These reports are supposed to be on a monthly basis, Pat. The MBE, WBE is supposed to be on a monthly basis.
Well, yeah. I haven't been quite getting them myself on a monthly basis, but --
On the business side of 170 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 it, MBEC, you know, monitors it. On the employment side it's GPUAC.
So how do we know if these companies are in compliance, and who --
Well, I do have -- I mean, I can send out -- I mean, I actually -- Someone just handed me a summary of the current, up through March, that we just got. I just got something from Miss Simmons the other day. And I haven't even looked at it myself. But they are in compliance. And in the most places we're exceeding our 35 percent goal on subcontracting.
Do you have a company large enough to bid on the demolition contract without subcontracting?
There's one company that's been actively starting to bid but has not been a successful low bidder at this point on the larger bid packages.
So you plan to 171 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 break the packages up. Now, how much more is that going to cost? Will there be a cost to --
I think it will bring... Hopefully, by having more people bid on it, it will bring the number down. I think part of it is how many people are expected to bid on it. If you only get two or three --
We believe you can bring the number down because you control the process.
...we're 172 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 supposed to get that information on a monthly basis.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Krajewski.
Thank you. Pat, regarding the vacant lots, what is being done to speed up the acquisition of the vacant lots? Because it seems like I've been waiting for two years for ten lots. And they come under Act 94.
Right. I've had a couple of conversations about... One of the things I think we need to do is, we took in so many vacant lots and houses last fiscal year, that what the OHMP folks staff are doing is sitting down with each Councilperson and prioritizing, so that on the disposition side --
Well, one of the things is to make sure that those ten lots have been made a priority.
What's the status of the side yard programs? For the better -- You know, it would help to know exactly where we should handle requests for vacant lots and side yards.
Well, for side yards there's -- If it's already in City ownership, it goes through VPRC, and that's --
No. I -- Mr. Coates -- Mr. Coates and the RDA still handles what -- If it's in City ownership already. If it's not in City ownership, our biggest challenge right now, unless there's resources in each Council budget, is to condemn it or to Sheriff sale it. So if you want a side yard and you 174 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 have money in the District Council budget, that request is supposed to go to OHMP, to Miss Califano.
As part of -- Yes. And we -- It's called the Interagency Acquisition Review Team. They put -- We ask each District Council to submit properties that they want to acquire and the purpose.
Well, I believe our office has been working on that basis --
Where we just don't seem to be getting anywhere on this.
One more question. Well, in fact, I have two. How 175 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 long after a place or house or business is demolished when they put the lien on?
If it's part of the big targeted program, where we're doing like a hundred, we close out everything, the information gets translated -- translated -- transmitted to L & I, and they're in the process of putting liens on, I'd say it could probably --
It's been a long time before they put the liens on the property itself.
I will look into the time frame. But I guess you're talking about the group that was done in Frankford in the early --
I have to look. I know there have been lots of meetings around liening of properties, but I don't know the status.
It just seems like it takes a long time for them to 176 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 put the lien. Then it seems like the owner is getting away with, well, a free ride.
Well, we plan -- We have to put the lien on it because the bond proceeds require putting the lien on it.
One more question. As you know, my District doesn't have too much blighted areas for blighted land acquisition. What I do need is assistance in acquiring land along the riverfront from private owners for development. Riverfront development is the biggest issue in my District. How will the NTI use funds to acquire land that may not be blighted but is needed for development?
Well, I know there's been conversations about looking at resources for the North Delaware Riverfront, infrastructure dollars, and some of the economic stimulus dollars that are out of the new economic development fund. 177 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 We didn't -- Other than what's in your Council budget, had not budgeted for acquisition for the riverfront in this. But people are looking at other resources, I think.
I intend to put amendments to this bill because it just doesn't seem like there's much there for the District. So I will be putting amendments in, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I really don't have a question. I just have a statement that I think sometimes might make these proceedings go maybe just a little bit smoother as relates to NTI. 178 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 If we could get a status report. You know, the NTI came about as a result of Mayor Street's idea. And a lot of us were actually out there wishing that there was some money in the City to help begin to address some of the cancer and the blighted properties that was developing in a lot of the Council Districts. In my District I have about five or six areas that need demolition. People out in the neighborhoods in my District -- and I can only speak for my District -- are very happy and very pleased to see some of these blighted buildings finally coming down, and there's a glimmer of hope around neighborhood stabilization. My main concern is on preserving what we have that hasn't been demolished but figure out a way that we can get, you know, aggressive or at least consistent code enforcement that will help people maintain their properties so five years from now we won't be looking at the same condition just on a different part of the 179 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 block or different blocks. But I would hope that when Miss Smith and the NTI team comes back, either for budget hearings or whatnot, that if they came back and gave us a report on, where appropriate, the NTI framework goals, the NTI's guiding principles, the NTI bonded fund activities, and a specific EOP report, that it might cut down on the need for a lot of questions, and unanswered. And there has been a lack of communications. Sometimes we just feel like we don't know where we are. That's why I call and schedule meetings so we can figure this thing out. And as far as MBEC, I personally attended some of the receptions where they've been out recruiting minority contractors. My staff has gone to some of those recruitment... I guess I'll call it a workshop. I know the first one they attended was at Ben Franklin High School. 180 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 And there was a NTI -- There was a reception maybe about four weeks ago downstairs in the Mayor's Reception Room, that I found out about at the last minute and went down. And I saw lots of minority contractors there. So I do know that there has been an effort to recruit minorities. We have personally made an effort in our office to try to keep the minority contractors that we're aware of informed. And also we've been out recruiting people, because they just had an emerging contractors workshop in a part of our District to reach out again to minority contractors. Because if the goal is to reduce -- And I guess -- I missed the number -- but I guess if the goal is to demolish at least 20 to 25 percent of the structurally dangerous properties in Philadelphia... And we got to -- You know, we have to keep moving forward, because, quite frankly, when I drive through certain parts of my 181 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 District now that had -- that was -- that was just filled with blighted, dangerous, abandoned buildings for 10, and 5 years, it feels good to see those down. 6 We're ready to move forward with the 7 next step. And that's for acquisition and 8 renovation. We have been stabilizing those 9 neighborhoods. 10 I just hope that there's enough 11 money left that we can actually do 12 something in the end of all this. And I'm 13 just worried that we're going to run out of 14 money. 15 So that's basically my statement. 16 But I do think we have to do strong quality 17 of life enforcement codes so that we won't 18 turn around in five years and have a whole 19 bunch of neighborhoods again filled with a 20 whole bunch of abandoned, blighted buildings. Thank you. But if you come back with those kind of specific answers maybe we can...
Thank you, Madam President. Prior to the advent of our NTI CDCs were principally responsible for doing much of what NTI is doing now. Could you please speak to the nature of the relationship that NTI has with CDCs across the City now, what the impact of the work you're doing has been on CDCs that have been in the business for a long time?
I'm going to ask Deborah to talk a little bit about that. Excuse me. Her shop really handles most of the interaction with the CDCs. MS. McCOLLOCH: Good afternoon again. We're continuing to work with the Community Development Corporations that we've been working with. And in most cases the development 183 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 proposals that they've submitted are being reviewed, and we're working through whatever the issues are with them. I don't... I guess I'm not clear in what way the perception is that NTI is taking over what the CDCs have been doing because we've been continuing to work with the CDCs.
Okay. Define what that means. Break that down for me. Continue to work with them. What does that mean? MS. McCOLLOCH: We hold -- Well, Through OHCD, we hold contracts with them, in some cases for programs such as the Targeted Basic Systems Repair Program. We put out a request for proposals. Folks responded to that. Ten groups were selected. We're working with those groups now to get that -- those programs implemented in those neighborhoods. In other cases, the contracts are actually administered through the Redevelopment Authority, where the funding 184 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 is put under contract of the Redevelopment Authority, and then the Redevelopment Authority holds in this case loan documents with the CDCs to provide subsidies for the developments that they're carrying out. We've done some planning work with CDCs. We've worked with them through the acquisition request that Pat referred to earlier that are being reviewed. And then they come back to this Council for approval.
So, what has been the spirit of the meetings along the way around the issues you just cited, in other words, what response would we get from the CDCs to the same question? MS. McCOLLOCH: I think the CDCs would condition occur that we've been working with them.
It was acknowledged that the number of demolitions, the goals were not achieved, for reasons that we've learned about. How many people do Act 94 at RDA? How many 185 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 staff persons are principally charged with that function? MS. McCOLLOCH: I'm sorry. I don't know exactly.
Okay. So given that -- MS. McCOLLOCH: I can get that information for you. I don't want to give you the wrong number. I don't know how many staff people are working on it.
That would be helpful, in terms of coming to grips with what had been some of the impediments to achieving the goals. MS. McCOLLOCH: The acquisition goals you're talking about.
I mean, just to give an example, we're using the same amount of staff, for the most part, who -- I think prior to NTI and the 74 million and the 5,000 acquisitions we approved, we -- I think in any given year, we made -- the maximum number may have been 300. 186 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Prior to the NTI bond program all acquisition work was funded out of CDBG. It usually was done by RFP, if I remember correctly. And the level was significantly lower. We -- You know, it was almost a thousand percent increase. And from a staffing perspective, we're doing the same work. And I think one of the things that the RDA working this year with Cathy Califano and Mr. Hanna, is beginning to prioritize, do a little bit better job of saying what are the major development projects we need to move forward, what are the -- They've sat down with District Council people to identify their top priority projects, and then devote their energy to getting from the approval stage to the declaration of taking. And that would include some of the Act 94 condemnations. One of the other things that we found in practice is that, for example, 187 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 appraisal reports are taking -- You know, we a finite number of appraisers familiar with the Philadelphia real estate market. And, you know, we've got a backlog there. We have backlogs in title reports. So people have really been trying to really come up with a prioritized work plan with the District Council to say what are the top priorities. There's some things that, you know, will -- And then once put together -- we talked about putting together a major time line so that we can deliver on that. But part of it's been absorbing, you know, the 5,000 acquisitions that we approve because this is the first time that --
Are you talking about hearing that there were no staff in --
That's about the same 188 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 level, what whatever that number is, because I don't know if we added any. MS. McCOLLOCH: No. There were some -- There were some people that were within the Redevelopment Authority transferred from one division to another, to increase the number of folks working on the acquisition side. But one of the challenges, as Pat just mentioned, has been also the activities that are carried out not by RDA staff but through contracts, the appraisals, the title reports. This sort of bubble-up work has had an impact on that as well. But there aren't as many appraisers that are working on our work because there's so much more of it. And the same with the title reports. So it's taking -- So along the way there have been bottlenecks, some of which have been a result of the outside contracts, some of which have been a result of the internal staff having not -- 189 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04
So -- So are we hearing, then, that you've bypassed the learning curve. The learning curve is over, in terms of matching staff with handling the needs or meeting the goals; and you're ready to put some changes in place so that when we sit down next year at this time we'll have a better assurance that goals have been met. Is that what I'm hearing?
Yes. Particularly around prioritizing the workload at this point.
Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. How many community members are still here? If you would just raise your hand. (Indicating.)
Okay. 190 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 We'll complete our first go-around. And then I think it only fair that we hear from the community. They've been sitting here since 1 o'clock. As a matter of fact, Councilman Kelly, you would be next, and then Councilman Ramos. Would you mind if we heard from the community first? Gentlemen?
And then it would be Councilman Ramos on our first go-around.
-- if we heard the community first before you were recognized?
They're not going anywhere. They're not going anywhere. They're going to be here as long as we will.
Madam President, I just have a statement I would like to make; that's all.
Thank you, Madam President. I just want to commend, of course -- I want to commend Pat Smith and Miss McColloch and Mr. McCalla for their testimony today. I know it's a very, very difficult thing to come in here all day long and hear -- well, respond to a lot of questions. But I think that the NTI program is 192 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 very admirable. I think it's great. But I want to see -- I want to touch -- I want to touch on something that Councilman Goode referred to earlier. And that has to do with the private investment. The private investment. I think that just by tearing down buildings, even though a lot of them are hazardous, a lot of it's a safety issue, but I think we have to do more than just tear down buildings and demolish them. I think we have to look at what's going to replace them. I think the overall, I think, objective of NTI is to make this a better City. And what I want to do is to assure you that you're doing -- you're on the right track, is to get developers and builders, and a lot of private investment to come into these neighborhoods and start developing them because that's the only way you're going to fill them. And I think that's going to be an overall improvement of this City. 193 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 And I just again want to thank you. I know you've... Most of the questions that I had were already asked by other Council members. And you have answered them, I think, most of the time, I think, quite admirably. So, again, thank you. And thank you, Madam President, at this time.
Madam President, I have only a very short question that won't be as long as my esteemed colleague, Mr. Cohen. My question is in line with Jack Kelly, concerning an issue that Councilman Goode brought up a couple hours ago. Over a year ago Citizen Bank offered $105 million in loan and mortgage guarantees, as well as small business development money. And the issue was brought up by both my colleagues. That was the issue of 194 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 private sector investment and leverage. Because I think we all want to see NTI go beyond the years that we anticipate this work to go on. And only we have -- If only people will pick up on this model. I heard Citizen Bank, when they presented this award, you know, little over a year ago, say that the reason why they were making this award was because they had a model to go to. Are there any other Citizen Banks in this City that have -- And how have you been able to leverage a partnership as the one Citizen Bank presented to you a little while ago?
There's other examples of leverage. I mean, for example, Citizens Bank partnership, and they've actually exceeded their first year of goals. And we're going to be bringing that information back with us when we come back the '05 budget. They're putting it together. But for example, there's one program that was new this year. It deals with 195 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 predatory lending. I mean, one of the issues we heard was that there's only so much -- Not every individual can qualify for a traditional Phil-loan. And under this predatory lending program, we're putting up $500,000 and the banks are putting up close to 3 million to make loans to individuals who credit was not -- who's FICA scores would not have qualified them for our traditional Phil-loan program. To me that's an example of a leverage. And I was trying to recall some of those -- That's why I wanted to go back and get specific numbers. So that's -- I'm not -- You know, like, almost a three to one -- little more than a three to one leverage just off of that one loan program. And it's reaching and it's designed to reach people who we wouldn't have been otherwise able to serve. So that's a perfect example. And what we did in that instance was 196 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 to play more of a loan loss reserve. So that gave the banks the incentive to take a little bit more risk than what they normally would have. Even the Phil-loan program is a leveraged program. I think we put in about 2 million of CDBG. I forgot how much of bond proceeds. Maybe the same amount. But that generates the building for the City to do close to $20 million in loans under that program. And that's going very well. And I think we've done as many Phil-loans in the first six months, the last seven numbers I looked at, as we've done in the entire prior year. So those are some examples just where private dollars are being leveraged by the NTI bond proceeds. And then there's dollars that we use for, you know, the land assembly or a specific project. And I would have to go back. Like, we've gotten, I think, a 197 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 number of tax credit approvals this year on low income housing tax credits approval, but I don't know the exact number. I think it was about at least eight or nine projects that were approved. MS. McCOLLOCH: For example, we just were awarded -- the City was just awarded $1.75 million from the State -- the Philadelphia -- I mean, the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, PHFA, for a specific development in the Norris Square neighborhood. And there again, that's a specific example of where our funding is leveraging the state money, and there will also be some private money in that particular --
I'd like to continue again later on to get further into that, because the public needs to know about these partnerships in the private sector and with other entities of government. But we need to let the people know about them, and -- because there is a tremendous amount of work that NTI has done 198 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 that the public does not know about. It's obvious today. And I'm very open to your amendment. But it's obvious that we have a lot of questions. And some of those questions have now been answered here. But we know that the future of Philadelphia in the last few years has been staked out by this Administration on the success of NTI. And I think we're all in agreement that this program should be continued to succeed, and that other parties and other partners join us in this endeavor. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You're welcome. And thank you. As I said, before we do our second go-around, we will ask the community to testify. So if you would just move to the side and please remain. Thank you. MR. McPHERSON: First witness is Louis Agre and Ralph Wydner. (No response.) 199 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04
Are they here? Continue to call. MR. McPHERSON: The next witness is Ronald Johnson.
I'm sorry. Thank you. Both Mr. Wydner and Low Agre -- Mr. Wydner is the 38th Ward ward leader and Mr. Agre 21st Ward ward leader, were both here earlier. They expressed their regrets at not being able to stay. I do know, because of conversations with them, their primary focus was on the proposed amendment in front of us which, at least according to the document, would have resulted in a $1.1 million reduction in the Fourth District. And they were both here to testify in opposition to that, and to support our requests for restoration, as 200 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 well as additional funds. I don't know if either will be able to return, but that they were here earlier and wished to express that.
Thank you. MR. McPHERSON: Ronald Johnson, Judith Robinson, Miller Parker.
Judith Robinson is approaching the table. MR. McPHERSON: The next person is Miller Parker.
He just left a few minutes ago. There are... Mr. Parker and Miss Ogilvie are the Presidents of the -- Miss Ogilvie is the President of the Park Side Business Association. Madam President, at the appropriate time there are letters and petitions that I wish to have entered into the record as if they were read into the record, from a variety of constituents in the Fourth District. And I'll give them to the Sergeant-at-arms at your direction.
Thank you. 201 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 And we'll make certain that they are made part of the record. Good afternoon. Thank you so much for your patience. Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes. Good afternoon, all. My name is Judith Robinson. I am here to testify regarding Bill 10 number 040095, Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, NTI. I would be remiss if I didn't note that this hearing is being convened by a Joint Committee. Hopefully that will be of value to your constituents. Maybe two committees -- two committees will be able to examine and then correct some of the many flaws of this process. Last June 3rd, at a City Council hearing, Kevin Hanna, the Secretary of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation stated that the process, especially of taking occupied properties and of relocation, was severely flawed. That was an understatement. 202 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Be clear. When you vote for the NTI process, you need to know that your vote will result in... a process... will result in a process on occupied properties where people are not being fairly compensated. The process, first of all, of demolition takes away the property, so therefore no appraisal can be fairly completed. So I'm requesting that there be some process to better determine how fair market value is being calculated. I am a licensed real estate broker, so that's an area of expertise. The value of a lot, I'm finding, as it's being appraised is certainly being appraised at less than a house. But something strange I'm seeing -- and I've been attending RDA's board meetings. Although they are willing to accept an appraisal for an occupied property that someone has owned for 30 years, they're willing to accept an appraised value of $3500. That's $3,500. I've seen where they've turned 203 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 around and selling the property -- a piece of vacant land to someone that's acquiring it, and they're charging them $2500. Its just doesn't add up. I brought a copy of RDA's December the 9th board meeting hearing. I want to put this in the record. For anybody that thinks that I'm just making up numbers, it's here in black and white. And I want to leave it here for public record for everybody in the public to review it, because it's very, very much out of order. RDA is our agency that's used -- that's being used to implement this process. The process is not transparent, and people are not being fairly represented. First you have an RDA appraiser. There is a list of appraisers that are selected by RDA. There should be an independent appraisal by every person that's receiving a letter for acquisition or demolition or condemnation of their property. 204 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04
There is a major, major disconnect. When one receives a notice from government that they want to acquire your property, the average person hasn't been in the real estate market or at any -- or has any reason to have any contact with anybody related to the real estate industry, unless they're going to sell their home or refinance. So, you're asking a person that has had no contact with anybody related in any way to real estate, you're asking them to make a decision about whether this is a fair market value for their home. You're asking them to make decisions about where they will even be able to use these small resource to buy a new home. There is no one at the table advocating for the homeowner, and that is very much out of order. Because what is happening is, people 205 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 are being sort of steamrolled over. And it's going to result in lawsuits in the future. I can guarantee you that. RDA is asking to... is being asked to take on a process which they're ill equipped to handle. And this is after me meeting with several members of their boards, their attorneys. If you will look in that document, you will see that you have an attorney at RDA negotiating back and forth with some private homeowner who hasn't been in the market a year. It's going back and forth about whether they can get additional money on their property. I even took time out of my busy schedule to show them in -- for the North Philadelphia area -- I couldn't do it for all areas, so I figured just use North Philadelphia as a demonstration area -- to show them how out of order they were. I used my time and resources to show them that there was a market value for the properties in question that was well over 206 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 the amount that they are down at RDA negotiating back and forth. For instance, one person came in requesting or thousand for their 6 property. The lawyer at RDA went back and 7 fought with them and negotiated 6,000 for a 8 property. 9 I found out that the property is 10 worth well over 35,000. There's a 11 market -- has been -- for several years. 12 There needs to be very close examination of 13 that process ASAP. 14 It's... I'm going to leave that 15 alone, because I'm going to work on that. 16 And I'm going to write some letters to some 17 of you all asking and making some 18 suggestions, and requesting an opportunity 19 to be an advocate. 20 But regarding the minority participation piece, it is truly unfortunate that with all of this money being spent -- I mean, we have, you know, bankrolled the future, really, in that our children will be -- grandchildren will be 207 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 paying for this $295 million back in the future. But it's unfortunate that we haven't planned more. If -- You know, I'll just digress for a second and say this. We're just finding out that the Planning Commissioner, Mr. Gary Hack (phonetic), a world-renowned planner, has resigned back in November because of some of these issues. I'm sure he has kind of heard the rumblings of people coming down to the Planning Commission saying, we have not as a community participated in this process. That's the flaw right there. It's not enough planners, like we ran ahead in the process like we were hell bent on knocking down properties, and have not taken the time to plan how it's going to affect the outcome of people, first, the overall neighborhood, and all of these other issues. With the minority participation, to get back on that issue, I know you all 208 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 remember the $13 million that was supposed to be for wrap-up insurance. That was supposed to be to help the minority. I remember you all kept asking, what is this million for? It was to help the 7 so-called minority contractor that didn't 8 have the resources. 9 We got Temple University Business 10 Institute. We got University of Penn. We 11 got MBEC.
We got all of these agencies 12 that are already being funded in the name 13 of minority participation. We didn't need another one, for real. What we needed was more business to be connected to the contractors that are skilled and can get the job done right now, because there are many there. This process is not inclusive in that regard. And to throw money somewhere where people that don't have skills to get the job done, it's not going to help us. We're going to still be in the same condition trying to figure it out. I'll leave that alone because I know 209 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 we're going to go there again, in the interest of time. But I just want to briefly talk about PHA because I heard the question asked, has any of these housing agencies been consolidated? Have they been streamlined, like this whole process was supposed to do? I would say absolutely not. PHA is a major problem in that whole process because a lot of the properties that are being demolished that are marring our community are PHA. I live in Susquehanna Section which has the second highest concentration of PHA properties. And a substantial number of them are being demolished, after 30 years, with millions of dollars being -- supposedly being spent in maintaining these properties. It's just so just disrespectful to all the people, all the families that need housing that we are now after 30 years and after many years of using up dollars in the 210 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 name of maintaining these properties, we are now tearing them down, except... except when you decide you want to pull some of these PHA properties into a development, ala Temple student housing. In the and 1600 block of North 8 15th Street, I found out in a zoning 9 hearing when I asked, why are you using PHA 10 owned properties in this student housing 11 only development, they said to me, Joyce 12 Wilkerson, the Mayor's Chief of Staff, was 13 going to write to HUD about pulling those 14 properties into this process. 15 Well, in that case, I wondered, why is it that the $48 million in vouchers and whatnot went back to HUD that could have been used for women and children and families in the name of PHA? Okay. And why is it that properties are being demolished that are PHA owned? Why couldn't those vacant properties in my neighborhood be given to some developer that would not be restrictive, but in fact would open up other opportunities for 211 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 people to get housing as quick as possible? You have a long waiting list. So I want you all to look into how Temple student housing can take on PHA houses, but poor families that's been on a waiting list have been still waiting. Also, the committee... New name is Homeless. It has the Homelessness -- What is it? Neighborhood... Neighborhood... Yeah, Neighborhood Development and Homeless. But in all of the NTAs... NTI hearings, I should say, I have not heard how homelessness was going to be reduced. So I'm just wondering, how is this new title on the name of a committee going to help in that regard? I'm really much concerned about the land banking, because, yes, we all did hear that this whole NTI and all this money was to go for future development. So I'm concerned about there's not being land banked for developments. And I'm concerned that we have a lot of 212 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 properties being demolished in little blocks where no developer will ever want to be. So I think we need to be real careful about this increase in money for demolition, because I contend that it's not needed in this regard. Whenever I check the records of Licenses & Inspection to see what blight and damage is to a particular house that's to be demolished, I can never get the list to match up to say, this house is so unsafe that it has to be torn down. And I'm going by the records at Licenses & Inspection where the violations come from.
So I really am concerned that a lot of money is being pushed up for demolition, and properties are in fact being demolished. But do they have to be? That is the question. And with that, I thank you very much for the time. )
Thank you. 213 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Thank you very much. Our next witness. MR. McPHERSON: Ralph Wydner.
Good afternoon. Council President, other members of Council, to the Administration who are still left, community people, and all those in attendance. I was here a little earlier, and I waited as long as I could. And I had to leave. And I do appreciate this opportunity to come back and speak. I have for you all the papers here for you. I have a very brief statement. These papers are for something else.
And my statement essentially is brief because I know that the hour is late. And so therefore I will try not to hold people up. I'm here to express my opposition to cutbacks of NTI funding throughout the 214 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Fourth Councilmanic District, to that District in general, but also in particular to the neighbors and constituents who I represent as the 38th ward leader. In four community meetings that I've attended recently, neighbors in North Philadelphia and East Falls have expressed anger and outrage over the fact that our District lost $1.1 million that was removed from our NTI funding. I believe that the City Administration... Oh, for I -- I'm sorry. I for one cannot believe that the City Administration would condone such a blatant revision in this City-wide program. To increase funding for NTI in eight out of ten Districts, with one remaining the same and with the Fourth Councilmanic District being the only one that was significantly cut -- significantly cut by 43 percent, we feel this is a disrespect to every man, woman and child in that District and in those communities. I know and respect most of the 215 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Councilpeople in this room, and I respect not only this committee, but the Council as a whole. I've worked and supported many of you and appreciated your service and support for those who you represent. And I know none of you would take this type of a slight in your District sitting down. I support the request of my Councilman, Michael Nutter, and echo his earlier statements that we want the money back. To the full Council, we would like to ask that the full Council recommend the restoring not only of the $1.1 million, but the additional -- but putting in an additional $850,000 in order to bring our District in harmony with other Districts across the City. Knowing most of you, I trust that that will be done. I think that you will, as you have for the most part in the past, do what is right. Blight and unsafe conditions do not 216 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 discriminate. They do not discriminate by District, not by race, not by religion, or political affiliation. I and many others view these cuts as wrong, and as an injustice to the people of our area. It is the right of people to disagree, even to quarrel with one another at times. But when such quarrels begin to affect the constituents of their District, the people who they represent, then we think that these quarrels have gone well beyond your right to be upset with one another, and that you have begun to tamper with the people's business over matters that do not concern the people. So we are asking that these cuts be restored in order to bring justice to those who are living in the Fourth Councilmanic District in order to do -- to right a wrong that we feel has been done by those who have investigated this and have recommended this to you. And we would appeal to the 217 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 administrators, the NTI administrators, who have recommended these cutbacks, that they in fact go back and reconsider, and to do what is right. And if they do not do so, then we ask that this committee recommend to the entire City Council body that these cuts be restored, and in fact that the additional 850,000 be placed into that budget so that you will be seen as the people's -- the people's hero, so that you in City Council will be seen not only looking at your own interest but the interest of people throughout the city. And that in effect is my statement. We are calling upon the City Council to restore the 1.1 million and to consider an additional $850,000 to the Fourth Councilmanic District.
Are there questions or comments from any members of the committee? 218 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 (No response.)
Thank you. MR. McPHERSON: The next witness is Doris Gwaltney. Louise Smith and Donna Griffin.
You've been extremely patient. Thank you so much. Please identify yourself for the record.
Actually, I'm neither Louis Smith nor Donna Griffin, but I'm from the same organization. My name is Lucinda Hutchinson. I'm the President of Park Side Association of Philadelphia. I'm also the committee person for the First Division of the 52nd Ward. I just have a statement I would like to read.
We, the board of the Park Side Association, located in the Fourth Councilmanic District in the West Park Side area are offended that our 219 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 District has been the only one cut in the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative budget, while most other Districts will see an increase. We held a community briefing which involved the whole community, and they were outraged at the fact that a District will be losing our own NTI dollars, giving the monumental need in West Park Side. At least 50 West Park Side homes are vacant and dilapidated in our community. Overall this proposal will negative impact. It is our understanding that NTI strategy is to preserve and rebuild Philadelphia. West Park Side is a Philadelphia neighborhood in desperate need of rebuilding. Currently there are at least 50 vacant dilapidated homes in West Park Side. Park Side Association is rehabbing 32 homes. The weed and seed program in West Philadelphia Empowerment Zone are helping address the vacant land issues. We need NTI to direct their 220 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 attention to the blight in our community by demolishing the homes that are inhabitable, create safety concern for youth that often harbor criminal activity. We, the residents of the Fourth Councilmanic District are in need of the NTI funds, as other communities. We are in need as other communities to demolish dangerous property and rebuild. We are in need and deserve a stable neighborhood. We cannot do this without the funds that have been set aside for this purpose. We pray you will rescind your decision to cut over a million dollars targeted for the Fourth District. Thank you.
Is Mr. 221 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Grant here? (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Rachel Cohen.
Who's after Rachel? MR. McPHERSON: Deborah Seay.
Good afternoon, Madam President, Council members. My name is Rachel Cohen. I'm from the People's Emergency Center Community Development Corporation. I'm here today on behalf of Gloria Guard, our President. I'm here today to express our support for the continued funding for the demolition of vacant derelict buildings. We can see firsthand the hazardous conditions created by these abandoned buildings. We do support the reallocation of funding for Fiscal Year 2004. However, we would like to express our desire that some of that demolition funding be set 222 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 aside for acquisition. As all these buildings are demolished, our neighborhoods are then left with vacant lots, which can become an even bigger problem. Vacant lots become attractive places for trash dumping, as well as central locations for drug activities. The blight in the neighborhood continues. It doesn't go away just because the building is taken down. We firmly believe there's also a need for additional funding for acquisition, as I said. If we're going to rebuild our neighborhoods, we need funding to acquire the properties and for redevelopment. As a community development corporation which has been working in West Powelton for 12 years, we firmly understand the importance of redevelopment. With the support of past acquisition funding, we've been able to convert 78 vacant and blighted properties into a 223 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 hundred units of affordable, transitional, and permanent housing, four social service facilities, a community playground, and green space. But we really could not have done that without acquisition funding. Currently we are in partnership with Penrose Properties to do -- to redevelop nearly a hundred properties in the Mantua area and create 60 units of affordable housing. This project, called Cloisters Three, won't be possible without the City having acquired the properties. This development will just begin to stabilize the neighborhood, but there's still so much more to be done. Future developments are dependent on this continued acquisition funding. So I thank you today. Nice and brief for you.
Are there 224 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 any questions or comments of this witness from members of the committee? (No response.)
Thank you again for your patience. MR. McPHERSON: Patricia Branch. Richard O'Malley.
Miss Branch, would you approach the witness table, please. I think she was called first.
Good afternoon. My name is Patricia Branch. I'm the block captain of the 3200 block of Etting Street. I've been the block captain 12 years. 225 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Anyway, I have submitted a petition and letters, several of them, for to get our pavements and curbs done. Our street's been resurfaced three times. Nobody has ever done our pavements and curbs. I've been in my home since 1978, and they have not did it. But all around in all the other areas and Districts, they do the block -- the pavements and the curbs. And I'm just asking, can you put the funds there so our block can get new pavements and curbs? Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Thank you for your patience. All right. Mr. O'Malley.
Before Mr. O'Malley starts and before Miss Branch leaves, Miss Branch, I want to thank you for coming in. Miss Branch, as I say, she has been chasing after me for more than a couple 226 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 years about the issue of curbs and sidewalks. And when we get back to the Administration testimony, I'd like to get a response, based on action by this Council, on that particular issue. There was a study that was supposed to be done. And also just what our general policy is. This is, you know, a citizen and a taxpayer who's been making this request for a long period of time. And I think it's an issue that needs to be addressed in a comprehensive way, recognizing, again, our financial constraints. But there are certainly some citizens who have these issues, and we do figure out a way over time to do a wide variety of things. This is a part of neighborhood revitalization. Different things take place in different neighborhoods. So, thank you, Madam President. I'll ask the question when the Administration returns. 227 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04
Thank you. Mr. O'Malley, please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good afternoon. My name is Richard O'Malley, 5101 Overbrook Avenue. I'm a Vice President of the Wynnefield Residents Association, which is located in the Fourth Councilmanic District. 1 million in NTI funds for the demolition of rundown structures in our District. Their current proposal was contained within resolution 40095. I realize that Wynnefield may not be typical of the desperate housing needs of other neighborhoods in the Fourth District, but I'm also aware that many people have an unrealistic view of Wynnefield as an affluent community of large, beautiful, detached houses with manicured lawns and 228 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 gardens. Actually, based on statistics supplied last year by the City Planning Commission, Wynnefield is an economically diverse community with many of the same problems of so-called less affluent neighborhoods. In terms of housing stock, 49 percent of our homes are rowhouses with only percent detached houses. Many of 12 these rowhouses were built in the 1920s, 13 immediately after World War I, and they are 14 now in the early stages of decay. 15 Disturbing demographic trends in 16 Wynnefield in the 1990s include the fact 17 that its population declined at a more 18 rapid rate than the City's. Wynnefield's 19 population declined by seven percent, the 20 City by four percent. 21 Wynnefield's poverty rate increased 22 significantly, from 14 to 20 percent in 23 that decade. Owner occupied housing decreased by five percent, while renter occupied housing 229 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 increased by seven percent, which was the reverse of the trend City wide. In the Census of 2000, Wynnefield's unemployment rate was percent, compared 6 to the City's 11 percent. 7 And in one of the four census tracts 8 in Wynnefield, there was a median income 9 under the City's average. 10 And today in Wynnefield seven 11 percent of our structures are vacant. 12 So while Wynnefield is still a 13 beautiful neighborhood, clearly it has problems which could be addressed by the Mayor's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. Assistance to homeowners now would save money. Waiting for problems to fester in the long run will cost the City a great deal more. Finally, I would like to look at the reason or reasons why NTI demolition funds were reduced only in the Fourth District. Is it a coincidence that our District Councilperson happens to be 230 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Michael Nutter? An editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer on February the 29th concluded that the reduction was an attempt by the City Administration to punish Michael Nutter for opposing the Mayor on a number of issues. Perhaps you can understand why we, the tax-paying residents of Wynnefield feel that we are in a battle zone; and that we, the residents, are the collateral damage resulting from the struggle. In effect, we, as well as the Councilman are being punished. Personally I happen to believe that Councilman Nutter has served us well. The explanation provided by the City for the reduction is not convincing. The City NTI administrator blames the Councilman for not participating in NTI tours of the Fourth District. Actually, as the Inquirer observed, NTI has consultants who are paid to designate properties for destruction throughout the City. 231 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 And a City land survey has identified 2,242 structures in the Fourth District as unsafe or dangerous. We, the tax-paying residents of Wynnefield, expect equal treatment with the residents in the other Councilmanic Districts. 8 million, be provided the Fourth District. If they are reduced, we can rightly conclude that we are the victims of unjust discrimination and of a political vendetta We, the residents, will be the collateral damage. May I provide one final statistic? The residents in Wynnefield traditionally turn out to vote at a higher rate than many other sections of Philadelphia.
The Wynnefield Residents Association will keep our residents informed of these proceedings in the Focus which is our neighborhood newspaper. 232 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Thank you again for giving me this opportunity to speak.
Thank you, Mr. O'Malley. You've been very patient. (Applause.)
Our next witness. MR. McPHERSON: Alfonso Owens and Jennifer Lewis.
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Hello. Madam President, Council members. My name is Jennifer Lewis. And on behalf of Home ownership Developers and Union Hill Community Developers, I would like to thank Council for the commitment that you've made to the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. The demolition of vacant, abandoned, and dangerous structures has had a positive impact on communities, through the elimination of blight and despair. 233 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 However, we request and hope that Council will also take into consideration making appropriations for more land acquisition dollars. While some land has been acquired to date, in many cases in order to effectively assemble land for development, the acquisition of additional scattered sites is needed to create contiguous lots and allow real projects to come to fruition. Our project, Union Hill Homes, is a home ownership initiative, designed to provide a minimum of 50 units of high quality homes for ownership to low and moderate income residents. As you all know, Mantua, like some other neighborhoods in Philadelphia, has been experiencing a deteriorating housing stock, as more properties become vacant and abandoned. This increase in vacancy threatens the safety and condition of the area. Thus, to restore the area to vitality and stabilize the existing 234 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 occupied properties, our proposed Union Hill Homes project will convert these vacant, abandoned properties into new home ownership units, but we need your continued support of land acquisition.
Hello. My name Alfonso Owens. I'm the Vice President of 39th and Adams Creek Community Organization. And together with the HUD coalition, we are forming a new non-profit organization called the Union Hill Community Developers, to bring together our local enterprise for the Union Hill Home projects. Throughout our belief that home ownership housing is vital to the health of our community, we are partners with the Homeownership Developers and working very closely with Councilwoman Blackwell and her staff, to make sure that this project is a success. We're going to need your support and your continued commitment to revitalize our community through the abandoned properties 235 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 and demolition properties. Our development team is committed to promote and comply with all fellow fair housing law and regulation. Union Hill Homes will benefit the Mantua and the great Philadelphia community through employment, opportunity that the project will develop and will bring. For the construction of the project, the development team will seek local minority, women, disabled business and enterprise to participate. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to testify.
Thank you. Thank you both. Our next witness. MR. McPHERSON: Deborah Toney-Moore.
It's good to know we have another parent in the this afternoon. I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Neighborhood Transformation Act. 236 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 I am from the Fourth Councilmanic District. In June we had an opportunity as a community to come together --
Okay. Again, my name is Deborah Toney-Moore. I'm a parent. I'm a member of the -- resident of the Fourth Councilmanic District. I also work with the Philadelphia Home and School Council in the West Region. 2 million from our budget in the Fourth Councilmanic District. I'm here on behalf of parents and families who live in the area who realize there's a direct correlation for good schools in every community. And in Philadelphia, that is the one common 237 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 denominator that we all share. I would like to bring to the attention of the City Council the need to make sure that funding remains at a level that is in the interests of other -- excuse me -- of other neighborhoods. And I'd also like to make sure that we realize that the investment also has to take place within our schools. We have in our schools thousands of children being let out this June. We have a fiscal year coming to an end with the NTI. And we need to make sure that dollars are appropriated for schools to be redeveloped, to be improved upon, to make sure our children have a good, positive environment in which to learn. We also would like to make sure that you draw attention to, and our children are going to corridors such as Overbrook High School, where there's a bridge that we call going to over the bridge to go to school. It's very rundown. And that leads directly to our neighborhood recreation 238 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 center that serves both Wynnefield and Overbrook. And that also needs to be looked at, because children are coming out of school and they need safe places to go. Our District is looking at the economic impact, as it looks at its Capital Improvement Plan on schools, building good schools in every neighborhood. That's an important piece because many of our children are not meeting the academic requirements. We can directly correlate that to the environment in which they're being educated. In addition, many of these schools -- many of these children are being mandated to attend summer school. We need to make sure that whatever we can do with this Neighborhood Transformation incorporates the school. We need to make sure that we're looking at the -- as we're looking at the redesign of our neighborhood schools, that includes models that will help sustain the community. 239 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 One of the major impacts of our community in unemployment is a high youth unemployment in the Fourth Councilmanic District. We need to look at models in which the schools are being used to get a new way of thinking about education, where we draw more young people into retail, where we draw them more into entrepreneurship. This all can be done with the Neighborhood Transformation and working with other private investors, working with the parents and the students. We only had to look at the Philadelphia Student Union in West Philadelphia High School, where they developed a model for what they would like to see in their schools. We know schools can be the driving catalyst to sustain a community that doesn't have many visible institutions. Fortunately in Wynnefield we have St. Joe's. We need to partner with St. Joe's, partner with the community and 240 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 making sure that our school models resemble what they're modeling. They're building infrastructures in our community, and they're including retail. They're including economic development in their structures. When we look at the money that Neighborhood Transformation can go into, we also really need to look into partnerships with our School District of Philadelphia, to make sure that youth have opportunities at that -- in the educational level where, when they're preparing for college, they're also preparing for the real world. And in our democracy, a lot of that is entrepreneurism.
One of the things that I realize from fighting so diligently from the school takeover, if we don't find ways to bring dollars, to bring real partnerships, we're going to find that five years from now, ten years from now, we're running into the same problems and asking for more funding. I think it's very important as we 241 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 use these funds, that we find other ways to model how we can sustain the life of a community. It's very important to me that we make sure that the partnership from the community remains intact, so we don't have to get letters a year -- almost a year later saying that we lost funding. But the community is the driving force in the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. I thank you so much for allowing me to speak today. I ask that you make sure that that money for NTI in the Fourth Councilmanic District remains there, and that we come up with a community plan would be in the best interests of all our constituents and will not forget the many of thousands of children we have to educate. Thank you.
Thank you very much. MR. McPHERSON: The next witness is 242 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Jim Wilson.
Please continue. MR. McPHERSON: Miss Leta Johnson.
Good afternoon. Good afternoon, City Council and members, and people who have come to listen. I'm coming here... I don't have a really prepared speech for you.
I don't have a prepared speech. I don't have a lot of words. Our block got together in 1994. We decided for a group of us people, concerned 243 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 citizens, get together and pull together as one, as a council, took -- create a union as one, to take care of a lot of issues that were problems in the community that we knew we could solve. And luckily, we did. We did this within ourselves, and with the help of the Police Chief, as far as Town Watch. That's about as far as we knew that our strength and our power could go. We didn't know that we had any kind of help as far as City Hall or any big brother could help us. Then our roof fell apart, so that I got sick. And interest kind of lost for several years. And we decided a year ago that we needed that group again. Things were getting to fall apart. The neighborhood was not doing well. So we tried to pull together. We checked the neighborhood to see who wanted to be interested. Everybody was, of course. 244 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 But very few other -- There were other things involved that nobody wanted to mention or nobody wanted to get involved with us, you know? So, we did what we could. We did some cleanups, and we did -- we fought a lot of times with L & I. I myself, even with problems with my leg. Hey, I came down to L & I in person to discuss the fact that, you know, one of the porches was hanging loose and about to fall on my house -- and maybe you heard -- one of the little kids that plays around there. Presently we got to abandoned 17 properties on our block. And most of them 18 are in imminent danger of collapse. The 19 little children can't play outside safely. 20 Bricks, stones, all kind of things 21 hanging and flying in the air, tear up 22 people's cars. People have to have a lot 23 of contract work done because of the walls are draining from the abandoned properties, the roofs are caving in. The walls 245 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 themselves. The floors, the joists of the floors are caving in. And it's sad. It's kind of embarrassing to bring your neighbor -- you know, people that come up to visit you even, to see how far it's been -- had -- 30 years ago, and the properties are still standing there, still looking the bleak look of old empty buildings, you know. And they're dangerous.
To the best of your knowledge, are these buildings that you're referring to scheduled to be demolished?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Miss Johnson, thank you for coming 246 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 in. And we did have an opportunity for a sidebar discussion. The area that Miss Johnson is talking about is generally the one -- the unit and 100 blocks of North 54th Street, Udall, Conestoga, and 55th, which are directly adjacent to my colleague, Councilwoman Blackwell's District. We share 54th Street. I have the west side. She has the east side. And so, it's all kind of over there together. Both from my own observation, but also certainly confirmed by the NTI office and other surveys that have been done, the area where Miss Johnson lives is an area that has one of the highest concentrations of vacant or deteriorated buildings in that part of the District. The area from 54th to 60th, Market to Vine, probably has the most intense concentration of dangerous and vacant buildings anywhere in the Fourth District. And again, one of the issues -- And the reason the proposed funding cut from 247 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 the amendment in front of us is so critical is because the area that Miss Johnson is concerned about is one of the first areas that would see demolition activity from the NTI program. But also, as she and I had an opportunity to talk, there is an increasing concern -- And I shared this with Mr. McCalla and others who came to see me not too long ago -- that the first part of the program is the demolition. And we had a lot of that conversation with Miss Smith and others at the table. The growing concern is, what happens after demolition? There will be a significant amount of demolition activity on those blocks, the unit blocks and the one hundred blocks, of almost every one of those streets that I mentioned. There might be some encapsulation candidates on those blocks as well. But what the neighbors are also concerned about, after the noise, the dust, 248 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 and all the other stuff that happens, is what's next? And so, I've asked the NTI and other agencies who are part of this to come back to me with a proposal on both encapsulation for those properties that can be saved. In a couple instances we have properties that might be three in a row. We don't have a lot of those. But there are opportunities with three parcels -- three vacant buildings going down, that you might be able to rebuild two houses in the three parcel area. So to the best of my knowledge, you know, there are no plans for those next steps. And so, there is the increasing concern of what's next after the demolition. But the properties, the area that Miss Johnson is talking about, is the first area slated. There will be neighborhood meetings about that shortly. But many of those properties that you're concerned about are going to be torn down. 249 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04
Okay. Well, we want the package, the whole package. It's no 4 good without -- with just the demolition. We need to know what's going to happen after that. We're a quiet block. And we've tried to do as much as we can ourselves, as you see. You can see for yourself. However, we're asking you now... We're asking you now for a total package and information on that. So, please, you know, don't let us down. Okay?
Good evening, Madam President and Council people. I'm Steve Jones. I'm 52nd Ward 250 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Chairperson. I'm here today on behalf of the 55 committee people in the 52nd Ward. Our concerns is about the Fourth District, the abandoned properties, our friends and our relatives that lives in the District that was cut by $1.2 million. Do we tear down some houses in the District and not the others? How do we justify that? In order for the District to be equal, we need our $2.8 million. Our District has been blessed by having two Councilpeople at large in the District, the 52nd Ward. They have been very supportive in the past. I'm asking them to be very supportive in the future in helping us. Thank you. MR. McPHERSON: Any questions? (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Thank you. Our next witness is Steve Culbertson. VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: He left. 251 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 MR. McPHERSON: Blaine Stoddard.
See, Blaine, I'm sitting in just because it's you. Thank you all again for your patience. Thank you for the speakers from all over PEC, as well as the last speaker, from 54th Street and the surrounding community. And thank you for the other folks who came who represented Mantua as well. Thank you. Please identify yourself and begin your testimony. And again, thank you for your patience, Blaine.
My name is Blaine Stoddard. I run the Partnership CDC. We are at 40th and Market Streets in West Philadelphia. Madam President -- who just walked out, Madam Chair -- Councilwoman Blackwell, and to the Council people that are here today, some of you I know; some of you I don't know. The Partnership CDC... I have some 252 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 prepared statements, but I'm going to divert a little bit and just talk about what's on my heart because, as you know, Councilwoman, my heart is burdened today. The Partnership CDC and its subsidiaries have 103 employees, 103 employees. years ago we started out 9 with one employee, me. And no staff. Just 10 me. 11 And we have employees in almost -- 12 probably almost every District. We have employees in the Third District, the Fourth District. We have employees in Germantown. We have employees that live in Frankford, and even Northeast Philadelphia, South Philadelphia and Southwest Philadelphia. We have employees everywhere. And the Partnership CDC is dying. We're dying. My payroll -- Our payroll is $160,000 a month. That's how much we pay on payroll. 38... I'm not sure what the Wage Tax -- and then some on that every month. We're not dying, Councilwoman, 253 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 because of some wrongdoing. We're not dying because there's no leadership. We're not dying because the private sector and the foundation sector has abandoned us. We're dying because we have built a development engine with professionals that make anywhere from $8 an hour, taking people off welfare and putting them to work, to people that make $80,000 a year. And we're dying because we've built a development engine with no gas. And the gas is vacant houses so that we can do affordable and market rate housing. That's the easiest way I can break it down for you. For four years, going on five years, Councilwoman, we have not gotten the units that we need to do our development. And you know about that. When NTI started, CDCs were not included in the process. They're only private developers. And with Councilwoman Blackwell's help, we were brought to the table. And now I sit here today to tell you 254 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 the truth, that we're dying. I don't know what's going to happen. There's a $25 million bill in front of you. If you add that all up to the other bills that are in front of you today, and you get maybe $295 million. We need to be a part of this. We have two specific projects that we are working on that need to be included today, not tomorrow. And we want to thank you again, Councilwoman, for your support on this. The first one is the Urban Renewal Area at 45th near Sansom. We have 46 units to be developed there for market rate housing. And we have the financing lined up. The Reinvestment Fund is going to finance the project. We have a private developer that we're working with to make this project come to the table. And all we need from the City is the acquisition. So, as you look at demolition, you also have to understand that there are 255 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 economic development engines already in the neighborhoods that can be used to develop these neighborhoods. And I think that needs to be a part of the agenda on the table. The second project is, we've applied for 29 vacant buildings in and around University City for affordable housing under the HRP. For those of you who don't know, the Homeownership Rehab Program is the largest year-around rehab program in the City, run by the Redevelopment Authority. And we are one -- We have been one of the largest users of the Homeownership Rehab Program where the City gives a developer, a non-profit, a fixed $35,000 subsidy to fix up the units and turn them over for affordable housing. And we're one of the top users of that. But again, everything has dried up under NTI. And we need to unclog the pipeline.
We need to unclog the drain, and get developers and CDCs the properties they 256 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 need for projects that are at the front of the line. And as far as I'm concerned, we are at the front of the line. We have financing, we have our development partners in place. And just to give you an example, for the Councilpeople that are still here, PECO energy, other than what you hear -- I know there's been a lot of talk about Vince Fumo. 7 million over the last ten years. And we're not for PECO'S generosity under the State Tax Credit Program, we would not be here. And I hope there's a reporter in here to publish that tomorrow. And the William Penn Foundation has given us a half a million dollars to hire staff to do these projects. And the window is from 2002 to 2004 that we were supposed to start these projects. And it's now 2004. We have $10 million in loans from the Reinvestment Fund 257 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 and LISK for some of these projects. 5 million from Melon Bank to do rental conversions. University City is gentrifying so fast, and rentals are going up so fast that we've gone out to the bank. 5 million, and we have converted 10 market rate units to affordable housing, 11 with no hope, no assistance, not even the 12 permits from the City. 13 And we've done 22 units in nine 14 months, just to show how quickly this can 15 be done, if the bureaucracy would just sort 16 of help us along to get this done. 17 I'm going to stop here today. I 18 mean, Councilman Goode asked a question 19 about what is the production level, housing 20 production level, under NTI for the past 21 four years. 22 We believe in the CDC world, that housing production is down 75 to 90 percent. Okay? If you take out PHA, and if you take 258 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 out the market rate stuff that has been done downtown, we believe the housing production is down 75 to 90 percent. So that's a direct answer to the question. Somebody else asked today -- And I'm sorry Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds-Brown is not here -- somebody asked, why is it that we can't get appraisals done? Because you need appraisals to basically turn over the units. Well, you need appraisals so that you can do a declaration of taking, and also you can turn over the units to private developers of CDC. How many people are doing appraisals at the RDA? Again, we believe one. And his name, if I can get his name... His name is Mr. Valentino Pascarela (phonetic). And then, how many people are doing Act 94s? You have 5500 units that we're trying to acquire. And again, we believe one. And her name is Maryann Procuri (phonetic). 259 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 So the system is totally backed up. I work with the RDA every day. I work with the City every day. I work with you, Councilwoman. I work with OHCD. We're all good people. And I would even consider us all friends but the system is broken. It is broken and we need to fix it. )
Thank you, Mr. Stoddard. Certainly we do share so many of your same concerns. In fact, we introduced legislation to be heard before our housing committee dealing with Sansom Street. It's very disparaging that we're -- that we have a plan for half of Sansom Street and not the other half, because obviously you can't do half a block. And we are very concerned about the issues you raise. Obviously, we thank you for your commitment. And we want to... In our commitment, we want NTI to work so that neighborhoods who have made their self 260 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 determinations know can get the housing done. You wanted to comment?
Yes, ma'am. I just want to say, I can not stand in front of my staff of 103 people and tell them that it's over, not in this type of job market, where there are no jobs out here. We're trying to create jobs. And we just need a little help from the City, a little push from the City, to get this done. Long before NTI. We can do this. Now NTI is here. We still want to do it. We feel that we just need the will and the push to do development so that we can keep our engine going.
Well, let me say to the Administration, who has heard your testimony as well, we're going to ask them to come back -- not now when the public is testifying. But certainly before these hearings conclude, we would like to hear them to 261 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 respond to the issue. Madam President, Mr. Stoddard, from the Partnership CDC says that production is 90 percent down.
And we are very concerned about the issues he raised, and certainly request that the Administration respond to those. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Stoddard MR. McPHERSON: The next witness is Carolyn Sutton.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke, Mr. Stoddard.
Thank you. First, Mr. Stoddard, I just want to make sure I didn't hear you right. Did you say you didn't get a permit from the City? You didn't mean that, did you?
No, no, no. What we did was, we did our rental conversions. We did operating apartments. We went out to the market. We borrowed $1.5 million. We went out and bought operating buildings 262 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 that only needed paint. I said I did not need a permit.
I just wanted to clear that up for you. With respects to housing reduction -- And I agree with you that production is down, not that you need me to agree with you. But one of the things that I find in investigating this issue, in fact, has to do with a large degree with the Philadelphia Housing Authority.
As you know, a substantial amount of units in the City and state are done as a result of PHFA's tax credit program. And what has happened in the last two, maybe three years, because of the decision to not fund projects in the -- first in the initial year of the NTI program, that there were not projects being put in the pipeline to go to PHFA for tax credits, particularly nine percent credits. 263 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 And as a result of that -- I don't know who made the decision -- but the Housing Authority essentially got very aggressive in getting tax credits to fund this project. Particularly, I know in my District, they did part of Richard Allen, and Cambridge, and I believe Mill Creek is a nine percent credit. And one of the things that I've talked to, to both the Administration and the Housing Authority, is to look into the possibility of them not going in for nine percent credits, and going in for volume cap which is four percent credits, which I understand there were an overabundance of at PHFA, and let some of the traditional non-profit and for-profit entities to do tax credit housing with community groups in the neighborhoods. And I believe or hope that that will be the strategy as we move ahead. Right now I believe that we're... Based on the formula, that the City of 264 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Philadelphia is in line for approximately 3.1 in tax credits in the last cycle and probably in the next cycle. But the Housing Authorities have gone in and altered -- Their requests are upwards of 1.6 million. So, right from the get-go, they take up half of the nine percent credit. So I would like to see us take an approach where we don't have the Housing Authority going for the four percent because they can afford it. It's a little more expensive than nine percent. So let the traditional CDCs and other organizations go after the nine percent. Do you agree with that assessment?
Yes, sir. And can I respond to that? I think that's a great idea for PHA to go for the volume cap which is a different pool of money, other than the regular private developer or CDC driven, that we need the nine percent credit. So I think that's an excellent idea. 265 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Let me also say this: PHA did most of the housing volume in the City because they were already in the pipeline. Not only that; they owned most of their land already.
Acquisition came to a halt for at least two years under NTI.