duress. How can you 18 function if the thing is not over your head? If they have the intention to fix it, it will be fixed. I'm not signing an agreement because I'm not playing you for my Big Mac. I own this property, and if I fix it, then I'll keep it. But what's the purpose of an agreement with me? I'm not signing an agreement. And what's the purpose 244 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 with the community?
Excuse me. I think that was simply Councilman Cohen's suggestion --
-- that an agreement be signed. If you're not in accord with that, that's fine.
And, as she pointed out, this is a hostile situation. We don't want to sign any agreement. Thank you very much.
That's fine. Thank you, thank you very much. I believe this will conclude the public hearing. - - -
We will now go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman 245 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 - PUB. MEETING DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 990254 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the -- Mr. Eisenstat I want to get this. And that the rules of Council be suspended. Do we have to consider an amendment on this, or is this -- just let it go at that?
You can accept the Authority's representation of a deletion of the property without a formal amendment. And that my notes of testimony will reflect the intention of the Authority as it relates to not acquiring certain properties for a period of two years, with the good-faith understanding that individuals will make substantive attempts to complete the rehabilitation of their units.
With that, I would move for the rules of Council to be suspended. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 990254 be 246 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 - PUB. MEETING reported you out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will signify by saying aye.
Madam Chair, I'm asking for the floor to speak on the motion.
With the understanding arrived at today, I think there's been a great deal of progress made but not enough that I feel I can go to sleep and forget it and 247 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 - PUB. MEETING that everything's all right. Therefore, I'm saying I'm going to vote for this bill because I think you're much better off with the bill, with all the discussions and the safeguards suggested, even though they're not perfect. But I'm telling you, telling everybody that I will be available if there are any problems that seem as if the Redevelopment Authority or the developer are not acting fairly. I believe this committee wants to act fairly and want to have the right thing done. I feel very confident. But if in the process, there are any problems, I will be available to listen to those problems, discuss them with the members of the committee, with the Chairman of the committee, and if necessary, with the President of City Council. Because I think it's very important for this city that this development, when it proceeds, proceed in a way that makes people feel as good as it is possible, that it represents a good development for the City of Philadelphia. And I don't want anybody to feel that they have been crushed in any way. If there's need for legal action, I hope you're going to take it. And if 248 10/13/99 RULES - BILL 990254 - PUB. MEETING you're not able to, my office will be available to try to assist you if you need that. I feel very confident that these discussions are going to result in a smooth dealing with all the problems that develop, so I'm going to be voting for this when the President and Chair of this committee calls for the vote, but my office will be ready, and I know Councilman DiCicco's office will be ready at all times. And I think that's true of all the Councilmembers. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you, Councilman. All those in favor of the motion will say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, the motion is carried. This completes the public meeting of the Rules Committee. Thank you all very much. (Adjourned at 3:35 p.m.) - - - 249 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, October 13, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES BILL NO. 990254 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter