m. - - - BILLS 020666, 020667, 020668, 020669, 020671, 020672, 020673, 020678, 020679, 020681, 020682, 020685, 020686. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, Chair COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN RICHARD MARIANO - - - V A R A L L O, Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215) 561-2220 I N D E X BILL 020666 PAGE HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority .... RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission .. 13 BILL 020678 5 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority .... 19 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission .. 20 BLANE STODDART, The Partnership CDC ........ 20 DIANNE WORMLEY, University City District ... 23 KATE STOVER, Spruce Hill Community Assoc, Sansom Street Community Coalition ..... 25 JANE SILVERMAN, Salvation Army ............. 27 BETTY REVIS, Walnut Hill Community Assoc. 29 BILL 020669 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority .... 31 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission .. 35 ANDREW JEVREMOVIC, Octo Enterprises ........ 36 DAVID MCCLELLAN ............................ 40 CLAUDIA SHERON (ph), Point Breeze Development Coalition ................. 41 BILL 020686 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority .... 43 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission .. 44 ROBERT ROSENTHAL, Westrum Development ...... 45 BILL 020668 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority .... 51 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission .. 59 LOIS FERNANDEZ, ODUNDE ..................... 60 ALAN MANDEL, SOSNA ......................... 63 EVE LEWIS, SOSNA ........................... 67 PHILLIP MARA ............................... 69 EUGENE MACKEY GUY .......................... 70 ANTHONY MARTELLO ........................... 87 MS. CLAYTON ................................ 103 ANTHONY IACOBONE ........................... 108 QUAN MACK .................................. 110 BILL 020672 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority .... 113 BILL 020671 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 116 DAVID NAPTON, City Planning Commission ...... 116 KEN KNIGHT .................................. 118 3 INDEX (continued) BILL 020685 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority .... 121 DAVID NAPTON, City Planning Commission ...... 122 FLOYD ALSTON ................................ 123 JORDAN MOHAMMAD AKBAR ....................... 125 RICK SAUER, PACDC ........................... 128 BILL 020673 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority .... 139 DAVID NAPTON, City Planning Commission ...... 140 GERALD WASHINGTON ........................... 141 KEN KNIGHT, Mantua Trade Center ............. 145 COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL ............... 153 BILL 020667 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority .... 160 DAVID NAPTON, City Planning Commission ...... 161 BILL 020679 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority .... 163 DAVID NAPTON, City Planning Commission ...... 164 EVA GLADSTEIN, Phila. Empowerment Zone ...... 173 DARALIA RODRIGUEZ (ph) ...................... 184 MALGRAS VELAS (ph) .......................... 188 ROSE GRAY, APA ............................. 191 JERAMOS SALAS, JR. (ph), Hispanic Association of Contractors and Enterpises .......... 192 TOM FORKIN, American Street Erie Avenue Business Association ................... 195 THOMAS J. CARBINE, ASEABA ................... 199 RON RAMSTEAD ................................ 202 JIM FLAHERTY, Kensington South NAC .......... 204 JAMES HARTLING, Urban Partners .............. 205 JORDAN MUHAMMAD AKBAR ....................... 208 EVA GLADSTEIN, Phila. Empowerment Zone ...... 209 BILL 020681 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 215 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 221 PATRICIA SMITH, Neighborhood Transformation . 223 ALFRED ESSANDOH, Habitat for Humanity ....... 224 REV. WILLIAM B. MOORE ....................... 225 STEVE KAUFMANN, Suesquehanna Seniors ........
226 SUSANNE STONE, Board of City Trusts ......... E. 230 JORDAN MUHAMMAD AKBAR ....................... 231 BILL 020682 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 237 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 246 PATRICIA SMITH, Neighborhood Transformation.. 253 4 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020666
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I apologize for the delay. Council Committee on Rules is now in session with a quorum consisting of Councilmember Nutter, Councilmember DiCicco, Councilmember Kenny who is going to act as Chair, Councilmember Clarke, and Council President Verna. The first bill on the list for today is Bill No. 020666, which is an ordinance approving the 9th Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the Eastwick Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at the point of intersection of the west side of Lindbergh Boulevard with the north side of 58th Street, including the 9th Amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan and the 1st Amendment to the Relocation Plan, which provides, inter alia, for a change of the land use and related controls for a 7.75 acre site, generally bounded by 73rd Street, 75th Street, Turnstone Place, Redwing Place, Meadowlark Place, Lapwing Place and Longspur Place, from residential and related reuse to recreational and related reuse and a change in the land use controls for the Mini-Town Center to permit senior rental apartments. 5 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020666 Who's here to testify on behalf of the bill? Please take the witness chair and identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Herbert Wetzel. I'm Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Mr. Chairperson, with your permission, I'd like to do a little bit of an overview of how we got here today with the ordinances. 13
Under prior situations, the way land was assembled by the Redevelopment Authority was that requests would come in from a variety of sources, either from developers or the District Councilperson's office or from an operating department within the City of Philadelphia. One of the fundamental changes we wanted to make under NTI was to change the manner in which land assembly is conducted. And as you see today, there are 13 ordinances that total over 2,500 properties. And I'll describe a little bit about how we got here and how we will operate in the future. 6 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020666 The first thing that we wanted to do is set up a regularized system for doing this kind of business. We created a form that was distributed in June to each District Councilperson. And that form is the form upon which we will accept applications for land assembly. The second sort of principle that we adopted is that we would only accept those forms and review those particular requests if they came from a District Councilperson's office. And in June, we delivered those forms to be completed and we received hundreds of them back, as you can imagine. And what we established was an Interagency Acquisition Review Team that included the Mayor's Office represented by NTI, the Commerce Department, the Planning Commission, the Redevelopment Authority, the Public Housing Authority, the Office of Housing and Community Development, and the Empowerment Zone. What we wanted to do is create a broad-based inter-governmental committee to review these acquisition lists. The committee started meeting in August. And in addition to having the meetings and sitting around the table, we actually 7 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020666 had staff of the Commerce Department and OHCD go out on many of these requests to review -- for example, to make sure that all the lots that are listed as vacant lots are vacant lots, and if it's a vacant structure it's a vacant structure. We didn't want to proceed with an acquisition strategy and have those kinds of errors in there. We, obviously, did not want to condemn occupied structures if that wasn't the plan. This particular team met seven times. We were also highly interactive with District Councilpersons and their staffs during this process and concluded with a set of ordinances that you have in front of you today. This included meeting after the Interagency Review Team concluded its work, meeting with each District Councilperson to go over the recommendations of the Interagency Review Team. This was a real partnership between the Administration and Council to arrive at these. More importantly, this is the first of an annualized process in which we will be delivering ordinances twice a year for land assembly. This particular year, the bills were delivered in October and, obviously, we're having our hearing today. 8 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020666 Declarations of Taking will be filed in February for land assembly that you will approve. In the spring we're going to have the same particular cycle, and it looks like what we would be doing right now is introducing and providing ordinances in March, hearings sometime in May, and then the filing of Declarations of Taking in July. And we anticipate this will be the regularized program that we will work with District Councilpersons during the interim period to define a set of takings, prepare ordinances, deliver them to Council, and proceed on a twice-a-year basis. So that is how we arrived at where we are today.
Thank you. You're going to now move to the specifics of the bill?
Just a couple overview questions. What is the total current acquisition budget for NTI, as we speak today?
The acquisition budget that was approved in the Year One Program Statement was, I believe, 14 million. 9 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020666
And what percentage of the total acquisition budget do the bills before us represent today?
Thank you. What I would also request in the testimony from the Administration on each bill, if we could talk about the specifics of how many properties are being acquired for each bill so, as you testify, going forward you can give me the number of properties and how many relocations are necessary as a result of the suggested or requested takings. Also, if we could talk about -- and I'm sure part and parcel of the discussion will be which of these parcels of the bills are represented today actually have developers waiting to do work and they're lined up and ready to go and what price, if any, the developers will pay for the parcels they're going to ultimately acquire through this taking, and how many of the parcels we're dealing with today will be land banked, how many parcels we're taking are currently owned by the RDA. That's all I would like to do on a formatted basis so we have a 10 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020666 coherent record for each bill as to those questions. At this point now, are there requests from Councilmembers as to what they would like to see in the testimony as you move forward, I would ask them to make them now. Councilman Nutter is not here; I'm sure he has a few. I just wanted to try to set up a format that we could get this information without having to ask the same question over and over again. Councilmember Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would also ask that the director provide information with respect to the funding cycles, not necessarily solely with the City, i.e., CDBG dollars, but also PHFA and any other particular NOFAs that may become available during the course of the year, because I'm assuming that our attempts to acquire land will be correlated with the funding sources that will be available fiscal year.
That is correct. Just to answer that question, the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency has a twice a year application process for low income housing tax credits. And the 11 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020666 way where it's going to be cycling acquisitions would be to be able to have site control for their March applications and for their October applications. So some of the condemnations that we're requesting today, properties would be made available for the March application period at PHFA. And obviously, the ones we do in the spring, we would have site control for the fall application period of PHFA. So we want to sort of time this process to take advantage of that particular resource.
And any other NOFAs that may come, because I know sometimes we don't know ahead of time. But if there's anything that potentially may be coming out of HUD, it would be helpful if you can provide that information. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. You will now proceed with testimony on 020666.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill 24 020666, which would approve the 9th Amending to the Redevelopment Proposal for the Eastwick Urban 12 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020666 Renewal Area. The bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to change certain land use designations within the Eastwick Urban Renewal Plan. There are three parcels that will require a plan amendment. The existing land use for RDA Disposition Parcels No. 5 and No. 8 would be changed from residential to recreation to conform to zoning changes that were approved by City Council. These parcels will be disposed of to the City of Philadelphia Department of Recreation. Additionally, within the four-acre site generally situated in the rear of Island Avenue in the section of the Urban Renewal Plan pertaining to the Mini-Town Center would be revised to add as a permitted use "Apartments - Senior Rental." This change is necessary to ensure that the land use controls in the Urban Renewal Plan conform to the reuse proposal by the redeveloper, RGV Builders, Limited Liability Corporation. The aforementioned changes have been reviewed and approved by the Eastwick Project Area Committee. Also, this amendment was approved by the 13 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020666 City Planning Commission at its meeting on October 15, 2002. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 020666 and would ask for the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on December 12, 2002. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Madam President, and Members of the Committee. I'm Richard Redding. I'm Acting Director of Community Planning at the City Planning Commission. First of all, let me briefly say that the Planning Commission is pleased to be a part of the Interagency Acquisitions Team that's responsible for many of the bills before us today. Regarding this first bill, No. 020666, I'm here to testify on that bill. It involves changes in the proposed land use and also changes in the controls in Eastwick. The Planning Commission approved this at its Planning Commission meeting of October 15th, and I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you. 14 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020678
All the apartments will be market rate? They're not being subsidized in any way, are they?
It is our understanding that these are market-rate rental housing, yes. And the need for the change is that Mini-Town Center is essentially a commercial site and so we need to allow for residential development there.
I don't recall how many apartments they intend to erect. Do you have knowledge of that?
I don't have the number, but if you would like, we could find out from the developer.
No, I have been briefed on it; I simply don't remember at this point in time. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any other questions for these two witnesses? I also have listed Mr. Scott Mazo and Joe McQuillan. If they're here and would like to 15 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020678 testify on this bill -- they're not here? Is there anyone else here to testify on Bill 020666? Please come forward.
Actually, I should clarify that. My testimony that I prepared raises about four broader issues with regard to the acquisition process, so it's not with regard to the specific properties identified in this ordinance here. Do you want to finish this ordinance first and --
What I'd like to do, with all due respect, is to try to figure out a way to move some of the less controversial pieces through and then -- I'd like to be as short as possible, but I'm sure we're going spend a few hours here talking about a lot of this stuff. So I'd rather move some of the less controversial pieces through, so if you would be kind enough to wait, we'll call you back. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay.
Thank you. Anyone else to testify on Bill 020666? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will 16 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020678 now move to Bill No. 020678. This is an ordinance approving the Redevelopment Proposal of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the 45th and Sansom Urban Renewal Area being the area generally bounded by Chestnut Street on the north, South 44th Street on the east, Walnut Street on the South and Farragut Street on the west; approving the Urban Renewal Plan and determining that such plan and redevelopment proposal conform to the general locality plan and make adequate provisions for individuals, business concerns and families who are displaced; determining the necessity for changes in and for zoning, streets, alleys, public ways, street patterns, location and relocation of the public utilities; determining that the Urban Renewal Plan and Redevelopment Proposal meet all non-discrimination requirements of Federal, State and local laws and the regulations and policies promulgated with respect thereto; declaring that certain expressly designated and provided for condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project; and declaring the redevelopment undertakings in the Project to be 17 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020678 an important part of the City's program to remove and prevent the spread of urban blight. Pleas identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Chairperson, Members of the Committee, my name is Herbert Wetzel. I'm Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 020667 (sic), which would approve the redevelopment proposal for the Greenway Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 42 properties, 35 vacant structures and 7 vacant lots, for the purposes of residential development. Neighborhood Restorations Limited Partnership, a developer of affordable housing has expressed an interest in acquiring these properties for a tax-credit rental project to serve low and moderate-income individuals. The acquisition will promote the elimination of blight and result in expanding housing opportunities for low and moderate-income individuals while restoring abandoned properties to the tax rolls. 18 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020678 This amendment was approved by the City Planning Commission at its meeting on October 12, 2002. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill 020667 and would also ask for the suspension of Rules of Council to allow first reading on December 12, 2002.
Yes. Just to follow-up on your request. This is the -- I don't think this is the Greenway Urban Renewal Area, am I right?
Well, then I'll do my testimony over. I am sorry. I am out of order, Mr. Chairman.
You know what, I don't know if this was your fault or my fault. I read 020678 which is 45th and Sansom.
All right. My apologies. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. I'm here to speak in support Bill 10 No. 020678, which would approve the redevelopment proposal of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the 45th and Sansom Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire eight vacant lots in order to eliminate blight and support a key NTI objective which is a preparation of land and making it available for future residential development. The properties to be acquired are detailed on the accompanying fact sheet. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 020678, and would also ask the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on December 12, 2002. 20 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020678
Thank you very much for your testimony. Why don't you identify yourself and give your testimony?
Good morning again. I'm Richard Redding, representing the City Plan Commission. The Planning Commission approved the 45th and Sansom Urban Renewal Area at its meeting in October 2002. Previously, the Planning Commission had established a new redevelopment area in the same area. And testifying on this bill, I'm here to testify in favor and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Are there any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Seeing none, is Mr. Stoddart and Mr. Wingert in the room to testify? Please come forward. Good morning.
Good morning. Mr. Chairman, Madam President, Councilmembers and special guests, my name is Blane Stoddart. I'm the Executive Director of The Partnership CDC in West 21 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020678 Philadelphia. Thank you for giving The Partnership CDC the opportunity to provide comments on City Ordinance 020678, the Urban Renewal Area Plan for 45th and Sansom Street area. This area is in need of great revitalization and The Partnership CDC fully supports this ordinance. Over the past few years, we've been working with existing residents and various other stakeholders to come up with a strategy to stabilize this neighborhood. Despite our efforts, it's been a struggle to mitigate the problems with abandoned housing and drug trafficking in this area. Ever since the announcement of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative from the Mayor's Office, there's been momentum building towards revitalizing this area. If you recall, 45th and Sansom is where Mayor John street signed the NTI bill, kicking off one of the most important campaigns to eliminate and prevent the spread of blight in the history of the City of Philadelphia. With the support of Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell who brought the Mayor out to 45th and Sansom, The Partnership CDC has proposed a plan to the City Planning Commission and the Redevelopment 22 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020678 Authority to revitalize the neighborhood affected by the 45th and Sansom Street Urban Renewal Area. Nearly 50 properties acquired using funds available through the NTI Program will be redeveloped into housing for homeownership. The Partnership CDC has already entered into agreement to purchase the first properties 9 privately for immediate development on the 4400 10 block of Sansom Street. Rehabilitation of these 20 11 properties is anticipated to begin in the spring of 12 2003. The Redevelopment Proposal offers nearly 47 13 additional properties for redevelopment and sale to 14 families of all income levels. The success and flow 15 of this project hinges greatly on the timely 16 acquisition and/or demolition of properties enlisted 17 in the Urban Renewal Plan. 18 As a major stakeholder in the community, 19 I offer the full support of The Partnership CDC for 20 this bill. I strongly urge passage by City Council and the Mayor, and I look forward to working with the Redevelopment Authority in implementing this plan. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for your testimony. 23 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020678 Any questions for this witness? (No response.)
Seeing none, is there anyone else in the room to testify on this bill? Please come forward.
Mr. Chairman, Madam President, and Members of Council, my name is Dianne Louise Wormley, and I am the Director of Neighborhood Initiatives at the University City District. The District's mission is to build effective partnerships to maintain a clean and safe environment and to promote, plan, and advocate for University City's diverse urban community. As a major stakeholder, we have convened a group of people to meet informally for over a year to look at how each organization is working to improve our community. As we discussed our community, it became clear that Sansom Street, particularly from 44th to 46th, is central to all of our efforts, be they small stakeholders or large. For too long these blocks have suffered from benign neglect and have become a center of drug dealing and 24 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020678 crime. But rather than giving up, a core group of homeowners, neighbors, and stakeholders have developed a wonderful new playground. Over the years, many community members, institutional representatives, elected officials, and particularly homeowners on the blocks have stressed the need for comprehensive approach to dealing with these problems. The time has come to deal with the blighted properties and the neglect. The homeowners, community members, and stakeholders are anxious to see the revitalization of this area begin. Timely acquisition and demolition of the properties in the 45th and Sansom Redevelopment Area Plan are essential for the success of any revitalization effort. The properties have been identified. The Partnership CDC is willing to take the leadership development role. The University City District wholeheartedly supports the acquisition and demolition of the properties as the first crucial step towards revitalization of the Sansom Street area. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions for this witness? 25 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020678 (No response.)
My name its Kate Stover, and I represent the Spruce Hill Community Association and the Sansom Street Community Coalition. I come here to voice strong support for The Partnership CDC's 45th and Sansom Urban Renewal Area Plan and the 45th and Sansom Redevelopment Area Plan. Our community has been working hard for five years to rejuvenate this area of Spruce Hill around 45th and Sansom streets. We have had long-term problems with crime, including robbery and homicides and rampant drug activity, abandoned housing, and neglectful landlords. We have coordinated with the Police Department and reduced crime significantly, rehabilitated a pivotal corner playground with the help of the Mural Arts Program and Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell's office, organized clean-ups, tree plantings, brought neighbors, businesses, and neighborhood 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020678 organizations together. But one critical piece of this puzzle has always been missing: A formal organized plan to rehabilitate abandoned, decayed housing and to take control of the dilapidated housing owned by absentee landlords while reusing vacant lots where there are now covered with weeds and trash. The Partnership CDC brings our community this missing puzzle piece. They have worked hard to produce a viable housing program that will bring more residents and families back to this neglected area. We have incredible Victorian housing stock that needs to be used and lots of people who want to live in our neighborhood. Please help us reclaim these houses before it is too late and make them into homes. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions for this witness? (No response.)
Seeing none, is there anyone else to testify on this bill? Please come forward. 27 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020678
Good morning. My name is Jane Silverman. I'm the Program Director of the Salvation Army Faith and Emergency Relocation Program. It's located on the 4400 block of Walnut Street. Along with Kate, I've been a member of the Spruce Hill Community Civic Association and the Sansom Street over five years. We've worked diligently to revamp an abandoned lot into a tot lot filled with used equipment. With the help of Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell, we managed to install new equipment and new turf that will be dedicated this Thursday, and you're all invited to come at 2:00 for the ribbon cutting of Rainbow Park. It's been a pivotal change in the community. Sansom Street has been devastated by crime, violence, drugs, murders, just total abandonment and a lack of sensitivity to the community. The playground has acted as a core to revitalize the community and bring the neighbors back into a coalition to face the changes that need to occur. As someone who is committed to supporting and protecting my residents who are 28 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020678 homeless women and families, I find it appalling that we can't provide safer streets and more clear information about streets. For example, Moravian, that is between Sansom and Walnut, is constantly filled with drug dealing, prostitution, trash. We can't get an answer about whether or not it's a street or who owns it or whose responsible for it to make the necessary changes. We're totally in support of the CDC's move toward Sansom. It's the missing piece, like Kate said, in a puzzle that we've been trying to put together for five years. We've made tremendous strides in coalescing the neighborhood. We now need to do something with the properties that are abandoned. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Wetzel, did you testify as to the number of properties in any relocations?
You did? Okay, it's in the record. Anyone else to testify on this bill?
One last person, Mr. Chairman. 29 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020669
Good morning. My name is Betty Revis, and I am President of the Walnut Hill Community Association. And we are in full support of Blane Stoddart's CDC initiative with this project. Walnut Hill has been involved with the CDC a number of years. The area that we are talking about is one of the worst blighted areas, I think, in the Walnut Hill and Spruce Hill community: Drugs, prostitution, run-down housing. It is one of those situations where you are afraid to drive through after dark. During the day, you can go through and you see people standing around selling drugs openly. So Walnut Hill is in full support of something being done to this blighted area. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions for this witness? (No response.)
Thank you very much. 30 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020669 We'll now move to Bill No. 020669, which is an ordinance approving the 2nd Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the Point Breeze East Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by the southerly side of Washington Avenue on the north, the westerly side of Broad Street on the east, the northerly side of Moore Street on the south and the easterly side of 20th Street on the west, including the 2nd Amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan and the 1st Amendment to the Relocation Plan, which provides, inter alia, for the expansion of the western boundary of the Project Area from South 20th Street to South 25th Street and to the rear property lines on the west side of South Taylor Street between Reed Street and Tasker Street; a name change of the Urban Renewal Area from Point Breeze East Urban Renewal Area to Point Breeze Urban Renewal Area; the additional land acquisition of approximately 41 properties for residential and related uses; the additional land acquisition of approximately 13 properties for commercial and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law; a change of the land use and related controls for 2202 to 2238 Alter 31 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020669 Street to commercial and related uses and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project. Please identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, my name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 020669, which would approve the 2nd Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the Point Breeze East Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to expand and change the name of the Point Breeze East Urban Renewal Area to the Point Breeze Urban Renewal Area. A total of 54 properties would be acquired under this bill. In addition, this bill would establish land uses consistent with the reuses proposed for the acquired properties. The boundary expansion and name change for the Point Breeze Urban Renewal Area will make it conform with the City Planning Commission's expanded Point Breeze Redevelopment Area. The current Point Breeze East Urban Renewal Area is bounded on the north by Washington Avenue, on the east by South 32 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020669 Broad Street, on the south by Moore Street, and on the west by South 20th Street. This proposal would expand the westerly boundary out to South 25th Street and the rear property lines of the houses on the west side of South Taylor Street between Reed Street and Tasker Street. Forty-one properties, vacant lots, 19 9 vacant residential structures, and occupied 10 residential building would be acquired on the 2300 11 blocks of Cross Street and Greenwich Street for 12 future residential development. The Office of 13 Housing and Community Development and the Planning 14 Commission have worked with area residents to 15 develop a reuse plan that includes affordable 16 housing development and open space. This bill would 17 also establish the land use in this portion of the 18 Urban Renewal Area as "Residential and Related." 19 Thirteen properties: 3 vacant 20 buildings, 2212-2214 and 2216 and 2218 Alter Street; 21 and 10 vacant lots, 2220-2238, would be acquired to 22 support the expansion of Octo Enterprises. It's an 23 adjacent furniture business that recently relocated 24 to the Point Breeze neighborhood from Manayunk, 25 which is a real interesting relocation activity. 33 1 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020669 Octo Enterprises would expect to create approximately 30 jobs in association with this expansion. This bill would also establish a land use of commercial and related for the 2200 block of Alter Street to reflect this new activity. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill 020669 and would also ask the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on Thursday, December 12, 2002.
I suspect that if you make no mention of relocation, there aren't any.
There is one relocation. Ther's one occupied structure in the Greenwich Cross Street activity.
I don't know the answer to that, but I can find it out for you. But I think this is what -- you can correct me if I'm wrong. But I think this is what the residents in the neighborhood, working with your office and the Planning Commission, came up with. But we'll try to find the answer to that question for that for you. 34 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020669
There's no other reason than just having the record clear as to if there is a relocation or if there isn't.
Thank you. Do you have any testimony to add? Any questions?
There is one vacant property on Greenwich Street and the owner is saying that he would like to rehab it. I think we can afford him the opportunity to do so within 14 months. 15
If he does not 17 agree to that -- and I think we ought to get 18 something in writing to that effect.
We have several options. If Council approves an ordinance such as this ordinance and then the Mayor signs it, it still takes a vote of the Redevelopment Authority Board on a Declaration of Taking and to file that. There are several options: One is in lieu of condemnation we can enter into a rehabilitation agreement with the 35 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020669 owner and give them a specific timetable. If they fail to follow that, we could come back and file a Declaration of Taking later on to enforce it. The other option is, you file the Declaration of Taking and then you revest title under conditions that they rehabilitate the property. So we have two choices that we can enter into. Even if you pass this bill, it doesn't require us to use our eminent domain powers.
Yes. I believe the gentleman may be here. And you would have to get a letter from him or prepare the letter and have him sign it.
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning. I'm Richard Redding, representing the Planning Commission testifying on Bill No. 020669, in the Point Breeze 36 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020669 Urban Renewal Area. This involves acquisitions mostly on Cross Street where the Planning Commission performed a role in preparing a community plan for that section of Point Breeze. This bill also involves land use change on Alter Street. The Planning Commission approved it at its October meeting. And I'm available to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Anyone else to testify on this bill? Please come forward.
Good morning. My name is Andrew Jevremovic. I'm the owner and President of Octo Enterprises. And our building takes up about half of Alter Street where the properties from 2212 to 2238 are located. All of the street was abandoned when we arrived there in August of 2000. And you can see by these garbage-filled pictures, that's what we came to. Our building and the rest of the properties had been abandoned for 15 years. The people we bought it from had it for five years, 37 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020669 never paid taxes, picked it up at sheriff's sale and left it the way it was, accumulating garbage. We came there, not to fight blight, but just to eliminate it; and we've done that. Our half of the street we've cleaned up. We've cleaned up the other half of the street as well. The properties in question, the two structures that are there, we've boarded up. We've kept them safe. We've removed dogs, people, a lot of garbage, and we intend to do the same thing with the rest of the street. You can see some photos, what we have proposed to do. There will be a wall there and not a chain link fence. We are an art-related business and we intend to have something that looks art-related there. We purchased the property August of 2000. By June of 2001, we were living in the building and operating our business there. We haven't wasted any time, and we don't intend to waste time with these properties. We intend to get right to it. A couple of the properties, the structures, if they're to be saved, they have to be saved very soon. So we intend to get right on 38 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020669 those. And since we made it our responsibility to keep the entire street clean, as it helps our business and it helps the quality of life for us, owning these properties would greatly help us in doing that. We need some of this space for parking. We'd like to expand our business, which is wholesale only right now, to also a retail business. Parking would be essential. It's an extremely narrow street with no parking. We've also fixed up part of the building -- it's rather large -- for rental spaces. And we have other businesses in the building now. We have a photographer, we have a design studio, and we have an artist who all rent space from us. The building will eventually have 11 rental spaces as well as a large showroom for the furniture business. One of the buildings we'd like to acquire would be a good workshop space for the business. It's got a cement floor, it's perfectly suited. And the lot's perfectly suited for, not only parking, but also we'd like to expand our business to a garden business. We have a partner 39 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020669 who is interested in helping us with that. And it would help facilitate all of those things. The last people who bought some of those properties at sheriff's sale never paid taxes, left the garbage there. We wish we had the money to buy it; we don't. Our business, we've taken our capital and we put it right into that street. And we've received some wonderful help from our Councilwoman and from other departments in the City. And we'd like to continue to do what we've been doing there.
Great. Thank you for your testimony and thank you for your vision and commitment to the City. I think you had a pretty nice story in the paper recently about your business.
He didn't say anything so he doesn't have to hide from me. (Laughter.)
Anyone else to 40 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020669 testimony on this bill? Please come forward.
Good morning. My name is David McClellan. I'm a citizen voter and a neighbor. I've lived in the neighborhood since 1978 and have watched it really plummet. When Andrew and River bought their building, it was a real hell hole. And I've watched one other furniture business that I dealt with which was Ellsworth Street move out to the Northeast precisely because the neighborhood was insupportable. To tell you the truth, my wife and I have also thought about moving. But to see somebody young with vision come in and literally single-handed clean up a neighborhood and keep it clean merely by vigilance, by attention, by calling the sanitation police, by prohibiting dog-fighting in the street, by stopping prostitution each morning literally by coming out on the street and saying, "Please stop this. I live here. I don't want you conducting your drug business or your prostitution on my street." That's precisely what Philadelphia needs: Young people with vision, with vigor. I'm wholeheartedly approving of this 41 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020669 ordinance to transfer the property to them. As a taxpayer and voter, I'd love to have people come in and I'd love to support them in doing this. Thank you.
And that will keep you in the City, will it not?
Yes. Actually, I moved to Philadelphia because I came to Drexel for graduate school and I never intended to live here. But I've grown to love the City, and I've bought and renovated my own house and I'd like to see other people do it. As a constituent of yours, Councilwoman Verna, I'm happy to be here, but I need help and I need people like Andrew and River to help me do that.
He's done a marvelous job; he really has. Thank you.
Good morning. My name is Claudia Sheron (ph), the President of the Point Breeze Development Coalition and the Executive Director of South Philadelphia Homes. I come here to support the new venture, and I pray that we get 42 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020686 ventures like River and Andrew because they've done an excellent job in the 2200 block of Alter Street. And we'd like to, you know, direct more people to come down into Point Breeze.
Claudia, I want to publically thank you for working so hard trying to help us form this NTI Program in Point Breeze. You've given us an awful lot of your time, effort, and energy, and I want you to know how much we appreciate it.
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill 020686, which is an ordinance 19 approving the redevelopment proposal of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the Brewerytown Urban Renewal Area being the area generally bounded by Oxford Street on the north, 30th Street on the east, Girard Avenue on the south, 33rd Street on the west and the Amtrak Railroad right-of-way on the 43 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020686 northwest; approving the Urban Renewal Plan and determining that such plan and redevelopment proposal conform to the general locality plan and make adequate provisions for individuals, business concerns and families who are displaced; determining the necessity for changes in and for zoning, streets, alleys, public ways, street patterns, location and relocation of public utilities; determining that the Urban Renewal Plan and Development Proposal meet all non-discrimination requirements of Federal, State, and local laws and the regulations and policies promulgated with respect thereto; declaring that certain expressly designated and provided for condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project; and declaring the redevelopment undertakings in the Project to be an important part of the City's program to remove and prevent the spread of urban blight. Please identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Chairperson, Members of the Committee, my name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 020686, which would approve the 44 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020686 Redevelopment Proposal of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the Brewerytown Urban Renewal Area. A total properties, 12 vacant lots 6 and 5 vacant structures, Brewerytown Urban Renewal 7 Area. Westrum Development Company has expressed an 8 interest in acquiring these properties from 9 Redevelopment Authority for potential residential 10 and commercial redevelopment. 11 This amendment, which would result in 12 the enhancement of the community, was approved by 13 the Planning Commission at their meeting of October 14 15, 2002. 15 Mr. Chairperson and Members of the 16 Committee, I respectfully request favorable 17 consideration of Bill No. 020686 and would ask the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on December 12, 2002.
Thank you for your testimony. Please identify yourself.
Good morning. I'm Richard Redding representing the Planning Commission, testifying on Bill 020686, involving the 45 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020686 Redevelopment Proposal for Brewerytown Urban Renewal Area. The Planning Commission did approve this at the October meeting. And prior to that, the Planning Commission prepared a blight certification study and amendments of the Redevelopment Area Plan to facilitate this action. I'm here to answer any questions if you need me. Thank you.
Thank you much very for your testimony. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Anyone else to testify on the bill? Please come forward.
Good morning, Mr. Chairperson, Members of the Committee. My name is Robert Rosenthal. I'm the Vice President and Director of Land Acquisition for Westrum Development Company. I'm here today to speak on behalf of Ordinance 020686. Westrum Development Company is a privately-held real estate development company 46 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020686 specializing in market-rate housing. Specifically, our focus going into the new millennium is to build market-rate houses in the City of Philadelphia. We have made quite an investment in the Brewerytown area that this ordinance is subject to and have acquired many properties at arms-length transaction, and the properties that are subject to this ordinance were ones that we were unable to purchase through an arms-length transaction. We, therefore, respectfully request that this ordinance be passed in order to obtain these properties, which are integral in creating the development and redevelopment of this area into up to 600 to 800 market-rate houses.
I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I was slightly distracted, so I missed 47 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020686 the tail-end of the gentleman's -- either his testimony or response to a question. Could you say what you said again, please?
I said that we've made many acquisitions in this area, and the 7 properties are integral for us in order to develop 8 additional houses, which could be as many as 600 to 9 800, not necessarily on these 17 properties, but in 10 relationship to the entire properties that we're 11 looking at. 12
Okay. Build as many 13 as you'd like. I was just trying to understand how 14 -- 15
Because that would be a very tall building. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rosenthal, good morning. Could you clarify the specifics of the types the property? I think that may be one of the reasons. When you talk 48 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020686 about 800 properties traditionally, you're thinking about several acres. Can you talk about the specifics whereas some of the properties may be multiple-family units, properties like that; not to talk about the specific locations, but just the type of houses so people have a better sense of what you're talking about.
The type of housing that we would like to build is townhouses and the conversion of existing warehouse buildings into condominiums for units. So the property is vast, as you can see, and there would be a mix of uses based on the character of the neighborhood and the existing neighborhood that exists to blend it in with the residents that live there. We're not looking to build a high-rise. It's close to 12 to 14 acres that we've obtained site control of.
Just one question generally. I know you've had successful projects both in Councilmember Nutter's district and Councilmember O'Neill's district. And it's likely you will be able to obtain these 17 properties, but 49 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020686 would you be doing this -- obviously you've been doing the acquisition privately. Without the 4 properties, you would still be doing this kind of 5 development or planning to do this kind of 6 development? 7
Well, we believe in 8 order to develop in the City as we did in Councilman 9 Nutter's district as well as Councilman O'Neill's 10 that we need a large number. In both of those 11 districts, it amounted to 72 houses and they were 12 single family. 13 In Council President Verna's district, 14 we'll be redeveloping the Kapart (ph) housing site 15 into 220 homes. 16 In this neighborhood, we believe we need 17 large-scale housing to change the flair of the neighborhood to bring market rate to the area. And in order to do that, these 17 properties, although if you were to take them one each you couldn't put the number of houses, but they're puzzle in order to --
I couldn't give you an 50 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 answer to that question.
Just curiosity. Any other questions for this witness? (No response.)
Thank you. Bill No. 020668, which is an ordinance 15 approving the 13th Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the South Central Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at the intersection of the southerly side of Washington Avenue projected and the easterly side of Delaware Avenue, including the 13th Amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan and the 12th Amendment to the Relocation Plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately properties for 24 residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law; a 51 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 change of the land use and related controls for the north side of Washington Avenue between South Chadwick Street and South 19th Street from residential and related to commercial and related uses and declaring the condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project. Please identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, my name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 020668, which would approve the 13th Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the South Central Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire properties to 18 support key NTI goals, eliminating blight, promoted 19 market-rate residential development and changing 20 land use to reflect existing conditions. 21 A total of four properties, two vacant 22 lots, one vacant building and one occupied building, 23 would be acquired for residential development by 24 Universal Community Homes in construction with SOSNA. The properties, which are located near South 52 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 17th Street and Carpenter Street, are integral to their plan to construct new ownership units for 4 sale to low and moderate-income families. 5 Three properties, all vacant lots 6 located at 2310-2314 Grays Ferry Avenue, would be 7 acquired for redevelopment as affordable senior 8 housing by ODUNDE. 9 Three properties, vacant lots, located 10 at 759 and 761 South 20th Street and 1907 Fitzwater 11 Street, would be acquired and redeveloped as open 12 space for adjacent property owners. 13 Fourteen properties would be acquired 14 for redevelopment as market-rate housing under a 15 plan developed by Universal Community Homes and 16 Fannie Mae for the Southwest Center City area. 17 Finally, the amendment would also revise 18 the proposed land use along the north side of 19 Washington Avenue between South Chadwick Street and 20 South 19th Street from Residential and Related" to 21 "Commercial and Related" to reflect existing 22 conditions. 23 Mr. Chairperson and Members of the 24 Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 020668 and would ask the 53 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on Thursday, December 12, 2002.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I would like to state that my office will work closely with the RDA and the community to ensure that no takings will occur on properties where there are live development plans. We do understand that very clearly?
Any other questions for Mr. Wetzel? Did you understand? You looked puzzled.
No, I'm not puzzled. I think I understand the Councilwoman. It was similar to her previous question. If there's a live party who has a acquired a property or has a property that's wiling to rehabilitate that property --
Right, or in the process of 54 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 doing so, we might enter into a rehabilitation agreement to ensure that and withhold the eminent domain aspect of it pending their completion of the property. Am I correct in that?
Not to be too specific, but you said "we might." I think she said you will.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Martello is in the back. He owns a property in the area.
He's on the list to speak? Okay. He wanted to make sure that he's part of that rehabilitation agreement as well.
Any and all properties that are on the list, we will follow that procedure.
The experience, Councilman DiCicco, and his office worked with us in the Martin 55 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 Luther King taking, and I think we ended up with about properties being re-vested and 4 rehabilitated as a result of that. But I think the 5 good news is if the owner does really do it, there's 6 not an issue. But if the owner doesn't make the 7 repairs or doesn't rehabilitate it, we still have 8 that in our pocket. And if you so said move 9 forward, we could move forward. 10
Since this 11 list had been prepared, it's my understanding that 12 some of these properties may be in the process of 13 being sold. So we would certainly want that sale to go forward. Why would we take the property?
I think I received a fax from SOSNA that had a list of properties. Some of those were under active agreements of sale. I think the issue is whether or not they're included in the Declaration of Taking. And they do not have to be included in that if your office so requests that they not be included in that. I think what it does give us, though, is the hammer if somebody doesn't fix up their property, we can go back and use this power.
That's 56 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 entirely different. But I believe that if there's an opportunity for the properties to be sold at a far more market value than we would be taking it for, I think the City benefits.
Absolutely. And we will continue to work with your office as this moves forward.
And we will only file a Declaration of Taking on those properties that your office supports.
Thank you very much. Any other questions for Mr. Wetzel?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just two quick questions. One, in the part of your testimony where you make reference to Fannie Mae, can you tell me a little bit about that proposal? I'm intrigued by the Fannie Mae component of this. What exactly are they doing?
Fannie Mae has created a 57 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 number of partnerships around the United States in different cities. There's one I'm familiar with in Washington, D.C, around Howard University where they've partnered with a local non-profit to essentially redevelop an area. Essentially, Fannie Mae has chosen to partner with Universal Community Homes and bring whatever resources -- and I think that's in the process of being defined right now -- that Fannie Mae can to assist Universal in redeveloping that particular community.
I think part of it is financial. I think what Fannie Mae is in a position to do is to bring special mortgage products, for example, to bring some kind of maybe unique home improvement loans, to able to maybe lend more than the fair market value in a purchase rehab loan situation. But I think they're in the process of working through the variety of issues in terms of this relationship. But as you know, Fannie Mae is a huge corporation and has a lot of resources. And I know we're pressing them to do the maximum amount that they can do. But I think it's in the process 58 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 of negotiation right now. But they have been -- let me be clear about that. They have selected Universal as a partner and are actively working with them as a partner.
Are you aware as to whether or not there is any opportunity for other development entities to participate with Fannie Mae or in that same fashion or is it a situation where there's an exclusive designation?
Obviously, I cannot speak for Fannie, but I think what they want to do is engage in a specific relationship in a target area. Maybe after they've had success, look elsewhere. But I think what they want to do is concentrate their resources in one area.
Last question for the moment, and I know there will be other opportunities for questions, but the thought just occurs to me, I see the maps on the big boards over there continue to change. Mr. Brown is doing an excellent job keeping us informed as to what's going on. Are those available in a smaller scale, user-friendly size that we might actually be able to see each of the individual proposals as well as a 59 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 city-wide map?
Yes, we can do that. We will reproduce those for the Members of the Committee.
Okay. Just give it to the Chair and then everyone can get a copy.
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself and proceed.
Hello again, Mr. Chairman, Madam President, and Members of the Committee. I'm Richard Redding representing the Planning Commission testifying on Bill 020668. This involves the Redevelopment Proposal for South Central Urban Renewal Area, proposing acquisitions and proposing a change in land use along a portion of the Washington Avenue corridor. The Planning Commission approved it at its October meeting. And I can answer questions, if you'd like. Thank you.
Any questions for this witness? 60 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 (No response.)
Thank you very much. Ms. Fernandez, are you going to testify? I saw you moving towards the front.
Good morning. I'm Lois Fernandez, President of ODUNDE. ODUNDE has been around for 27 years. We're South Philadelphia all the way. Like Councilwoman Anna Verna who's been there lifelong, her father and my mother were politicians together. Jim Kenney, other politicians who lived lifelong South Philadelphia. That's the way we feel about South Philadelphia with ODUNDE, that we're there, we will be there. We come here today to ask for the Council's support in the bill for the acquisition of 2310, 12, 14 Grays Ferry Avenue. We want to fulfill a dream, a dream of building a congregate housing. We've bumped it down from assisted to congregate housing for senior citizens there in Grays Ferry right off of 23rd and South Street. The number of senior citizens in our area, like across this country, is growing. Our area has been undergoing gentrification for the past 40 years. Many of our elders can no longer afford 61 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 to stay in there. This Council has had people come in front of you talking about their taxes, and as Councilwoman Verna who has been supportive of us throughout our 27 years can attest to, we in South Central have fought that fight. What we got slapped with about years ago was a six-year equalization 8 plan. It's been a long, hard struggle there in 9 South Central with us, which we still call South 10 Philly. 11 I'm just asking you all to give this to 12 ODUNDE because we deserve it. We have paid our dues 13 there. We have given to this City a cultural 14 organization that is known not just across this 15 country, but throughout the world. ODUNDE wants to 16 move on to a higher ground by building this complex 17 for senior citizens called the Oshune Village (ph). 18 We intend for that to be such an attraction that it 19 will be a tourist attraction also for what we intend 20 to build there. We are not being emotional about it, but we know what our plans are. It will represent, truly, Philadelphia, what we plan to build there. At this time, our plans, which are subject to change, are 14 or 16 units for senior 62 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 housing on those three lots. We own the lot next to it, 2308, which we acquired in 1998. We got that right in the nick of time because, as most of you know, the property in our area has blown out of the roof. For properties across the street from where I live and Fitzwater Street to go 350,000 is criminal because our young people like my children cannot afford to buy in their own neighborhood. This is nothing new. I know, Jim, you can attest to that, those who live in Penns Port, Queens Village, they can attest to that. Young people cannot buy property. What we're saying is, we want to provide for those seniors to remain in our area who have been there. That part of South Philly is their life. Again, we ask you to support this bill, to extend to ODUNDE and to give us control of 2310, 12, 14 Grays Ferry Avenue.
Thank you very much. Any questions for Ms. Fernandez? (No response.)
Thank you very much 63 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 for your testimony. Would you like to identify yourself, please?
Good morning I'm Alan Mandel, I'm the Treasurer and Zoning Chair for SOSNA, South of South Neighborhood Association. SOSNA supports the efforts of ODUNDE to acquire properties at 2310, 12, and Grays Ferry Avenue. 10 One of the purposes of this acquisition is 11 affordable housing for seniors, and we believe that 12 this is one of the most important needs in our area. 13 Rents, sale prices, and real estate taxes have risen 14 at an alarming rate in the area, and senior citizens are one of the most vulnerable groups in the area. We are certain that when this senior citizen complex opens, there will be a long waiting list of applicants because the number of moderately priced rental units in the area has dwindled very quickly. In addition, we've also been talking to ODUNDE about a commercial anchor on the first floor of that senior citizen complex. And we've talked a little bit about doing a museum which would be named after W.E.B. Du Bois, who was a resident of our 64 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 neighborhood a hundred years ago. He was one of the first modern sociologists, and his book The Philadelphia Negro from a hundred years ago is still required reading in many sociology courses. We think that a Du Bois Museum for history and tourism on the first floor of this complex would do a great deal to strengthen and re-invigorate the 23rd and South Street Business District. Council President Verna was very instrumental in terms of the acquisition of the Royal Theater to help the business district on the eastern end of South Street. And we've got a weak business district on the western end as well, and we think a museum for history and tourism would be an improvement. And many of the empty stores there might be filled. Our neighborhood of South of South Street boasts a rich historical legacy from the Naval Home, which served as the first US Naval Academy before Annapolis, to key sites in African American history to architectural landmarks from a century ago. Our neighborhood can make a significant contribution to the tourist industry in Philadelphia. Unfortunately, the neighborhood South 65 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 of South Street has frequently been omitted from many tourist maps in Philadelphia, and we hope to correct that oversight. We hope that ODUNDE's museum and exhibit space on the first floor would present exhibits on key personalities from our area, such as Du Bois and also Marian Andersen, and we hope to showcase the cultural legacy of our area with an exhibit on South Street, which for many decades was the heart of the African American community in terms of commerce, culture, music, and entertainment. So please support this bill.
I want to thank you for your support through the years, too, Councilman Kenney.
ODUNDE has been in close 66 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 contact with Universal Company. Universal Company has offered their support on this because this is a project that we need support on and we need expertise on. We've also got support from Congressman Chaka Fattah who said that he will go into the federal funding next year for ODUNDE. We do not have hard numbers now, so we certainly cannot ask Chaka for X amount of money because we're not certain how much the project will cost us. But we have talked with Dwight Evans, our own State Representative Howard James, and of course we have the support of our Council President Anna Verna from the very beginning. So we just, again, would like to say to Council that we are getting ready for this project and we look for your full support and for the passing of the acquisition and control of these properties.
Thank you again. Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there others to testify on this bill? Please come forward. Good morning. 67 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668
Good morning Chairperson, Council President Verna and Members of the City Council. My name is Eve Lewis. I am the NAC Director of the South of South Neighborhood Association. SOSNA is the NAC or Neighborhood Advisory Committee for the Census Tracts 13, and 8 19 within the South Central Urban Renewal Area. We 9 have a contract with OHCD to provide NAC services in 10 our service area. 11 Generally speaking, SOSNA supports 12 condemnation as a means of eliminating blight only 13 where a public purpose is being served and only 14 where there does not exist a living owner with current plans to develop a property. The prospect of condemnation can be helpful in spurring owners to accelerate their plans of development. With respect to 2310, 2312, and 2314 Grays Ferry Avenue, we support the efforts of ODUNDE to acquire these properties with a goal of developing affordable senior citizen housing with a possible W.E. DuBois Museum for history and tourism on the first floor. We believe that this development will help to anchor and reinforce the business district around 23rd and South Streets and 68 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 provide quality affordable housing at the same time. With respect to 1702 and 1704 Carpenter Street and 1037 South 17th Street, we support condemnation for the 17th Street homeowner development, but we ask that 1000 South 17th Street be removed from the condemnation list because the property owner's daughters live upstairs above the closed bar. With respect to 705, 707 and 709 South 15th Street, this ground is currently a beautiful garden. SOSNA is working with Council President Verna's office to save gardens and open space in our neighborhood, and we oppose condemnation of these properties until the Gardens and Open Space Task Force has examined the matter. With respect to 1907 Fitzwater Street and 759 and 761 South 20th Street, we understand that the RDA has purchasers for this ground. With respect to all other properties, we support condemnation and acquisition by Universal Community Homes only if there is no living owner with current plans for development. Thank you so much.
Thank you very much 69 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 for your testimony. Sir, would you like to testify?
Yes. I'm Phillip Mara, I'm the owner of 1630 and 1632 Bainbridge Street. These two lots adjoin my property. My taxes are paid on time.
My properties are under agreement, and these are the plans. The developer had to leave early. The neighborhood Zoning Committee has approved the plan, and the developer is awaiting the zoning application to be approved.
Yes. The properties are under agreement, and I'm requesting that the threat of condemnation and removal be taken away.
And they're going to be restored that way? 70 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668
I would assume that the same direction would be to work with your office to determine --
Good morning. My name is Eugene Mackey Guy. I recently acquired 1732-34 South 15th Street, which runs from 15th Street to Hicks Street. It is my understanding that 731, 733, and 735, I'm not sure which of those properties are actually mine, but there are no physical properties on 731 or 733 Hicks Street. That is a part of my property, 732-34 South 15th. I have plans to demolish the present structure and build a house for myself, and Hicks Street put a two-car garage. 71 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 Additionally, I recently acquired 1509 South Christian Street, which I intend to rehab for my daughter. She will have the first floor. That, too, is a property that runs for two street fronts. I think it's Christian and, I'm not sure, Watts Street. Whatever that first small street is. It is zoned for five apartments. It is my intent to renovate the first floor for my daughter and put two dwelling units above that to help her sustain the property. So I respectfully request that those two properties be taken off of the list. And more particularly, I don't know how to define Hicks Street, but that is also a part of my property.
It's 731, 733 and 735, which are listed in the bill. I'm not certain which of those three properties, but two of them actually are a part of my property.
There's no such address as 731-33 Hicks. 72 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a point of information. I probably need to ask Mr. Wetzel, given some of the testimony that we've just had. Mr. Wetzel, a couple issues have been raised. And the Councilmembers involved are obviously actively involved and I think, actually, most of them are here. I just have a procedural question which is: Properties appear to be listed, at least in the materials that we have, by specific address, which in the whole scheme of things, compared to some previous discussion that we've had, that is obviously a positive component here. The question is: In the approval of any of these various bills for redevelopment areas, and now we're hearing requests that some of the properties be removed, would that need to be done in the course of this hearing or are we approving specific property addresses or are you telling us what addresses the Authority may go after subsequent to the broad and 73 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 general approval that any of these either redevelopment areas or urban renewal areas, should they be approved? Tell us a little bit about the process here.
The process starts -- if we make the assumption there's an existing Urban Renewal Area, the process starts where the Redevelopment Authority's Board essentially adopts a Redevelopment Proposal, and that's why you'll see "the 13th amended proposal, the 14th amended proposal" because each time we take a series of properties, the Redevelopment Authority's Board must approve a redevelopment proposal. It then must go before the City Planning Commission because the Planning Commission is the entity that creates both the redevelopment area and the redevelopment area plan. They want to measure that proposal in the context of the plan that was adopted by the Planning Commission. Only then does it come over in the form of an ordinance. But state statutes require that we list every address that we would propose to take under that redevelopment proposal. So you cannot give us blanket power nor could we ask for blanket power to take properties in any urban renewal area. 74 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 Each time there's a taking, it must be address specific. And therefore, we're only granted to use our eminent domain powers on those specific addresses within that specific urban renewal area.
Well, I understand that, and thank you for the explanation. What I'm trying to get to, though, is you have provided and you are in accordance with the statute address-specific legislation. My question is -- I'm not getting into any of the specifics of anyone who's come to table because they'll deal with their district councilperson. But the question arises, a person has come to the table and said, "There's something going on here;" for instance, and then the Council President said earlier that we're not moving on any property that has development, that's a live activity. There's another man with an agreement of sale. Whatever the issue is. What I'm trying to understand is, by way of approving these bills, how does a person get out of or off of the list since you have to provide us with a list that's specific by address? You can't take the property unless it's on the list. I'm now trying to understand how do you get off the list. Is it in the course of this 75 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 hearing? Is it subsequent in a conversation or negotiation? I just want to understand the particulars.
Maybe you ought to explain the three-step process. I think that would help.
Yes. And I can direct you to what happened in the Martin Luther King area where properties were re-vested under re-vestment 11 agreements to the owners who agreed to rehabilitate 12 the properties. And as a result of that 13 rehabilitation, no condemnation activity would take place on the property. And essentially, there's two options. One is, we can enter into rehabilitation agreement or a construction agreement that says, you're saying you're going to build two new homes on these two lots. If you do that, then we will take no action. Or we could proceed and condemn the properties and revest title under an agreement that requires you to do what you say you're going to, issue your Certificate of Completion of Work and we're out of it. So the point is, you're authorizing us 76 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 to take action, but generally, we're going to be working with the district councilperson on a case-by-case basis, entering into rehab agreements or re-vesting title. And I think this comes about where you have dynamic real estate markets. I think we undertook the Martin Luther King condemnation before the Towers came down. Shortly after the Towers came down, people were coming out of the woodwork who had owned properties for, Councilman, I think some of them like 10 years or 12 years, were speculating on vacant structures in that area. And as soon as the Towers came down, the market shifted so dramatically, they were saying, you know, "I want the opportunity to fix this house up and sell it." And in 13 cases in the MLK taking, we re-vested title to owners who rehabilitated their properties.
Not on a Monday anyway. (Laughter.) 77 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668
You said earlier something to the effect that generally you'll be working with the district councilperson. What does "generally" mean?
It means more than generally. We have to come back to continue to do land assembly, and it would be rather foolish on our part to alienate any district councilperson and expect to come back and see support from that councilperson. The objective here is to eliminate blight. It can be done in the private market, we would be foolish to spend our resources to acquire properties that would then turn around and be sold to another private party. If the owners of properties are willing to step forward and rehabilitate or construct with private resources, then we should back off. We should support that and back off from that. But in many cases, this spurs people to fix up their properties and puts that little extra bit of pressure on people to do something about it. But I agree that if the private sector is willing to move on real estate, then we should 78 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 not spend our valuable and scarce resources acquiring it. But we should use our powers to nudge and push people along to do what they say they're going to do.
I think the question was asked why can we not simply delete the addresses from this. I don't think you've quite answered that. And I'm asking the question because I think I know the answer.
The answer is we'd have to start the process over again for the ordinance.
Yes, state statutes prevent us -- once our Board adopts the proposal, the Planning Commission approves and it comes over here. The only way to change it is to go back to the beginning of the process. And that would be starting all over again. You can't just take one or two out. You've got to do a whole new proposal.
What happens in the event -- with all the shoulds and it doesn't make sense to do so-and-so, but let's say we disagree as to how it plays out. Who has the final word, if we enact this day?
If you enact an ordinance, the Redevelopment Authority's Board, in essence, would have the final word.
But understand that there's two acts of Council involved in --
Excuse me. I'm sorry. I hate to interrupt, but there's a sign in the door as we come in that all cell phone and beepers would either be put on vibrate or be turned off. It really is distracting when people are testifying and asking questions and things are constantly going off. Most pagers and cell phones, I do believe, have vibrate capabilities. So I would ask anyone who has one on to either vibrate it or 80 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 turn it off. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. Councilman Cohen.
The ordinance would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to proceed to take any or all the properties that are listed in the ordinance. There's another aspect of this. The Redevelopment Authority in order to dispose of those properties still has to come back to City Council. But that doesn't prevent -- what you're suggesting is that the Board could act even if it didn't care whether or not it was going to dispose of the property.
Well, it's been known the different bureaucrats, including Members of City Council, in good faith will arrive at different conclusions. We may see the request of the last witness as being reasonable, and the Redevelopment Board may come to a different conclusion. Based upon the facts that you gave us, maybe he left the property for a number of years undeveloped. Now he sees it's worth doing. He wants to do it. You say 81 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 it's too late. And say we're all acting in good faith. Are you saying that the State has taken away the power of City Council to make the final decision?
No. What I'm suggesting is that to alter the ordinance that's in front of you now would be to, essentially, start the process over again, which means our Board would have to approve a redevelopment proposal minus the properties you wanted to remove, would have to go to the Planning Commission. It would have to come back as a new ordinance.
No. The advertising requirements alone under the statutes -- for example, for this hearing, we had to advertise three times, the last ad 10 days before this hearing. So the advertising requirements alone are a little over a month. Our Board would have to act. The Planning Commission meets once a month, so you'd have to get to the Planning Commission at a meeting, and then do the advertising requirements. So this would probably come back here sometime in February or 82 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 March if we had to redo it. I would only suggest this, and there are no guarantees when it comes to trust, but unless he says otherwise, I think, Councilman DiCicco, every one of those requests for re-vestments were honored. Am I correct in that? I mean, we share a common objective here, and that is to manage the scarce resources. And if owners are going to come forward and fix them up, we've been willing to do that and I think we did that times in the Martin Luther King taking. And 13 that's essentially what we would do. But you're right, it's not a guarantee.
Seems to me maybe there could be a case where the properties that are being taken are going to be affected as to their development by the passage of two or three months. Three or four months, it would seem to me, to preserve the power of Council, it might well be worthwhile waiting for those three months. And I'm asking for your response to that.
I think it's a matter of choice. And that is, if you want to wait the time period to do this, the problem is you could come 83 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 back here with a revised ordinance and then there could be two other property owners who've made a decision to come forward, and this process, you know, could be recycled over and over again. But I think what we've done is established a process whereby the District Councilperson -- if somebody calls us up and says they want to re-vest, they want to rehabilitate the property, we have generally called the District Councilperson up and said, "Here is this individual, we want them to talk with you," and then you tell us whether it makes sense to re-vest title to this property. And in every case where -- in the Martin Luther King taking, which is the most recent taking in what became a dramatic real estate market, in every case where the District Councilperson, Councilman DiCicco, said to the Redevelopment Authority, "Re-vest title," we re-vested title. And I'm going to be real honest with you about it. We would be foolish to not be cooperative with District Councilpersons because our ability to assemble land is dependent upon your approval of ordinances like this. It doesn't make any sense.
But there's seven 84 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 Council-at-Large members. We believe we have certain rights. We believe our views -- and my good friend Councilman DiCicco and I have sparred on occasion with respect to properties in his district, and I find him cooperative. But nonetheless, as a Councilman-at-Large, I find it troublesome when people say we're just going to let the District Councilman decide it, because there could be occasions when the District Councilman and a Councilman-at-Large may have different opinions. They will, within the process of City Council, work out their differences. But yet, it ought to be Council, I believe, that makes that decision and not the Redevelopment Authority. You're saying to me that the only one you're interested in is 1 of 17 Members of City Council. And generally speaking, that's not the way the Council operates. We try to preserve the rights of the District Councilmember. I want to make clear, all of us Councilmembers-at-Large and other District Councilmembers respect highly the judgement of the District Councilmember where the properties are located. But at certain occasions, I guess I may have clashed, temporarily at least, with a 85 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 number of District Councilmembers. I don't want to re-invoke the memory, but Councilman Nutter, my dear friend and colleague, but we've been in court on opposite sides on matters within his property because he saw something as a local problem, I saw it as an overall problem. And both of us, I believe, acted in good faith. But we finally resolved that matter within the protocols of City Council. I would not like to have seen that issue decided by people outside of City Council saying they favor either the District Councilmember or City Councilman-at-Large. So I think it would be best if we can work out some process that both save the time, if that were possible, and also preserve Council's rights. If you could research it and tell us what can be done to do that, I think you'd be moving everything forward quickly.
I can actually answer that now. And that is that if you want to remove any property from any of these ordinances, we must start the process over again. And the problem that that creates is we can do that, and then someone else comes forward three or four months from now on one address in a taking, and then we would have to go 86 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 back and start it over again.
Well, if the Councilmember learned about that, the Councilmember might have a different view than the Redevelopment Authority would have as to the second request or if a good faith request ought to be honored. I don't believe the Redevelopment Authority ought to be the body that makes that decision on the second claimant without that claimant having an opportunity to come before City Council and having a decision made by this body. I guess that's what the issue is, who has the ultimate power. And it's -- and here are two bureaucrats, you and me, arguing as to whether it ought to be your body or our body. And I think that since you have to come to us for approval in general, I think we ought to have the final say and citizens ought to be able to come to the City Council, if necessary, to have their case accorded full justice. It might be we would agree with your decision, or we might not. We ought to have the responsibility for making that decision. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam President.
Mr. Chairman, let 87 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 the record reflect based on the comments that Councilman Cohen made with regard to times that we've clashed, the record should note that every time I've been up against Councilman Cohen, I have lost. (Laughter.)
I just want to advise other Councilmembers as to what the likelihood of success is going forward. Thank you. (Laughter.)
Thank you very much. Any other questions for Mr. Wetzel? Mr. Martello, please identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Wetzel, I just want to remark that none of my statements indicated anything but satisfaction with the way generally that you performed in the Redevelopment Office. You've brought in a whole new tone and I found you to be very cooperative and I think that's the 88 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 feeling of all the Members of the Council, even though we have this stark difference of opinion.
My name is Anthony Martello. I'm here mainly due to the fact that I received a phone call from someone notifying me that my property was one of the properties on this list. I received no notice from anyone. I never saw any of these ads. And if it wasn't for that phone call, this thing may have happened and I wouldn't have been aware of it. I've owned this property for years. 14 I pay the taxes every year on it. The rental 15 license has been paid every year. It's a four-unit 16 building. I had some trouble with this building at 17 the end of last year where some drug activity was 18 going on in there. I evicted the people through the 19 legal process; it took me three months to get them 20 out. I immediately cleaned the building out, 21 boarded it up. They broke in again. I took over possession again, fixed the entire building. This building needs minimal, minimal work to rent these four units. Instead of renting it, I said, "Let me try to sell it." I've had it up 89 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 for sale for the last couple of months. And now I decided to rent it. Basically, it's only been vacant for about seven or eight months. I'm just curious how this ever got on this list and why I didn't receive any notice. I get the tax bill from the City, so it's not too hard to find me. I just wanted to express my concern. I'm probably not the only one who doesn't know that their properties are on this list.
Did you happen to be reassessed this go-around, or no?
No. 15 And also, I'd like to add the fact that I think everyone in the room knows this is a very desirable area right now. And if you listed these properties for sale, they'd probably all sell immediately. You'd have a line of people trying to buy them. So I don't understand the whole system. I wanted to say that.
Mr. Wetzel, would it be possible for you to come back and explain, if you're following Mr. Martello's line of testimony and question, I guess, within that testimony as to 90 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 what the City could do, what the Redevelopment Authority or the City could do to better notify residents as to their intentions.
Under the statutes, we're required to run three advertisements prior to the public hearing. And essentially, we have no power at all to exercise our eminent domain until an ordinance is passed. And therefore, we really can't notice anybody because we have no authority to do anything.
Right. The reason for the public advertising -- and listen, I understand not everybody reads the newspapers, but we obviously have to advertise in general circulation. We advertise in the Legal Intelligencer in case there are attorneys handling estates and things that see these addresses pop up. But technically, we have no 21 power whatsoever to act until the ordinance is passed. And then on that basis, we can notify an individual. Again, you're not telling us to condemn, you're only authorizing us to condemn. And until our Board acts, we have not used eminent 91 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 domain power. So it is the public ad and the public hearings that are essentially the public process under the State statutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But in that regard, Mr. Wetzel -- and I actually do my best to read the paper every day. I don't necessarily -- I've never really found the legal notice section either that interesting or that funny. I'm kind of a general news and a little bit of comics, a little bit of sports person myself. I don't think anyone's questioning whether you placed the ads, whether you took all the legal steps required. But I think it still does beg the question, I mean, if you can put a notice in the newspaper -- I'm assuming that's Daily News, Inquirer, Legal Intelligencier. I mean, you're talking about papers that cover -- Daily News is what, 150,000; the Inquirer is maybe 200,000; Intelligencier, I have no idea. But I mean, close to 4 or 500,000 could possibly see this. In that context, you're saying you can't send some kind of general letter, notice, copy of the ad to a person 92 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 who might actually be directly affected just in case they didn't happen to get a Daily News, an Inquirer, or an Intelligencier that particular day?
Councilman, I'm going to go back and -- to my knowledge, we cannot. I'm going to go back and have this reviewed by our general counsel.
How can you legally authorize to put an ad in a paper of general circulation, which I'm sure is the requirement, but you can't tell the individual whose address happens to be listed in the same notice? I mean, that's bizarre.
And I'm going to have that research done. But my sense of this is, the issue is over essentially de facto condemnation activity. And if we send a specific notice -- we're advertising an ordination. We're not advertising a condemnation.
Well, I understand that. But you're also required to send us at some point, at least leading up to the hearing, address-specific application. The ad is not address specific. 93 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668
There just can't be a difference between your ability to put an ad in a newspaper with someone's address in it and not be able to send them some general notice saying, "By the way, you might want to read the paper tomorrow because your address is going to be in the newspaper. We're not sure what it's about, we're not sure what we're going to do, but you might want to cough up 60 cents and check it out." I mean, come on.
I mean, you can't notify 500,000 people in the general region but not tell the person whose house might be affected. Because the other 499,000 probably don't care about it. All right. Thank you.
Obviously, as a 94 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 result of this discussion, we're going to attempt to figure out a better way. It doesn't solve your problem. I mean, obviously, you know about it now and we'll take whatever action is necessary with Council President's office to eliminate that address from the list, but we thank you for bringing it to our attention so we hopefully get some mechanism in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask Mr. Wetzel one question. I recall a particular development in my district, the West Poplar development, you were Deputy Director then at the time at the Redevelopment Authority, or were you the Director?
As I can recall, there was a taking in that particular neighborhood. And somewhere down the line -- and I don't recall exactly how that process happened -- some of the properties that had been targeted for acquisition 95 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 were, in fact, not acquired and residents were allowed to stay. Was that done as a result of a re-vestment or was it just simply the Redevelopment Authority decided to not ultimately take those properties? How did that happen?
I can check that out for you. I don't know the specific answer for that. It could have been either way. It could have been simply that the Councilperson indicated that this particular property and this particular owner should not be a part of the Declaration of Taking, and therefore, we would have never condemned it. It doesn't mean -- we still probably have the power sitting there through an existing ordinance, but we have not acted on that. So I can check that out for you, and we'll get back to you. The answer is we never proceeded to file 19 a Declaration of Taking on those properties.
So you didn't file, but the ordinance originally listed the property as, okay, it was authorized to take but you didn't file 23 a Declaration?
That's correct. In other words, if an ordinance has passed, it could result 96 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 in -- if there were addresses, it could result in 10 different Declarations of Taking if you so wanted it to. Or five on five properties and five that never move forward, for example.
What's the time 7 line, assuming the ordinance passes, that you would 8 ultimately file a Declaration of Taking? 9
For these ordinances -- and 10 we already, obviously, have some addresses that are not going to move forward. It is our intention to file these Declarations of Taking in February.
So there's traditionally a period of two or three months before you proceed with the ultimate --
You got it. And in addition to that, even if we file 18 a Declaration of Taking and there's something that results afterwards, that's where we get into re-vestment of title.
So there's more than enough time if there's an objection from an individual to notify, not only the District Councilperson, but also the At-Large Members so that discussion can be had prior to the ultimate 97 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 notification to take?
Yes. My general statement about satisfaction with the work of Mr. Wetzel remains unabated even though he reminded me of another longstanding irritant that the law, or at least the way the Redevelopment Authority interprets the law, does permit this kind of shake-up. Suddenly where people owned property for a long time, feeling it's their own, even if they've neglected it or we think they've neglected it, and suddenly they find somebody wants to take the property away and Government acts in an arbitrary way, says, "Well, we've published something in the newspaper somewhere, you should have known about it as a homeowner." I think it's really incumbent for us to respect the rights of homeowners, particularly those in neighborhoods, those where the people are relatively low income, don't have access to lawyers, 98 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 don't have access to other rights. And I think we ought to respect them and never take any action against them without being ready to prove that we notified them that an action might be taken against them. And I would like your comments, sir, about that and what would have to be done to make that possible. It's never seemed to me to be satisfactory for a Redevelopment Authority to say, "We met all the legal requirements," even though requirements, as they currently exist under state law, do not require homeowners to be informed. Because I think that State law lacks adequate due process rights. And I don't think we ought to follow in Philadelphia laws which take away rights or threaten the rights of homeowners without giving the homeowners ample time to take action to protect themselves. I think that's what Councilman Nutter was raising in his questions. Is that right Councilman Nutter?
And that's when it 99 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 reminded me. And I think that the laws need overhauling badly if they permit in the City of Philadelphia action against homeowners without the homeowners -- you know, threatening their ownership without the homeowners knowing plenty of time in advance and having the opportunity to take such action as they deem necessary to protect their interests. What is your comment, Mr. Wetzel?
Councilman, as I indicated to Councilman Nutter, I'm going to go back and look at the statutes, not just looking for limitation but also looking for, is there an opportunity that and would it be legal for the Redevelopment Authority to send out a notice of the public hearing to the individual addresses versus the ad itself.
Well, that might not be enough to the individual, unless maybe he went to law school, wouldn't even know what the notice is about. He might look at it and say, "This is not relevant." I mean a letter saying it is the intention or preliminary intention or we may be thinking about -- something general which tells a 100 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 homeowner that his ownership rights may be threatened in one way or another or changed and give that owner a phone number to call or advise him if he wishes to, he may wish to consult with counsel or explain whatever you think his rights are, but let him know that his rights are being threatened. It's the civil equivalent of the Miranda ruling where the Supreme Court is held in criminal matters that people threatened by criminal action have to have certain rights read to them. Seems to me that ought to at least apply in civil discourse between citizens and their government.
And I've agreed, at the request of Councilman Nutter, to come back with a report on what are the options.
Yes. I think what is the broadest range of options that are available within the context of the law, because I think --
-- that's not my question, Mr. Wetzel. 101 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668
I'm not looking at the minimal, I'm looking for the maximum that we could do and still meet the requirements.
Thank you, Councilman Cohen. I don't want to prolong the point, but I would not, also, like, Mr. Wetzel, that my question be taken in the more narrow context, although you want to maximize for the broadest use within the law. If there is the circumstance -- I mean, State law may not provide for this opportunity. So what I'd also like you to do is look at the other side of that question, which is, if there is something that we in this body can or should do if we are not preempted by State law, if at the end of the day it makes sense to have this kind notification, you're not sure within your rules or regulations or if the State law is silent as to whether or not we can make or cause you to provide this kind of notice, then maybe Council should pass an ordinance requiring that kind of notice. And if it doesn't violate state law, if we're not preempted from legislating 102 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 in this particular area, then we should do that. So I think between, certainly, Councilman Cohen and myself, and not speaking for other Members of the Committee who I know also care about these kinds of issues, I think we'd like you to look at it in the broadest possible way, not from just a legal side, but say, "What should we do? What kind of notice should we provide?" Check the State statutes to see whether that's allowable; if not, why not? Or require it by the Code, and then we would take action in that particular area. So I don't want to be limited by what you can do. I want to think as broad as possible. If we can put ads in the newspaper, then how do we notify the person specifically who doesn't necessarily buy that newspaper; and not, "Well, we've done everything according to the statute." That's not the place where I want to end up.
And that I wasn't my response. I think I was looking at the statute as the minimum.
And that if the law is silent on other aspects of it, I think it opens up 103 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 opportunities. So I'd like to come back with a report to you on what those opportunities might be.
Just let me ask one question. Bill 020668, who else is to testify on this bill? I'm going to let the stenographer take a five-minute break. She's been working very hard and we're going to give her a few minutes and we'll come right back. (Brief recess.)
Can I have your attention please? The Committee is now back in session. Please identify yourself for the record.
The property that we are speaking about is 1000 South 17th Street as well as 1702 and 1704 which are lots. The one in particular, 1702 is gated off and has been a part of the property there for a very long time. We also have an adjacent property 926 South 17 Street. My mother has been there operating a business and owning properties for over 50 years. And I'm the youngest of seven. 104 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 Like the gentleman was saying, Mr. Nutter, it's ridiculous that you have to go through political -- you kept evading the question of sending. Just like the gentleman that came, if we didn't get a phone call, we would not have known either. And it's just as simple as sending a letter. What type of procedures need to be gone through for that? Also, I'd like to thank Mr. Nutter, as well as the gentleman on the end, Mr. Cohen for their interest in the people in general. Another thing, the eminent domain list, it kind of was going around the mulberry bush as to when it would be removed, simply removed. He kept stating that there's a process. After you know that somebody owns the property, it's occupied, what else do you need to know to remove it. What he was saying about the ordinance or a code or whatever needs to be done, I support that as well. This is not something that's just a fly-by-night thing because any time you get a letter in the paper stating that the property that you've taken care of over 50 years may be possibly taken, the first thing you want to know is for what reason. The second 105 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 thing you want to know is, do I have to spend money to get lawyer? For what? And you can check the records, the taxes have been paid each and every year for over 50 years. It should never have even been put on the list. And my mother is elderly, and you never how these types of things affect you physically. And nobody will address that because if you go into bad health because of worry, then, oh, well, that's your problem also. So something as simple as a letter would be helpful, and I would suggest and appreciate if Council would take the authority to do that as opposed to leaving the Redevelopment Authority in charge of that.
Well, first of all, I'm glad that you did receive a phone call and you were able to come in here and express your concern and also work with Council President Verna's office on some arrangement to have that property removed from that list or not condemned. Secondly, I think you've heard, from the discussion, from the questions from Councilman Cohen 106 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 and Councilmember Nutter, that the Redevelopment Authority will get back to us with some clear plan as to how they're going to notify people. And I would suspect that if that's not acceptable to the Council, there will be legislation probably forthcoming quickly to make sure that there's a process in place to have that done. And I'm sure that most, if not all, Councilmembers in this body will support that.
I also heard him speak of a process to bring your property up to code. What code? Because if you have not been issued Licenses and Inspections which is the department that handles that, who decides what code needs to be brought up to par?
I think what would happen in the particular situation that exists now, if you would enter into a rehabilitation agreement through the Council President or your District Councilperson's office, then they would tell you what the requirements were to get your property up to speed so that it would be in compliance with City law.
Well, that's what I'm 107 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 asking. If it wasn't up to compliance, wouldn't L&I, Licenses and Inspections, have something to do with issue, or that's irrelevant?
They would be involved, but they probably have not inspected that property for a number of years, or if ever, and, therefore, don't have an open file on it. So there's so many properties in the City and so few inspectors that they probably never get around to doing what they're supposed to do all the time. But I think that once we work our way through this process, at some point there will be some process in place that addresses those questions. But as far as your particular property is concerned right now, the process in place is the District Councilperson with the Redevelopment Authority and attempting to get a agreement to get it pulled out.
As opposed to the property, as opposed to lots that we do also own right behind it?
Same thing applies. So Council President Verna's office will be happy to start that process for you. But in the meantime, 108 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 your overall question, your longer-term question is, how do you keep this from happening in the future for people not be notified? You have to find out about it last minute and be upset over the fact that something may be happening in their properties. So we do hear you. Thank you very much for coming in and for your patience. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill?
Good afternoon. My name is Anthony Iacobone, I've been a resident of Philadelphia for a number of years.
I'm sorry. You have to pull that microphone right directly in front of you. Could you spell your last name for the stenographer?
I've been a resident of the 30th Ward for a number of years, a homeowner for the past two, and I live at 1760 South Harshaw 109 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 Street. The property is in question that I wish to acquire directly behind and adjacent to my home. They are two parcels that the homes on them were demolished and there are no homes on them currently. Since the homes were demolished, they've been a target for short dumping. I've had them cleaned several times. I've cleaned them myself. What I'd like to do now is use the properties -- secure the properties for parking and a garden for myself. When I secure the properties, I'd like to have some green-scape on the outside of the parcels. What my ultimate goal is to sort of counteract the effects of blight on this particular block and to make the block a little bit more attractive and to encourage future development by showing an interest in this particular section of the City.
Thank you very much. Have you been in contact with Council President Verna's office on this process?
Great. I'm sure that will be accomplished. And thanks for taking 110 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020668 the time to come in and testify. Thank you. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? Just as an aside -- excuse me for a second. Mr. Wetzel, I think as an aside, we probably could have saved a lot of time today if there was some process in place to notify and to tell them what their recourse was. I think this is a good example as to concerned people coming in and taking valuable time out of their day. And time here to testify could have probably been avoided if we, in the future, if we have some process like that in place. Thank you. Yes, sir. Please identify yourself.
Could you please spell your first and last name for the stenographer?
The property in question is 707 South 15th Street. I just wanted to know what is the process to get it taken out? 111 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020672
What I would suggest, before you leave today, talk with Kathy Murray here and they will tell you what the process is to get that moving. Thank you. Sorry you had to come on your workday today to do this, but we appreciate it. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now move to 020672, which is an ordinance approving the 1st Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the Parkside National Register Historic District Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Parkside Avenue and Girard Avenue on the north; the Conrail freight railroad right-of-way line running east of and parallel to 38th Street on the east; the railroad right-of-way line of the former Pennsylvania Railroad on the south; and Belmont Avenue on the west, including the 1st Amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan and Relocation Plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land 112 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020672 acquisition of approximately four properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project. Please identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee. My name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 020672, which is the 1st Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the Parkside National Register Historic District Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire four properties, all vacant lots for residential development. The properties will be offered to Parkside Historic Coalition, which has been active in providing affordable housing in the area. This acquisition and its subsequent residential development will support key NTI goals of eliminating blight, assembling land for redevelopment and restoring abandoned properties to the tax roles. 113 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020672 This amendment was approved by the City Planning Commission at its meeting on October 15, 2002. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 020672 and would ask the suspension of Rules of Council to allow first reading on December 12, 2002.
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record.
Hello again. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I'm Richard Redding representing the Planning Commission, testifying on Bill No. 020672, involving the Parkside National Register Historic District Urban Renewal Area. This redevelopment proposal involves a small number of acquisitions for residential and related use. It was approved at our Commission meeting in October. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.) 114 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020672
Seeing none, is there anyone else to testify on this bill?.
Mr. Chairman, I'll be going back to my office for an hour. And in my absence, David Napton, my colleague, will be here. Thank you.
Fine. Thank you. Since there is no one else to testify on the bill, is there any specifics as to what the development is? I understand it's generally residential, but is there a developer?
Actually, the Parkside Historic Coalition, James Brown, who's been responsible for a number of the properties that have been restored on Parkside Avenue is leading this particular coalition. My sense of this in talking to them is that they want to create homeownership opportunities on these four lots.
My sense is that they're interested in creating homeownership on these four lots. And as I mentioned, James brown is active in that particular community and has been involved in the restoration of a number of properties on 115 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020671 Parkside Avenue.
All right. Thank you. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 020671, which is an ordinance 9 approving the 1st Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the Sarah Allen Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by the centerline of Westminster Avenue on the north, the centerline of 40th Street on the east, the centerline of Aspen Street on the south, and the centerlines of Lancaster Avenue and Holly Street on the west, including the 1st Amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan and the Relocation Plan, which provide, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 14 properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law; and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project. Please identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Chairman, Members of 116 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020671 the Committee, my name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 020671, which would approve the 1st Amendment Redevelopment Proposal for the Sarah Allen Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire vacant lots 10 for land banking in order to eliminate blight and 11 support key objectives of NTI, which is make land 12 available for open space and recreation uses. 13 The properties to be acquired are 14 detailed on the accompanying fact sheet. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 020671 and would ask the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on December 12, 2002.
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is David Napton, and I'm here representing the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members. 117 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020671 As you just heard from Mr. Wetzel, Bill 3 020671 is intended to acquire some properties in the vicinity of 41st and Parrish Streets in the Sarah Allen Urban Renewal Area and in the Belmont neighborhood of West Philadelphia. Of these approximately properties, 8 they are intended for residential and related uses, 9 including recreation. And this may be done by the 10 existing Friends Rehab Program, Incorporated, which 11 has done redevelopment in the area. And renovated 12 housing would also be related to that already 13 completed project. 14 The Planning Commission approved this redevelopment proposal you have before you today on October 15, 2002. If you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer them.
Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Anyone else to testify on this bill? Sir, please come forward.
Good afternoon. Thank you, 118 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020671 Mr. Chairman and the guests that are here today. My name is Ken Knight. I have a long-time history of working in the Belmont community as well as the Mantua community. But what I want to talk specifically about is the Belmont community. First of all, in picking up on what was said earlier in reference to RDA and the process of notifying people, that is not a thorough process at all. And along with that, we had an individual right there at Ogden and 41st whose house was packaged. This individual was away for some time. When he came back, he found his house just being developed and he didn't own the house anymore. So I appeal to this body. I think that we need to be proactive. We need to come up with that ordinance. When we come up with all these other ordinances, we should have that ordinance. When we talk about RDA -- and there again, when I think about RDA, my mind goes back to the Convention Center, the Parking Authority, and these other authorities that have now been taken over by the State. And I'm saying that as an honored body here, this Council body, we need to be proactive. We don't need the State to come in and right this wrong. We need to right this wrong. 119 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020671 It's unconscionable to me that RDA cannot just send somebody just a plain old simple letter. And then if the person's not home, go next door. A lot of our people -- and there again, we don't retire and we don't go to Florida, but a lot of us do spend some time away. I myself, I go to the Caribbean when it's cold. I'm just here because of the urgency of this matter. But I'm saying to you that we have to stop this. What RDA is doing in the Belmont -- and there again, I'm going to be talking a little later on the Mantua community. It is really a travesty. No, it's not our 40 acres, but it's all we have and we want to fight for it and we want to keep it. And I think it's a tremendous wrong being done when a person comes home and finds their home is not even there no more. I mean, it's been torn down, all because somebody didn't just send them -- there again, as Councilman Kenney was saying, just a postcard. It don't have to be on a letter, just a simple little card notice, contact us. But there again, I say with all these other ordinances that we're entertaining today, we need as good people, as Councilman Cohen was talking about poor people and 120 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020685 representing these neighborhoods, we need to have that ordinance for RDA to contact these people by way of letter, postcard, some carrier pigeons, I don't care what it is. But the point is that these people gotta be notified. Plain and simple. Thank you.
Thank you very much, sir, for your testimony. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the next bill -- and I appreciate everyone's patience and waiting, we just have a large number of bills today and we can only take them one at a time. The next bill is Bill No. 020685, which is an ordinance approving the 10th Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the Cecil B. Moore Avenue Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by 15th Street on the east, Jefferson Street on the south, 19th Street on the west and Montgomery Avenue on the north, including the 10th Amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan and the 6th Amendment to the Relocation Plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 145 121 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020685 properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project. Please identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, my name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 020685, which would approve the 10th Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the Cecil B. Moore Avenue Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 145 properties. A total of 139 properties are vacant lots and will be acquired as part of land banking strategy for the Cecil B. Moore Acquisition Zone, an area of North Philadelphia bordered by North Broad Street on the east, North 21st Street on the west, Montgomery Avenue on the north, and Master Street on the south. It is an area that has been strategically selected due to its high vacancy rate and redevelopment potential. A total of 6 properties, vacant structures, will be acquired in 122 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020685 support of the last phase of the Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zone. This amendment, which will result in the enhancement of the community was approved by the Planning Commission at their meeting on October 15, 2002. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 020686, and would also ask the suspension of Council Rules to allow for a first reading on December 12, 2002.
Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, David Napton representing the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here to speak also on Bill 020685 in the Cecil B. Moore Urban Renewal Area. As Mr. Wetzel mentioned, this is a bill 21 providing for acquisition of 145 properties in the Cecil B. Moore Urban Renewal Area, most of which, the great bulk of which, will be for the NTI, Neighborhood Transformation Initiative Acquisition Program and a smaller number for the finish-up of 123 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020685 the Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Program. The Planning Commission reviewed this Redevelopment Proposal on October 15, 2002. And I'm here to answer any questions that I can on that.
Thank you very much. Any question for these witnesses? (No response.)
Seeing none, do we have anyone in the audience who would like to testify? Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning. My name is Floyd W. Alston. Chairman Kenney and Members of the Rules Committee, I am here in support of an ordinance approving the 10th Amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Cecil B. Moore Urban Renewal Area. For the past 13 years, Beach Interplex, Inc., the Consortium, and Cecil B. Moore organizations, various CDC, block groups, public agencies and businesses have been coordinating their individual and collective efforts to comprehensively improve the quality of life of individuals and families in the Cecil B. Moore area. 124 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020685 I see this ordinance approving the 10th Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the Cecil B. Moore Urban Renewal Area as a continued opportunity to move the renewal of this area to the next level of progress. Affordable housing, economic growth, and improved human service will be enhanced by the approval of the ordinance. Allow me to take this opportunity to thank all the participants in the consortium of Cecil B. Moore organizations, the many city and quasi-city agencies, and yes, the Philadelphia City Council for past support, as we witness the renaissance of the Cecil B. Moore area. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Mr. Alston, should I assume that your testimony also applies to Bill No. 681, which is also part of that general area?
Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Alston? (No response.)
Thank you very much for your testimony. 125 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020685 Sir, could you please identify yourself for the record?
I'm Jordan Mohammad Akbar. I lost a property in the 2100 block of Diamond Street, and I wasn't notified, just like the other people had testified earlier. My question is -- I'm attempting to find out about the rapacious law of bureaucratic scavengery. I'm interested in the origin of the RDA; its origin, its funding, and what makes it an authority and whether or not these agencies -- I know the origin of Government Administration. And I also want to differentiate between leadership and representation and my basic fundamental rights, and I need to ask Mr. Wetzel where can I obtain information of the origin of the RDA, its function and its fundings, et cetera?
I'd be glad to supply that information. I'm just going to ask the gentleman for his phone number and his name and address, and I'll get him this. It's essentially created under Pennsylvania statutes, and I can get that information for him.
If you'd like, I can answer his specific question now or I can give him a report.
I think if he'll take the report and forward the information as requested. I don't know whether or not you're prepared to go into long history of what the legislative intent of the Pennsylvania Legislature was when they created it, but I'm sure you will in due diligence provide all the information necessary.
If there's other specific questions, I'll be happy to --
Well, I'm also interesting in, in light of what's happening today with the construction industry -- I also represent ICUE, which is Independent Contractors United for Equity. I'm also opposed to Administration tap dancing when a citizen comes forward and play the old ping pong game. I'm attempting to get myself back on the back burner. I've been off the stove for a while. Mr. Cohen, Mr. Longstreth -- Jim Tiune was my main man in '83. I put the legislation through for Mohammed's Collective Buying Program, 127 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020685 and with the endorsement of the whole Council. But there's some very, very -- things that are bordering on the line of criminality here as relates to notifying people, et cetera, and all those type things. And I'm interesting because I'm addressing not the meager minds of men. I want the record to reflect that we're interested and we're more than qualified to be a part of whatever is going on early on as opposed at sessions like this. I'm not going to take it any further at this particular point. I'll contact Mr. Wetzel and also Darrell. I can talk with Darrell.
Yes, sir, and I appreciate you're being here and your questions. I just think that the length of the answer is going to be such that it needs to be done in a --
I've been here this long. I mean, don't give me the boot so --
Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? 128 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020685 I think it may be appropriate, Mr. Sauer, you had some general comments you wanted to make earlier as we move into other Model Cities and Mantua and others. So if you can just make your comments now, we can move on. There's no one else to testify on 020685? (No response.)
Thank you. Please identify yourself and attempt to make your comments in general terms. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman Kenney and Members of Council. My name is Rick Sauer and I'm the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporations, which is a city-wide association of CDCs and organizations involved in neighborhood revitalization. We're glad to see that property acquisition issues related to the implementation of the City's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative are being addressed. The acquisition properties using NTI bond funds is a critical step in the City's request to take a more proactive approach to 129 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020685 land assembly. And I think the City's been taking a number of other steps as well, such as obtaining passage of State Legislation to facilitate acquisition, expanding urban renewal areas, and developing a computerized system to track properties through the process. While insufficient to achieve neighborhood transformation by themselves, both adequate funding for acquisition and streamlining the City's current acquisition process are both necessary if the City is going to be successful in spurring new development in our neighborhoods and revitalizing these neighborhoods through NTI. I want to focus my testimony on just four sort of broader points. Most of the people coming up here today are testifying on specific properties that are up before the Council on various ordinances. But I think it's also important to raise some larger issues as the City moves forward now with the NTI acquisition process. And the first issue I want to bring up is that of balancing acquisition funding for land banking versus specific development projects. The City is correct in that they are moving in a 130 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020685 direction where they want to land bank properties so they can be more proactive in responding to future development opportunities. Right now, you approach the City with a project you want to do, they have to start of a, step one, go out acquire those properties before you can move forward with the project. If they actually had more properties in their inventory where they could assemble fully developable sites, it could really speed up the process and spur new development. At the same time, though, there's a critical need to support acquisition for specific development projects in the shorter term so that we are doing a better job of addressing the need for housing among Philadelphia's residents. And then we can also keep up the momentum that's already going on in a number of our neighborhoods towards revitalization. What we can't do is sort of try to change the process from one being more reactive to one being more proactive just overnight because there's a lot of things that gets lost in that transition. So we need to strike an appropriate balance between those two approaches. So while we 131 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020685 do need to start land banking properties, we also need to be advancing acquisition for specific development projects right now. I think it's approximately 2 and a half thousand properties before you guys today in these ordinances, about $15 million dollars in acquisition requests using NTI bond funds. And sometimes it's a little bit difficult to differentiate what the exact purpose of the acquisition is and the information we have, but there's somewhere around maybe a dozen housing projects out of all those acquisitions that are going forward. Maybe there are some additional land banking being done for future projects down the road that a specific developer has not been identified yet, but there's only about a dozen or maybe a little bit more actual housing projects that acquisition is being done for now, and maybe about half of those for CDC projects. So that concerns me in that we do need to be building new affordable housing, new -- if we want to encourage new market rate oriented housing, we need to be doing that in the next couple years now. And as we know, the development process takes quite a bit of time.
So things we're acquiring now 132 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020685 are not going to be completed projects for another year or two or even longer. So we need to start being more aggressive in acquiring properties for actual projects. And we urge Council, if they're not going to be doing that this round, this fall acquisition round, that when the spring 2003 acquisition round comes up that there's actually more acquisitions for specific CDC housing development projects. The second issue I wanted to bring up is that of creating a functional land bank. When NTI was announced back in April 2001, whenever it was, the City stated that it planned to consolidate ownership of publicly held surplus properties that are currently held by a variety of different public agencies at one single entity called the Philadelphia Land Bank. That's really important because right now, if you go out to try to get all the acquisitions you need for your project, the RDA may have some properties or they can acquire some properties on your behalf. The Philadelphia Housing Authority will have others scattered site housing projects in their neighborhood. And just going through that whole process adds a lot of complexity 133 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020685 and a lot of time and a lot of cost to getting the properties you need to move a project forward. So I believe that the City's new Secretary of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation has experience with the Atlanta Land Bank, which has been held up as a model elsewhere, and that should be instrumental in helping the City implement its own functional land bank. As mentioned, as part of this process, it's really critical that surplus properties currently owned by other public entities be consolidated into one entity. I think also it's important, with all the land banking that is going on, that the City really have of a coherent strategy for stabilizing and maintaining the vacant land that it will be land banking so that it doesn't continue to be sort of a blighting influence on our neighborhoods, that they develop a clear policy for disposing of the properties they land bank. The third issue is with regard to funding for acquisition. I think it was mentioned earlier that the total allocated in NTI bond funds for acquisition over the five-year period is 50 134 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020685 million. Today, you have -- and the City, I think, in Year One approved to $14 million in 4 acquisition. We already have more of that before 5 you today, more than $14 million. And likely, given 6 whatever is going to come forward in the spring 7 round, we could be approving acquisition for over 8 $30 million worth of acquisitions in Year One of 9 NTI, which we certainly support moving up the 10 acquisition time line. There's been sort of a delay in some acquisitions, but sort of begs the larger question is, how our future acquisitions are going to be paid for? If we end up spending that $50 million in the next year and a half, what happens two years from now to fund acquisition activity? Are we going to re-allocate additional NTI bond funds, whether they're private activity bond funds or other funds? Is the City going to find another source of funding to support acquisition? So that's a larger issue that as the City sort of grapples with funding for acquisition in Year One of NTI, I hope they'll be taking a look at the longer-term issue. And then finally, the connection between 135 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020685 acquisition and project financing. Having site control is a necessary condition for applying for or obtaining financing from a number of different funding sources, both public and private. And CDCs are uniquely positioned to partner with and leverage resources from these different sources. But if the City isn't actively supporting acquisition for specific development projects, then these sponsors of these projects can't go and apply low-income housing tax credits. They can't apply for Homeownership Choice Program Funding.
They can't apply for Section 202 Funding. They can't go to a bank. They can't go the Federal Home Loan Bank to get funds. In some cases, on the acquisition request forms, what the City is asking project sponsors to do is to identify what their funding sources are for that particular project. Well, if you can't go get that funding until you have site control, which means you need to have the acquisition process going already, it's very difficult to get your project selected for acquisition. And so while it's certainly reasonable for a group to have a very good idea of what funding 136 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020685 sources they're going to get funding for their project from, sort of requiring that up front makes it all the more challenging. A key goal of NTI, actually, is to leverage resources from other sources. So the City's not just putting its own dollars in these projects, and it makes a lot of sense. I think one thing we're seeing, though, as a result of sort of a low level of acquisition activity over the last few years as NTI gets ramped up to go, is that we're missing out on a lot of opportunities to leverage those other resources. In the last round that the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency just concluded for its low-income tax credit allocations, there was about $6 million in tax credits left on the table because there weren't projects there ready to use them. Likewise, this year the City did not submit an application for Home Ownership Choice Program Grant from the State's Housing Finance Agency, which could have brought substantial new dollars to the City to support home ownership housing development. So as we think through the strategy of what acquisitions we're doing and we could use those 137 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020685 acquisitions to leverage other resources to support neighborhood transformation, we really encourage the City, both City Council and the Administration, to put a higher priority on acquiring properties that can enable current projects to move forward. And I guess one final comment, and that is, while we certainly agree that the City needs to strengthen its residential real estate markets, there's also a need to ensure that long-term residents that have lived in the neighborhoods for years and have been struggling to revitalize these neighborhoods have really stuck with it through the thick and thin, that they're the ones that really do end up benefiting from neighborhood transformation and NTI implementation. And CDC's are uniquely positioned to help make that happen. We want to see the City support their projects and make sure that NTI is a success. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. The next bill for consideration is Bill 23 020673, which is an ordinance approving the 10th Amendment of the Redevelopment proposal for the Mantua Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning 138 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673 at the intersection of 40th Street and Spring Garden Street, including the 7th Amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan and the Relocation Plan, as amended, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 715 properties for residential and related uses; the additional acquisition of 46 properties for commercial and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project. Mr. Wetzel, also, there was one other question I had asked to be included with each bill, which I don't know whether you've done it or not, but you can do it in writing to the Chair if you would, and that's how many parcels in the bills today are being land banked.
Okay. I think I have, but will go through the testimony and see if there's some missing.
Actually, if you just compile it all, it would be helpful.
We'll put a schedule land bank and project specific and side yards. 139 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673
Yes, whatever you think is appropriate in that realm of questions.
Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, my name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 020673 which approve the 10th Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the Mantua Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 761 properties for the purposes of land banking and residential development. A total 737 properties, all vacant lots, will be acquired as part of the land banking strategy within the area designated as the Mantua Acquisition Zone. The properties will be made 140 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673 available forfeiture development projects. A total of properties, vacant lots and 21 vacant structures, will be acquired for a proposed tax credit rental development for low and moderate income families. Neighborhoods Restorations Limited Partnership, developer of affordable housing has expressed an interest in developing these properties. This amendment was approved by the City Planning Commission at its meeting on October 15, 2002. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 020673 and would ask the suspects of Council rules to allow first reading on December 12, 2002.
Thank you. 19 Please identify yourself for the record. 20
Mr. Chairman, my name is 21 David Napton, representing the Philadelphia City 22 Planning Commission. 23 Mr. Chairman Members of the Committee, 24 I'm here to testify on Bill 020673, the amended Redevelopment Proposal for the Mantua Urban Renewal 141 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673 Area in West Philadelphia. As Mr. Wetzel had told you, this acquisition bill entails 761 property acquisitions. And the important thing here is that nearly all of these are vacant lots. The approval for Mantua was based on the acquisition of vacant lots creating potential development sites. As Mr. Wetzel also mentioned, there are certain number of parcels, 24, intended for a specific developer in line in relatively short term. The Mantua neighborhood has been reviewed as a target neighborhood by the Planning Commission at the very beginning of the NTI process, so we're optimistic about this. The Planning Commission reviewed this Redevelopment Proposal on October 15, 2002. If you have any questions I'll try to answer them.
Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Seeing none, is there anyone else to testify for this bill in this room?
My name is Gerald washington and I'm a long-time resident of the 142 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673 Mantua area and I work specifically with the Mantua Community Planners Group. And the main concern of the Mantua community is that even though there is a lot being said about NTI, nobody is being directly contacted. Now, we see little articles in newspaper in regards to NTI, but nobody has been contacted Mantua about anything. And most of your community groups have been meeting as of late in regards to that, but we don't have any material or anything in terms of what the plans are for Mantua. And as spoken earlier about long-time residents of these areas, a lot of our families moved there in the '20s and the '30s. Most of people that are there now, they inherited their properties from their parents. Some of them are still in their parents' names. Some of the residents, they still have properties there but they may have moved on somewhere else. They haven't been notified. And again, like I said, most of the people in Mantua, they would like to know if whatever is being done by NTI, is it the benefit to the people there and would they have any say in the planning of whatever NTI is going to do. So we don't have no dialog with anybody. 143 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673 At one time, we were talking with Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell. We had a dialog with her for a minute. And then some individual from the neighborhood approached one of the demolition guys, Red Ball because, because what happen is all we know is one day this demolition crew just showed up in areas talking about knocking down houses. So one individual from the area, he approached the guy -- I don't know what all was said, but from that point on Jannie Blackwell cut off all dialog with Mantua community. Now, I came down here one day last week, and her aid, a guy named Harry Way, said they're not talking to Mantua. So now since that point there, I met with other groups of various neighborhood groups and explained the same thing to them. So the consensus is Mantua want to be notified exactly what's up and how can we participate. Now, we're not opposed to doing something to eradicate the blight and bettering the community. We all for that and we want to be a part of that. But at the same time, we don't want to feel like we're just going to be misplaced and somebody just going to sell us out to 144 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673 somebody that got a lot of money to come in there and develop things that we can't afford, even develop housing that we can't afford or either take the housing that we have. So that's what everybody wants to know. And when nobody's telling you what's happening, you know, it's very easy for us to think a lot of things and react in a lot of different ways. So I'm here today to bring this to your attention to let you know what the thought and the feel is in the neighborhood and for somebody down here to do something to reestablish the dialog with the City Councilperson for our district and with the developers where we have some type of communication. At this point, we don't have that. And so before it gets to be into a riot type of situation, because you got some people in the neighborhood who are saying they're not just letting people come in three and do that. Now even though what they're talking about doing is not the right way of handling things, but it's best not to let this situation get ugly. So I'm here now to bring everybody's attention what's going on so maybe we can do something to deal with all that and all parties concerned could be 145 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673 satisfied.
Thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate it. Anyone else to testify on this bill?
My name is Ken Knight and I'm representing the Mantua Trade Center. And I just want to say good afternoon to the Council Chairperson and to the Council President and other Honorable Councilmembers. I just want to pick up on a few points that Mr. Washington has made for the Mantua community. Now, just to keep the process orderly, we could have had all of Mantua here today. But we, as leaders that we are, we decided to come and to represent the community in a very orderly way and at the same time to appeal to this body. As Gerald Washington has said -- now, I don't know all the reasons, I don't have all the answers, but one thing we do know is that if terms 146 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673 of the ordinance that is now being introduced and proposed, it's just wrong, simply because there has no communication in terms of the rooted people in the Mantua community. I mean, there's been some for the special interests and I heard the names Neighborhood Restorations and everybody know that's Scott Mazo. But at the same time, let me just say again, there has been no real communication with the groups, the embedded groups, the groups that are very strongly rooted in the Mantua community. And in some cases, we feel that we've been sold out. And I'm saying that in terms of this information or what we call openness and just overall thing of disclosure, there hasn't been that. I found out about this meeting, this hearing -- and there again, I see Pat Smith over there. We were up in Harrisburg together last week, and that's how I found out about this hearing. And just like we talked about earlier about people's houses being torn down and them not getting even a post card or a letter, it's the same thing. I mean, NTI came to the neighborhood a few weeks ago. They were on Haverford Avenue. I'm in touch with everybody, every group, every organization in Mantua because, 147 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673 there again, we've been coordinating these groups and having meetings for sometime now. And I'm telling you, we didn't even know that there was going to be a press conference. But we came. We have a way, just as you heard here earlier, even though we don't get the proper notification from RDA, one thing this community -- and I got to say to our credit. We can get the word out, whether you call it the grapevine, whether you call it a drum or whatever you want to call it, but we tend to find out about things that are pertinent to what's going on in our community. And several people were there that day. " And let me just tell you, I go back early on supporting the Mayor's program for Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. But at the same time, Mantua itself had its own transformation initiative program and it was called just simply that, the Mantua Transformation Initiative Program. And there again, because we saw early on the way things were going in the City and we wanted to be a part. We wanted to be inclusive. But then we find 148 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673 out that we're not getting any information. And one thing the Chairperson said earlier, Councilman Kenney, as he was asking RDA, what are the particulars in terms of the land banking, what are the numbers? How much money are we spending into the preservation, housing preservation, the relocation? What are the numbers? I mean, we're not rocket scientists, but we can process some information. And there again, we want to know those hard numbers. How many houses are you tearing down? Because we already found out several people have contacted me and said, "Well, Ken, my house is on the hit list. " And I'm saying that we had on the part of L & I -- and there again, this whole thing is being driven and we understand that with NTI in terms of the whole effort of renewal and all of that. But at the same time, it has to be a thorough process. When you go and you knock down somebody's house, you can't build it back up. And we had situations and instances in Mantua what that has happened in the past.
It has happened all over 149 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673 this City. So that's why I'm saying, as I said earlier, there needs to be an ordinance coming from this body to protecting those, as Councilman Cohen said, those due process rights on the behalf of those homeowners, those poor people. We have the lowest census tract data in the City. We're in a Catch situation in Mantua 9 and in the Belmont community. A lot of those people 10 moved in in the '20s and '30s, they're on a fixed 11 income. They don't have any money. They can't go 12 anywhere. But at the same time, they're not getting 13 no notice and then you take and you put that person 14 out of their house or you take that house. You 15 can't bring back the dead. Once that person has a 16 heart attack because they found out, they came back 17 from somewhere and then their house is no longer 18 there. You cannot bring back the dead. And I'm 19 saying the damage is already done. That person's 20 had a heart attack and they're dead because we as 21 leaders and as elected officials, we didn't care 22 nothing about them. And there again, going back to this whole idea of disclosure and openness, no, we don't know how many houses are coming down. Some of the 150 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673 houses don't have come down because in terms of the Mantua Transformation Initiative, we have already identified blocks where we may have one or two lots. It makes no sense to go on that same block and now you're going to tear down six more houses. To land bank it for when? We don't know when. And then we're saying at the same time, and this is for RDA, we want to land bank, too. We want to land bank. The CDC that we have in Mantua, that we're formulating in Mantua, we want to be in the land bank business, too. Because that way we can ensure our people that they're not going to be displaced. And when those property values go up, then we're invested in that land. Because let's make no mistake about it, we know -- there again, we all don't have college degrees, but we know it's about the land. And like I said before, it's not 40 acres, but it's all we got, and we're going to fight to keep it. And that's why we're here today. We could have pack this room. We're going to go all around, not only in Mantua, we're going to go out to the City because we're saying that if it happens in Mantua, it's happening somewhere else. And if it happens in Mantua, that's 151 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673 already too much. And I'm saying that we have to stop this. But at the same time, we need to get with the NTI officials. " That's the book, the big thick book that has the color pictures in it that tells you what's going on with respect to your community. There ain't no more. And that's a problem. We need to have that information. We don't have none of the numbers. We don't know what's happening. But one thing we can tell you, we are not going to give up our community without a fight. And I'm talking about a very, very serious fight. If you know the history of Mantua -- let me just tell you, it is the birth place of a lot of movements. And one in particular that I had a lot to do with and that's the anti-drug movement. Herman Rice, Dr. Rice, and there again, may the best wishes and salutations to him. There again, I walked side by side with him in Mantua when it wasn't slated for renewal. And I'm telling you, that movement went all the around this country. And 152 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673 we plan to do the same thing with this fight. Because we're saying is that that is our 40 acres and that is our reparations. But if we give all the land back to the City, then we have nothing. And I'm saying that as a CDC, we want to land bank. We don't have no problem with giving you some of the land, but we want some, too. We want some of that land to develop for our people. When you talk about neighborhood restorations, I know neighborhood restorations.
They started out over there in the southwest part of Market Street with Vera -- and there again, may peace and blessings be upon her. And then died and they got a little inroads into West Philadelphia, but that is not our contractor of choice. We have several qualified people in Mantua that are ready to do projects. We as a CDC, we're ready to do projects. But we want to be vested. We want to be told what is going on. We want to be a part of the process, not after everybody done met. That's before they done met. And that's the problem now. We are not getting no communication. And we feel that Mantua is being sold out from under us, and that has to stop. And like I said, we're not giving up without a fight. And thank you for your 153 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673 time.
I would like to speak after anyone else from Mantua speaks, if that is acceptable.
Absolutely. Is there anyone else here to speak on this particular bill? (No response.)
Mr. Wetzel, just one question before Councilmember Blackwell. Did you give me the location numbers on this bill in your testimony?
Thank you. I'll take the witness chair. I'm Jannie Blackwell, Councilperson for the area. Madam President, Chair of the Committee, and certainly to all Members of the Committee, as all of you know, development, we've been working in Mantua and throughout my district for many years. 154 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673 In 1999, we announced West Philadelphia on the Move, a non-profit organization that we formed to deal with this development and other projects that we do throughout the year. Let me say that I've met with Mr. Knight and others several times, several times. So the allegation certainly that there is no information available is not true. In fact, I'm surprised and disappointed that he would come to this public meeting and say thusly. In fact, Mr. Knight, the Mantua Professional Development and Training Center has been in question. I am certainly happy to submit to this Committee a copy of a letter that we wrote to various members throughout the City, RDA and various elected officials in my district. I will read it. "Dear -- "We received endorsed proposal from Ken Knight, a self proclaimed community organizer in the Belmont/Mantua community entitled the Mantua Professional Development and Training Center. While I am listed as a supporter of the proposal, I would like to clarify that I nor my office were involved in creating, and neither do we endorse it. 155 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673 "As Councilwoman of the 3rd District for the past years, I am quite aware of the need for 4 more employment opportunities on capital works 5 projects such as the Mayor's Neighborhood 6 Transformation Initiative for neighborhood 7 residents. To this end, my office is working 8 closely with the Mayor's Office and Capital Program 9 Office to ensure this concern is addressed and that 10 bona fide employment is created for district residents. "In regards to the proposal, though, we have several reservations. The author, Mr. Ronald Daniels, a legitimate business owner, was told that Mr. Knight was working in partnership with my office on this project. This is not the case. Furthermore, the training center prototype, is Mr. Daniels own proposal, the Daniels Center. He has no 19 knowledge that it would be used by Mr. Knight to market a concept for Mantua. We are in support of Mr. Daniels' center which would be an incredible asset to the Mill Creek community. We do not support the intentional manipulation of facts or the misguidance of honest people for the gain of others. If you or any of your staff would like 156 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673 to see this proposal -- if you see it, we request that you disregard it. We are also available for any further discussion that you deem appropriate. " And I read that. There is a picture, which I will show you, marked Mantua Professional Development Center. I show this to the committee and certain to all those who are in attendance. There is also another proposal that we received some time ago for another area that we work with, 4706 West Minister Avenue. This is a proposal. Inside, you will see the same exact photo that was enlarged and renamed something else that Mr. Daniels did for another location. And that is why we said we could not associate ourselves with this. I will also pass this up for Members of the Committee. This also came, a before and after for future needs. These are not as appropriate as those. So we say that, you know, we work very, very long and hard on this Mantua plan, as we have for plans throughout the district. All of those in question are abandoned properties. They're a few lots included. When we are ready to bring a 157 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673 development project to the community where we have everything ready, it is our goal to do that. We've talked to the leaders in Mantua. Everybody knows these are down and out, abandoned, deteriorated, dilapidated ID properties that are in this first package. There is no one who is displaced. Again, there are a few lots.
The whole development plan about who does what in the area we will bring to the community. And the whole issue of trying to criticize another developer who has invested 50 million private dollars into my district is absolutely unfair. If you have $50 million that you want to bring to do development, we're glad to receive it. But Neighborhood Restorations has invested 50 million private dollars into my area. And he's one of the private developers I boast of who is certainly a great part of our development team one whose money and investment and commitment to the area we're very, very proud to receive. I'm happy to answer any questions that the committee has and certainly hope that who hear wil realize that we always work in the best interest of the community. We always work in concert with them. And certainly, when we have a full proposal 158 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020673 together about the development plans, we will take that. But to talk about taking properties that are already stickered, that are ID'd as dangerous that falling down that are deteriorated, that have been vacant forever and some few vacant lots is certainly in no way hiding from the community about some great plan.
Anyone else to testify on this bill? If you could possibly make it brief. I understand the opportunity your desire to respond, but I'd rather not make this a debate. If you want to leave some parting comments, we appreciate it because we have a few more bills to deal with. 159 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020667
There again, in respecting the Chairman's wishes, I just want to state that, there again, anything that we had proposed or we have developed, that has come out of lengthy meetings with not only the community but all the stakeholders. And there again, we have several meetings with Mr. Daniels and I just don't want it said here that we were doing something that wasn't in partnership with Mr. Daniels. We were then and we still are. Thank you very much.
Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
The next bill on the list is Bill No. 020667, which is an Ordinance 18 approving the redevelopment proposal of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the Greenway Urban Renewal Area being the area generally bounded by Chester Avenue on the north, South 49th Street on the east, Woodland Avenue on the south and South 52nd Street on the west; approving the urban renewal plan and determining that such plan and redevelopment 160 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020667 proposal conform to the general locality plan and make adequate provisions for individuals, business concerns and families who are displaced. Please identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, my name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 020667, which would approve the Redevelopment Proposal for the Greenway Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire properties 42 properties, 35 vacant structures and 7 vacant lots, for the purpose of residential development. Neighborhood Restorations Limited Partnership, a developer of affordable housing, has expressed an interest in acquiring these properties for a tax credit rental project to serve low to moderate-income families. The acquisition will promote the elimination of blight and result in expanding housing opportunities for lo and moderate-income individuals and families while restoring abandoned 161 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020667 properties to the tax rolls. This amendment was approved by the City Planning Commission at its meeting on October 15, 2002. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 020667 and would also ask the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading December 12, 2002. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is David Napton, I'm representing the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Madam President, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, I'm here to speak in favor of Bill No. 020667. As Mr. Wetzel just explained, this establishes the Greenway Urban Renewal Area. It's a new Urban Renewal Area within the context of a larger area called the Southwest Schuylkill Redevelopment Area. Also, as Mr. Wetzel mentioned, the purpose here is to improve housing conditions in the area between 49th and 52nd Streets. The Planning Commission approved this redevelopment proposal and urban renewal plan on 162 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 October 15, 2002. I'll be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Seeing none, anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 020679, an ordinance approving the 1st Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the American Street Industrial Corridor Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Lehigh Avenue, Berks Street and Montgomery Avenue on the north by Second Street and Philip Street on the east by Girard Avenue, Oxford Street and Jefferson Street on the south and by Germantown Avenue, Sixth Street and third Street on the west, including the 1st Amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan and the 1st Amendment to the Relocation Plan, which provides inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 54 properties. 163 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 Please identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, my name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. I'm here to speak in support in Bill No. 020679 which would approve the 1st Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the American Street Industrial Corridor Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 54 properties. A total properties, 18 vacant lots 14 and 3 occupied houses, would be acquired for 15 industrial development in the 2500 block of North 16 American Street. A Lancaster County ice 17 manufacturer has expressed interest in acquiring 18 this assemblage from the Redevelopment Authority. 19 A total of 27 properties, 21 vacant lots 20 and 6 occupied structures, would be acquired on the 21 west side of 1700 block of North American Street. The proposed reuse is industrial development. A total of three parcels will be acquired on behalf of the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society's Vacant Land Stabilization Program. 164 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 A total of three properties, vacant lots, would be acquired; one on the 1700 block of North Randolph Street and two on the 1400 block of North American Street. PIDC has requested these properties for business expansion and the creation of a parking lot. This amendment was approved by the City Planning Commission at their meeting of October 15, 2002. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill NO. 020679 and would also ask the suspension of Council Rules to allow for first reading on December 12, 2002.
Thank you. Just let me take this gentleman's testimony and then Councilman Nutter has questions. Please identify yourself.
My name is David Napton. Mr. Chairman, Madam President, Members of the Committee, I'm here representing the Philadelphia City Planning Commission here to speak on Bill No. 24 020679 for the American Street Industrial Corridor Urban Renewal Area. 165 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 This bill which would provide acquisition of 54 properties for general industrial, residential and related uses was passed by the Planning Commission at its meeting on October 15, 2000. I'll be happy to answer any questions of the committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask these questions more in a general context because of the relocation issues and I may find myself shortly in a somewhat similar situation. So I want to, to be honest with you, take a little advantage of the fact that you're here, better understand the issue of relocation at the moment so that I can better represent my constituents at a future point in time when this becomes an issue in at least one part my district. So let's talk a little bit about relocation in general. I thought I heard somewhere in the testimony -- but now I can't find it, although I see down on the bottom of the second page testimony you 166 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 made reference to six families, but I thought I heard in the course of the testimony more. What's the total number of people possibly being relocated here?
I'm sorry, there's a correction here. There are two on the 2500 block and four on the 1700 block, for a total of six.
It's mentioned down on the bottom of the second page. I was trying to keep track and then I lost it.
When you talk about "we're very mindful of the hardships," is that the section of the testimony you're talking about or somewhere else?
On the second page Roman numeral III, relocation information.
Was that attached to 167 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 the testimony .
Yeah, I've seen these fact sheets. They usually come right after the testimony. I didn't see that in this one. All right. Why don't we just agree that it's six. But again, my questions are more general in nature. Your testimony, I think, was that you regret bringing projects that require relocation but in this case, you say, "however, we are not able to do so." Is that because these properties are in the way of a proposed development?
You're right. I'm reading from Eva Gladstein's testimony who's right next to you. There's no confusion about who the two of you are. I am generally able to identify and distinguish between the two of you, although both of you I desperately attempt to represent here in City Council. You probably won't forgive me after this, though. So we've got six families, right, 168 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 regardless of whose testimony it is?
How do we deal with the issue of relocation? Let's talk about the notice. We had some notice discussion earlier with regard to properties that are probably vacant. What do we do in relocation situations? And do those people get notice?
Let me first state that what we do is operate under the Federal Uniform Relocation Act.
And all of our procedures and operations are guided by and we adhere to -- the acronym is the URA, but it's the Uniform Relocation Act. And with so many federal kinds of programs, there are real interesting sort of dichotomies in them; and one of those is when can we officially talk to someone. And technically we can't really officially talk to someone until we send them an offer letter. And we can't send out an offer letter until our board has filed a Declaration 169 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 of Taking.
I see where this discussion is going. And you can't file a Declaration of Taking until you have an ordinance 6 passed.
You got it. Now, the one cure is the very issue you raised earlier, and that is if it's possible to give notice at this stage. So then there wouldn't be any surprises if the notice is given at the stage we talked about earlier. And that's when, let's assume the public ad goes in and a written notice goes to the individual, if that's 's possible to do.
You do understand -- I mean, this is increasingly becoming clear, although it was pretty earlier that some additional requirement with specificity, I think, needs to be put in place to deal with whether it's the vacant house, the vacant lot, or now the occupied property. I mean, we could, if not in fact are presently having a discussion about the possible relocation of individuals, talking about them -- and I say this with every respect to you and everyone's been respectful here. But talking about them in almost a 170 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 third person kind of way at a hearing about possible relocation, we're address specific, we're urban renewal, we're talking about takings and the like, and in the big public forum for everyone to hear, but I think what I'm hearing from you is we have not had a discussion because of statute with the individuals involved directly; is that what you're telling me?
No, no, we've had discussion. What we can't do is sit down with an individual and discuss what their relocation benefits would be because we have not even proceeded to the point of condemning their properties.
Well, I understand that, but we have advertised in the newspaper and we're presently engaged in a public hearing at 1:35 in the afternoon about the possible relocation of the individuals, and you're telling me that we haven't had a discussion with them --
I'm saying we haven't given each individual a written notice from the 171 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 Redevelopment Authority, but we have been at community meetings. And Eva can add to this. Including Redevelopment Authority relocation staff. We can talk about the relocation process, the relocation benefits, the relocation entitlements, but you can't -- you can talk to the relocatees but not one-on-one and lay out a relocation plan and benefits because we're prohibited from doing that under the URA. But we can talk about the process, the entitlements, all the aspects of it and provide them literature on it as well.
-- specific relocation, "This is what may or may not happen to you; this is what we may or may not do for you, Ms. Jones, Mr. Smith," specific to that person.
Right. But we can talk about "You're entitled to a replacement housing payment; you're entitled to just compensation for your property." We can talk about if you're not satisfied.
And when the person 172 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 says to you, "Well, okay, this may happen to me. I'd like to be able to sit down with my family and have a fuller discussion about it," I mean, at some point, I assume, you have to say, "Well, we can't get into those details yet"?
Yes. And I think we did a simpler situation -- I hate to keep bringing up the Martin Luther King one, though, but --
We went down to the church more than one time and had very open dialogs and discussions about relocation, the benefits, the entitlements, you know, what happens, and provided information that I think actually facilitated in the overall scope of things. It was far better having those discussions up front than coming in cold afterwards. Even though you can't sit down -- because people are anxious, like, "Well, what do I get?" And I understand that.
Right. "What is my particular situation?" And I understand that, but I 173 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 think having had that kind of experience, we have stood ready to go out to any community meeting where this arises and explain the overall process itself and provide the brochures that HUD has produced on relocation, for example.
No. If you can't answer the questions, then I have no interest -- of course she can.
Good afternoon. My name is Eva Gladstein. I'm Executive Director of the Philadelphia Empowerment Zone. In this particular case, I'll just briefly state what we have done. Back last April, we held a community meeting sponsored by the community based organizations in the Empowerment Zone as well as by the Empowerment Zone, and that was the point where there was this urban renewal area was actually being created. It was prior to 174 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 its introduction to City Council to begin with. That community meeting was attended by over a hundred residents, and there was staff of the appropriate City agencies at that meeting. We had a meeting in October with over 200 residents. After the Redevelopment Authority and the City Planning Commission had approved at their boards these projects that would require relocation, our staff went out individually to the residents who would be directly affected, those six households, and offered to meet and answer any questions.
Our staff went and knocked on the doors of the six families who would be directly affected by these two projects, offered to meet, offered to share information to those families. And we brought Redevelopment Authority staff with us to provide technical information. And again, as Herb Wetzel had said, not being able to individually negotiate an arrangement, but speaking to people about what their rights are and what they're entitled to. 175 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 We also sponsored another community meeting on October 24th with also over 200 residents at that meeting. We sent a mailing to over 330 people who were the combined attendance of those two meetings. In that mailing, we again stated what the individual's rights are and we sent the information that's available through the Redevelopment Authority. We've also published articles in the two neighborhood newspapers that are read most frequently to try to share information, and been in as constant communication as we can with the residents according to their own interest. We spent about a half day with Councilman Mariano visiting the homes of many of the affected residents about a month or so ago.
I would also like to point out that, in large part, because of this intensive interaction, three of the six residents are here today and do plan to testify. We do have also a statement signed by three of the six residents as well based upon the work that we've 176 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 done.
A couple last questions. When I look at the boundaries of this particular bill, I'm going to make the leap that there might potentially be a couple different languages spoken in the area. Are the notices and other communications, whether from the City or HUD or anyone else, do they have dual language?
Actually, what we're doing now is several things. And you're right on target there. The last spanish translation of the HUD document that's essentially what happens when the government acquires your property, was done in 1992. And they've since revised the english language version of it but never bothered to update the spanish language version of it. We're actually just taking all the HUD notice brochures, having them translated into Spanish, having all our offer letters and other related documents that would be communicated translated into Spanish so that, you know, if it's a one-page letter, it will be English on one side and Spanish on the other side. And in addition to that, we've been authorized to hire a spanish-speaking individual to 177 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 work in our relocation department instead of pulling people from other parts of the Redevelopment Authority who speak Spanish to go out. So I think, you know, there were some valuable lessons there and clearly we're just going to have to spend the money. The feds aren't up to date in terms of their translations, and we can't wait for them.
One last question in this area. Of the six families potentially affected by this, what would you estimate to be their level of satisfaction with the process and where things are at the moment?
I would let Eva answer that simply because we have not been in that one-on-one contact with them.
I would say, of the six families, there's one family who actively was seeking the relocation benefits and was very excited 178 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 about the opportunity. The over five families, three are here today. I don't think it's anybody's first choice to move and I think they'll speak for themselves today, and hat's the statement that they said. But what they've said very consistently throughout all of our conversations is that they want to be treated justly, they want to be compensated fairly for their homes, they want to be able to obtain comparable housing. And we've been trying to work very closely with them to help them achieve those goals.
Mr. Wetzel, again, based on the requests from earlier in this hearing regarding notice, in this particular type of situation, it sounds like there has been a significant amount of notice. So again, I'd ask you in doing the research on the other notice discussion that we had with the broadest possible provisions, if you can look at how we provide notice in the relocation situation. And if that is somehow distinguished either by practice or by statute from the non-relocation notification process, certainly it sounds like you have broader leeway with the relocation direct notification than has been 179 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 exercised so far with the non-relocation notification.
I'm going to look into all of that. And I think one of the points is, though, is if you do that early on notice, whether it's a vacant lot, vacant structure, or an occupied structure, everyone has been noticed, and at the very outside if that's a possibility. And the implication is if you're living in an occupied one and you were to get this notice is that you would be subject to possible relocation.
I understand. You'll work with your legal team to decide what the notice says. I think, again, what's most important here is occupied, non-occupied, a person's property is a person's property. I think for our own protection, we just want to make sure that we've gone through the steps to say, "We sent you something," whether it's registered mail or hand delivery or whatever the case may be. Whether you show up or not, literally almost kind of becomes your problem. Our requirement, I think, though, should be broad as possible notification. We gave it to you. Whether you responded on not, as long as 180 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 it's written in a language that most people understand, they do have some responsibility to respond. In most instances, the reason they're noticed is the fact that their property is either in disrepair or some other kind of state, that they haven't responded probably to L & I notices. 8 This is kind of your last opportunity here. 9 Thank you. 10
Mr. Wetzel, where is 12 the authority that leads you to conclude that you're 13 not permitted to have a one-on-one discussion? 14
I'll be glad to provide for 15 you. But it's in the Federal Uniform Relocation Act 16 and in other statutes. In other words, unless we 17 have proceeded with a Declaration of Taking, there 18 is nothing to discuss because there is no 19 condemnation on a one-on-one basis. I mean, if 20 somebody says to me, "What are my specific 21 benefits," that's subject to the value of their 22 property, to how far away or how close they're going 23 to move. They're entitled to like moving payments. 24 They're entitled to either a fixed moving payment or 25 an actual moving payment. There's a lot of 181 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 variables that come into play, and it all depends on what the replacement house is going to be. For example, an owner can decide to be a tenant and take their replacement housing payment to become a tenant. Or a tenant can take their replacement housing payment and put it as a down payment and become a homeowner. It is a very -- I'd be glad to share it with you. It is a very complicated system, the Uniform Relocation Act that has a high level of protection in it.
I must have in my career missed the occasion when there had to be a discussion as to government's right to limit discussion with its citizens, because I can't imagine the language that would be used in the Government publication saying that you must not discuss any specifics with an owner or with anybody until you've decided to take it.
I kind of have a feeling that it must have been language built by bureaucrats who were aware of the fact that they might give misleading information, and that could 182 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 create problems who then adopted a result that it's better to muzzled and say nothing to avoid being charged later with having given false information. And that's a genuine consideration. But I really can't believe that there is any law which bars Redevelopment Authority from talking to people ans saying, as Councilman Nutter suggested, "Well, we can't tell you your specifics until we work out other plans." That is understandable. But it would seem to that there could be absolutely nothing that exists that bars the Redevelopment Authority except is own decision from discussing as much as you possibly can with individuals. You know, you're not -- if somebody goes to buy a TV and they're wondering whether they should rent it instead of buying it, nobody can give them an answer until they know is it a rental or a purchase deal. In the same way, you can't give people the final answer until a lot of things are worked out, but I know of nothing that would bar you from you explaining every detail.
Point of order, Mr. 183 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 Chair. Excuse me, Councilman. Councilman, I'm only bringing this because there's several people that have been here since o'clock, 9:30 actually, 6 from the community to testify. And this discussion 7 that we're currently having is extremely important, 8 but it kind of centers more about policy and not 9 directly related to the bill. Is there any 10 possibility, Mr. Chairman, that we can have those individuals testify and go back to this policy discussion about the broader implications of relocation?
Actually, we had a pretty long hearing today with a lot of people in it, and it's going quite smoothly, and I guess that really speaks to when people come in and want to cooperate within the hearing process that things do go smoothly in here. I thank you all for your 184 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 patience and for your attendance and your involvement. Any other questions or anything else to say?
I have testimony that I understand you now have in writing which I haven't presented verbally. I'd like the opportunity to do that, but there are a number of -- as I said, three residents who are here and a number of community and business groups who are here, so I'd be happy to let them go and then I'll testify after.
That's fine. Thank you. Who on 020679 is here to testify? Please identify yourself for the record.
My name Daralia Rodriguez (ph), and I represent Dalia Rodriguez, my mother, 233 Cecil B. Moore. I would like to read the testimony first. We, the undersigned families are homeowners affected by Bill 020679. We submit this statement to ensure the City of Philadelphia records our position. We understand the reason the City is seeking to acquire the parcels. Unfortunately, to 185 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 achieve its goals, we will be impacted. As a city, we also have a vested interest in the outcome of today's hearing. The 1700 block of American Street includes our homes as well as vacant land. We have lived in these properties raising our families and working hard to make numerous improvements for many years. It is not our preference to sell or move. We recently made significant improvements to modernize our homes. We like where we live. We also understand that it is in the neighborhood's and City's best interest to acquire land for new industry and job creation. We are not against progress of our community. On the contrary. But at the same time, we don't want to sacrifice our current quality of life or financial investments. It is our expectation that the City and our Councilperson respect our rights and make sure that we are treated with fairness and provided with just compensation if this bill is approved by City Council. Thank you. Now, in addition to this, I just wanted to make a personal note. We've been living in 233 Cecil B. Moore for 46-some years. That number 233 186 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 is very important because my father 46 years he played that number in New York. He hit, and that's what he used to put a down payment on the house. 53 for years. But I might add, some 8 months were harder than others. But he did it. And 9 he's passed on, but my mother, myself, my sisters, 10 we've continued to make memories in this big old 11 house. It's old, but it's ours. It's our house. 12 We've adjusted our lives and our work 13 schedule as well in order take care of our mom, take 14 her to the doctors, since she can't travel alone. 15 My mom and I heard about this revitalization of American Street years ago, and we thought, wow, finally we can live in a nice place and a neighborhood that we can proud of. So we've made improvements, significant improvements in our house. Councilman Mariano you've been there. We've fixed the outside, the inside, and we're proud of it. A few months ago, only a few months ago, we found out this program had a lot to do with us. It wasn't in April, it was in September we found out 187 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 about it through some of the community residents. Not that we were going to be part of it as far as living within the community, but to be the part that means being taken out. Out of our home for 46-plus years. This was not what we dreamed of. No need to say how devastated we were and we still are of the possibility of not living in the community. We do understand, though, and are not against the progress of the community, but at the same time it's a shame we will not be a part of it. We have been approached by many people, many agencies and community leaders and have been told that if or when the bill is passed we would be placed in something comparable, but at the same time telling us that if we stay in the community we will definitely not find a house as big as ours. Our house is huge. We've worked hard to have what we have. We do not want to sacrifice our current quality of life. We have had sleepless nights over this and it has started taking a toll on my mom's health who is now 82 years old. And not to mention the way it has affected my production level at my place of employment. I've loss work today. If bill is 188 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 passed, we are willing to cooperate with the City, but as long as our rights are respected and we're treated fairly and with just compensation. And I speak for myself and my sister and my mother.
Thank you very much for your patience and for your testimony. I appreciate it. Thank you. Is there anyone else to testify?
Hi. My name is Malgras Velas (ph), and I'm going to speak on behalf of my father, Manuel Velas. He lives on the 1700 block of American Street. And previous to that we lived on Bodine Street which is the six houses that are going to be torn down. So we've been living in the neighborhood for a long time. Now, my father, like, we didn't know anything that was going on with his house on American Street, that it was going to be torn down, until October. And we heard like another gentleman had said, like from the grapevine, you know from other neighbors. And the community, you know, they've been setting up meetings with us, ourselves together, and they've created a committee and they're the ones who have been making phone calls 189 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 and finding out information. Yeah, now the American Street Empowerment Zone are coming to the houses, but they didn't come to us in the first place. The committee, they've assigned people to find out information, call this person, that person. And through them, they're the ones that, I think, called the American Street Empowerment Zone and the other organizations to have a meeting with us. So we were surprised. We were not sent a letter or anything. A neighbor just said to you, "Oh, tell your father that probably in seven or eight months he might get a letter saying that he's going to have to move because the house is going to be torn doubt. Now, also, two days ago someone came from the American Empowerment Zone to my father's house and, you know, was trying to tell my dad, you know, convince him to move, whatever, that they're going to relocate him, this and that. So my dad, he kept insisting my dad does not want to move. And what he told my dad at the end was if my dad doesn't want to give in and move then his case would be sent to court and then in 72 days my dad will have to move. Now, I don't know how this works, you 190 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 know, the process. I don't anything. But if it all boils down to that my dad has to move, he does want -- I understand what the gentleman was saying with the other organization Redevelopment Authority, but that's not good enough. In order for residents to be willing to move, we do want to what we're going to get. I agree what the gentleman here at the end said completely. He took the words right out of my mouth. There's going to be problems. We're not going to want to move if they're not going to tell us what we're going to get. We want something in writing, somehow, if somebody can do something to help us, the community. Because that's creating a problem. The people from Bodine, they were all of a sudden like just sent a letter and said, "Oh, you got a couple of months to move and we're offering you $20,000." That was the first thing. I don't know what organization it came from. They were all alone in on this. They didn't this a lawyer. They didn't know who to go to. And we were surprised about what's going on in our community, and we want to be involved. We want someone, anybody, to set up meetings with us, 191 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 with the affected residents, and let us know what is going to happen in our community. Everything, what's going to happen with us. Somebody who knows something that can tell us something because we don't know anything and we're like lost out in space. That's all I want to say.
I hear you. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else here to testify in this regard?
Rose Gray with Asocacion De Puertorrquenos En Marcha, APM. During the past two years we've worked in partnership with the American Street Empowerment Zone, the business association, other CDCs that are here today in developing a streetscape strategy. And the reason for this is because we believe that we need to revitalization of the American Street Corridor for the $54 million at least of investment that you have supported in the past for APM's initiatives. As part of this, unfortunately, there is a relocation component. And Ms. Rodriguez and her family have visited with me and my staff recently to talk about relocation. And I've sat through 192 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 listening to their trauma, their tragedy, and the sadness. And I think I can't express it any more than they've expressed it today. But what I can tell you is we're dedicated to assist them in the relocation activities. Fortunately, today, we are in the process of completing a 50-unit homeownership project in that neighborhood. One of the units is a five-bedroom unit newly instructed that I'm asking them to see if this bill is so passed. I don't know what compensation can really be made to take your home, but if we can assist them, we will. APM over the last years has relocated 40 families in situations like this. And out of the 40 families, we've had one negative event. So they can be assured that we'll do everything. And I'll make it short. That's it.
Thank you. Is there anyone else to testify on the relocation issue?
Mr. Chairperson, Members of the Committee, my name Jeramos Salas, Jr (ph). I'm the president of the Hispanic Association of Contractors and Enterprises, a non-profit 193 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 organization doing development in this area since about 1982. During this time, we've invested both private and public investment in affordable housing rent to own homeownership along with business services in the area of $60 million. The area in question is very close to my heart in that I've lived in this area since 1956. My family still lives in this area. And being around that long, you get to see the good and the bad that time brings on. In the last 40 years, this community has seen a lot of bad, not only in this community, but in the City in terms of blight and deterioration, loss of business, loss of jobs, loss of housing, lots and abandonment. The blight issue is a real serious issue in this community. And I think for the very first time in this many years we see a partnership between City government and the community in trying to bring about resources, programs, and initiatives to show progress. Unfortunately, there is displacement of these six families. And I think that while we talk about the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative City wide that the displacement and dislocation of families is part of progress, however, the manner in 194 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 which it is handled, as we've heard this morning by other people in terms of notices needs to be improved. In a process as complicated as development and in a process as complicated as community revitalization when y ou talk about businesses and jobs and housing and people, that is a very complicated process. And the manner that we should do it can be improved. And I think it will be improved. I think having the initiative to hire a person to speak Spanish goes a long way to be able to translate the proper information and the right information. HACE is currently doing a development in 1600 block of North American Street. It's a long-term vacant, City-owned property. It is a facility that will be done to prepare foods for elderly residents. It will create jobs. 19 I think the notion of having business 20 and community and people living next to each other is a good thing if we can just sit down and talk about it so that it is fair, it is equitable, not only to this community and the people, but to the City of Philadelphia. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much 195 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 for your testimony. As we go on, the only thing I would say is that we're dealing with in this bill apparently six families. From the testimony, we understand that one relatively happy, the other five realize that it's a fait accompli, they may go, but are very confused and concerned about the timing on how they were notified and what they were told. And that is a serious problem that, obviously, need to be rectified. The concern I have is that as we go forward, when you're dealing with hundreds of people potentially that have to go through this process, you need a much more refined and dependable process. I mean, if this is microcosm of what we're going to deal with down the road, I really think there's som serious things that need to be correct. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Committee Chair and Members of City Council. My name is Tom Forkin and I'm President of the American Street Erie Avenue Business Association, an association representing more than 150 business owners located within the American Street and Erie Avenue 196 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 Corridors. I'm also the Corporate Vice President of Uniguide Products, a small metal stamping firm located at 2403 North Second Street. Thank you for providing the opportunity for me to testify day. I would like to just start by saying, Jim, I agree with some of the comments you made. I'm not here to talk about the general macro issues about notice or fair just compensation. Basically, we're here to support the effort for economic development on a number of parcels located adjacent or contiguous to American Street. And we believe there's six major reasons for proposing and advancing this development. Number one, the proposed projects will create jobs for City and neighborhood residents. That's unquestionable. American Street firms employ several hundred neighborhood residents. When I say neighborhood residents, I mean residents of the Empowerment Zone Area itself. Our association's membership prefer to hire employees that live near by and can get to work without difficulty. And I can speak to that firsthand experience. In addition, ASEABA members have a long history of working with local job training providers, such as 197 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 Impact Services to identify new hires who live in the neighborhood. Number two, the vacant abandoned industrial land found at all these locations is a magnet for short dumping, abandoned autos, and illegal activity that are a source of constant problems for the existing businesses on American Street and for the residents themselves. Reuse of taxable vacant land will bring activity and investment to long abandoned parcels that have had a blighting effect around the surrounding neighborhood. Number three, American Street remains a highly attractive location for firms that distribute and manufacture goods due to its proximity to Center City and I-95, the width of the American Street itself, and the industrial character of that corridor. Businesses want to locate on American Street but are prevented from doing so because of a lack of parcels large enough for development. Number four, it is appropriate for the City to designate American Street as a location for future industrial development because of the problems that truck traffic create when trucks move 198 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 through residential areas. Because characteristics mentioned above, American Street suits these industrial firms very well and is now where many of them are already located. Number five, the designation of American Street as an industrial corridor and location for future industrial development has been affirm repeatedly over the past years in planning 10 processes involving the Business Association, 11 community-based organizations the City Planning 12 Commission. The industrial character of American 13 Street was affirm most recently with the creation of 14 American Street corridor industrial Urban Renewal 15 Area this past spring. 16 Finally, Number six, the proposed 17 projects will complement investments made over the 18 past 20 years, but not only the City of 19 Philadelphia, but the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 20 to develop the American Street corridor as a location of businesses to manufacture and distribute goods. The ASEABA is committed to continuing to work as a partner with, not only government and community organizations, but with all the area 199 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 residents to better the neighborhoods that our member of companies are located in. This bill, done in an equitable manner, sends a strong message of support to local, small, family-owned businesses who have made a commitment to stay in the City.
As President of the American Street Erie Avenue Business Association, I look forward to continuing this work with Council. And I thank you for providing the opportunity to testify day.
Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? (No response.)
Good afternoon. You have to identify yourself for the record.
Thomas J. Carbine of the American Street Erie Avenue Business Association. We're talking in terms of several decades now in which we've been involved. One of the things that you are getting here now is just a microcosm of what it was here originally. And you can recall from looking at pictures that when we had it torn up unused railroad and it was on either side with 200 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 demolished buildings that had fallen into disrepair. However, in that area, there are people who I know today who were there when we decided that -- and I say the City and I'm saying Frank Rizzo decided to ask the federal government for $18 million to start this project. This project is not completed. From Day One we have had to think about census tracts. I think there were 15,000 census tracts involved and many, many families. It was hard for them to think of moving. But nevertheless, when they stepped back and thought of what we could accomplish, they then became very agreeable and we did the best we could. And to my knowledge today, they were very happy and satisfied. So Philadelphia has a reputation for treating the residents with respect and doing the best by them. Currently, we have had additional funds come down from Harrisburg. Governor Casey on the same day that he committed to the improvement of South Broad Street committed $20 million to the work that we were doing at that time which was remediation basically because the businesses that had been there had been using materials which had contaminated the ground, and it's taken quite a 201 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 while for that remediation to take place. And so that's why we're delay in getting around to this portion of the corridor. When we initially were approached by the residents in the lower part of the corridor, we were business individuals, businessmen, who did not and had no association with each other. Business made no concerted effort. This was strictly an effort on the part of the City and the current Councilman in that area to foster this project. What I really want to let you know is the project is here, it's underway, it's not completed, and we have some more to do. And we know that these relocations could happen again. We just have to make sure that everybody is treated fairly. Thank you.
Thank you. That's my hope that in this particular area especially that the private sector move this forward. We've been through a number of programs in the section, Enterprise, Empowerment, KOZ, NTI. I mean, the list goes on. And I really do personally depend on the private sector to make sure that the money that's invested in -- I guess if I look back at all the money that's been invested in the City, not just 202 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 there, but around the City in these kind programs, if we could reduce the taxes and improve the schools, we probably wouldn't be doing NTI. But there's always time to start over. Thanks Tom. Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. My name is Ron Ramstead, and I'm the president of small food processing plant on the 1300 block of American Street. I'd like to thank for the opportunity to testify today. My company has been located on American Street for about years, and I've only been there 15 six. I currently employ over 40 people, full-time jobs, represented by a local union. A majority of my employees live in the Philadelphia market. And over a third of them can actually walk to work. I urge you to support this proposed legislation. My perspective is probably a little different since I'm not a native of Philadelphia. I'm from the great state of Iowa and got lost one day here. But the perspective of six years ago I came here and it was very, very difficult place to do business on American Street, from the graffiti, 203 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 the crime, and different situations. And also, some of the situations of how to expand a business. My mission was to basically turn around a very poorly run company and then probably to move it out of the area. I have elected since then by working with many officials to stay the course as long as I can. One of the difficulties we do have is basically acquiring land and that's an issue that happens a lot. I have had some help and have acquired several properties since that time. There are things I do like about American Street now that I didn't before. It is a safer place. My car doesn't get broken into every other week. Graffiti is no longer in existence and the crime of breaking into the building and stealing things off my roof no 17 longer happen. The proposed projects will improve American Street by bringing in new investment activity and jobs for residents. Activity is really important. When you do see investment by private companies, things get better. More people in the local area will be hired and it becomes very more successful. It has been tough, but with this legislation I do see the light at the end of the 204 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 tunnel and greater success in the market.
Good afternoon. My name is Jim Flaherty. I'm the Executive Director of the Kensington South NAC and I'm also the acting President of the American Street Empowerment Zone Community Trust Board. I'm speaking in support of this bill also. And I'm just going to paraphrase what I will leave you in writing. The area of American Street, which runs from Girard to Burks in my area is approximately seven blocks of the approximate 15 blocks of this area. So it's an important part of our community and has been identified in our strategic can plan as an industrial area and to continue into the future as an industrial area. In 1999, the American Street Empowerment Zone Community Trust Board set a priority of attracting 300 jobs into the community, and it was always thought of at that time and to this day that those jobs would go on American Street. It was the largest area of vacant land. It had the 205 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 infrastructure for it and it also had the appropriate zoning. So this is something that the Community Trust Board has kind of pushed forward and we're, in one sense, happy to see it going forward. However, we have been very disturbed by the initial way that the relocation process has been carried out. I'm not going to go beat this horse again, but it could have been better. I think there have been a lot of very good questions that have been raised and a lot issues that need to be resolved. Having said that, though, I certainly hope that the Committee and the Council will approve this bill 14 because I think it's something that's very much needed. Thank you.
My name is James Hartling. I'm a principal with Urban Partners and Economic Development Consulting Firm. We've been doing this for years. Prior to that time, I work 21 for the City of Philadelphia and, in fact, 22 supervised the beginning of the American Street revitalization process years ago. So I bring 24 some perspective to this issue. I am speaking also 25 in favor of the bill. I should also point out I'm a 206 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 consult to the Empowerment Zone for economic development issues. I just want to make four points. The first one is that residents and businesses have for a quarter century now and perhaps longer if you listen to Mr. Carbine, struggled to try to make American Street a good place to both live and to work. But we're trapped in the environment created by 19th century land use patterns with homes and small business chocked up against each other. It simply doesn't work with the trucks that we have now have on American Street. And so it's very important to try to move away from the fragmented land use patterns. We see the immediate problem of that at all times as small parcels are owned by the City, they're vacant, they're derelict, they're not tax paid and then there will be some person living in the middle of that or small business trapped in the middle of that. The dumping occurs on all those vacant parcels, and everyone is hurt immensely. So getting past the fragmented ownership pattern is a critical issue to moving forward. Secondly, effective parcels are critical to attract the types of businesses that are 207 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 interested in American Street. As Mr. Forkin mentioned, we're essentially looking at value added distribution firms who have a lot of jobs, a lot of good-paying jobs, but who need the ability to move up and down American Street with their trucks and to be in a position in which they can function on their parcels effectively with a large enough building to house their goods and services. We have to have larger parcels to do that. Time and again, as we have interviewed businesses, they've said to us, "We are not investing in our business in this community because of the rest of the property looks so bad that our customers do not want to come here." So the spill over investment to the adjacent businesses will be a tremendous benefit. The third point I want to make is that for years we've been making investments in 19 American Street to be an effective, modern 20 industrial district, and the bill you have in front 21 of you is one more step in exploiting all those 22 investments and roads of business development and 23 job training that we've made all those years. 24 The last point I'd like to make is that 25 the residents in this community want to have the 208 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 business corridor be an asset for them. The businesses want the business corridor to be an asset for them. And in order to do that, if we look anywhere around the region, business districts that are assets have terrific landscaping, they have clear boundaries, they have places where the trucks go and places where the trucks don't go. And the bill you have in front of you is one small step in a continuum to begin to create that vision for American Street that everyone wants. Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else to testify on this bill?
My name is Jordan Muhammad Akbar. Transportation is my forte. And we were looking at property on American Street for our hallow endeavor. We have a constituency of 2.5 billion people worldwide and we have the only hallow, which means lawful, water purifying mechanism and bottle purification process in the world. And we reached out for some property on American Street and was wondering why we couldn't get it. 209 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 The language here is making me sick on my stomach. It sort of reminds me of what happened to my ancestors 400 years ago when some people decided in the name of progress it would be profitable to move some people from one continent to another continent. And I caution this Council, to violate one citizen is like building your castles on sand. And the mistakes of the past that we ignore, we're doomed to repeat them. And what goes up must come down. So I just wanted to caution that the cure cancer might come and if we violate one human being and save a million, yet that one human being is worth more than that million. Thank you.
I'm not going to read my testimony because you have it already.
You're welcome. I wanted to make sure, though, that you had a copy of the testimony that could not be delivered by the Pennsylvania Horticulture Society. They were here earlier. And also, the statement that was read from the residents, I have copies of that and I wanted to make sure that that got entered 210 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 in as well. And that's it.
I'm sorry, I do want to say one thing on the record on behalf of the residents, which is that the City Planning Commission has initiated steps to establish a broad based very interactive planning process that will involve looking at the American Empowerment Zone neighborhood and probably in areas slightly larger than that so that we can address some of the issues that have risen today around making sure that everybody in the community has the same vision for the use of the land going forward and the various amenities, both residents and businesses.
Thank you. I'd like to thank Councilman Nutter, first of all, for bringing up some poignant questions and driving home the points that were probably well taken here today, 211 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 and I would like to thank the rest of the Members of the Committee for bringing out some things that went wrong with this whole process. And I'd especially like to thank Ms. Rodriguez and her sister for coming down here, and the rest of the neighbors. I was in that house that her father won on that lucky day. I didn't have the fortune to meet her father, but I met her and her sister and I met her mother. Now, I can venture a guess when they bought that house there was more than two houses there. So their reward for sticking it out here is just this. So if she seemed a little emotional, you can understand. They just put a whole new room 15 downstairs so their 82-year-old mother doesn't have to walk up the steps. And the one lady whose name I forget who spoke for her father, if you walked in his house, I was transported back in time. I thought it was like 1975 and I may have on an island in Puerto Rico. It's a very lovely house and he put a lot of time and care in it. The whole process which may start out good -- one of the Councilpeople taught me this. The rode to hell is paved with good intentions. 212 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 Everything in here was good intentions, and we certainly understand my friend Mr. Forkin and what he's, Mr. Carbine what he has been doing all these decades and the consultants. Let's not make these mistakes again. And this is a message to this Administration who I've been favorable with I'll be favorable on this bill because the community is for it. I'm not going through this process again. This should be handled a lot better and it should be handled in a process -- if you're sending letters out to people that don't speak English but don't read English or Spanish, someone has to visit them. And you know what, a Spanish-speaking consultant may not be good enough. There may be someone that lives in that neighborhood that everyone knows and trust. If I'm Mr. Valdez and somebody's knocking on my door that I don't understand on the 7800 block of America Street, I'm not answering that door. I don't care how Spanish he looks or how white he looks or how African American he looks; I'm not answering that door because his whole life is in that house and the life his family before him. Nobody wants to hurt anybody here, but don't bring us this again, not like this. So I hope Mr. Wetzel, Ms. Smith and Eva, 213 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020679 I mean, we all try to do good things there. You're going to lose one person if this ever has to happen again. And I think these are all good people and you understand what's going to go on. But the community had this spread all around because that's the only way they had to get information. If they heard something from their neighbor, it had to be true because they weren't hearing nothing else. And being human beings, we go for the worse news. That's what I do. "Well, what's the worst thing that could happen? I'm going to lose my house. Are they coming to take my dad's house? " Then we go down there six, eight months later and it's like we got our thumbs stuck up a certain part of our anatomy that we don't want to and we don't want to say in these people. I was in tears, literally had to fight back the tears to walk in a couple of them houses and say, you know what, this person is probably going to lose their house regardless of what I do. So take that as warning. It's as nice a warning you're going to get. This can never happen again here. And I can tell by the other district 214 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681 council and the at-large councilpeople here, no 3 matter what federal guidelines, we need people that live in that community to be able to go there and they can see a face that they trust so they can understand what's going on here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
We will now move to Bill No. 020681, an ordinance approving the 30th Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at the northwest corner of Front street and Spring Garden Street, including the 22nd Amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan and the 21st Amendment to the Relocation Plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 1,035 properties for residential and related uses; the additional land acquisition of approximately 39 properties for institutional and related reuse; the additional land acquisition of approximately 301 properties for residential, commercial and related reuses. 215 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681 Please identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, my name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 1,376 properties. A total of 301 properties, all vacant lots, will be acquired as part of a land banking strategy in Strawberry Mansion Acquisition Zone, an area of North Philadelphia generally bounded by 33rd Street to the west, Oxford Street to the south, Dauphin Street to the north, and North 31st Street to the east. This area has been selected because of its high vacancy rate and proximity to Fairmount Park and lends to redevelopment potential. A total of 582 vacant lots will be acquired as part of a land banking strategy in the Cecil B. Moore Acquisition Zone, an area of North Philadelphia bordered by North Broad Street on the east, North 21st Street on the west, Montgomery Avenue on the north, and Master Street on the south. It is an area that has been strategically selected due to its high vacancy rate and redevelopment 216 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681 potential. A total of 221 properties, all vacant lots, will be acquired as part of a land banking strategy in the Sharswood Acquisition Zone, an area of North Philadelphia in the vicinity of 22nd and Jefferson Street. It is an area that has been strategically selected due to the high vacancy rate and redevelopment potential. A total of 55 properties, 29 vacant structures and occupied structures, will be 12 acquired in support of the last phase of the Cecil 13 B. Moore Homeownership Zone. 14 A total of five properties, vacant 15 structures, will be acquired on behalf of the Board 16 of City Trusts for the development of five 17 affordable homeownership units for first time home 18 buyers as part of an overall commitment to remove 19 blight in the Girard College area. Development 20 funding will be applied for by the Board to the 21 Redevelopment Authority's Homeownership 22 Rehabilitation Program. 23 A total of two properties located at 24 1717-19 North 33rd Street will be acquired and made 25 available for development as affordable housing for 217 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681 the elderly. A total of nine properties, eight vacant lots and one vacant structure will be acquired on behalf of Habitat for Humanity-North Central. Habitat proposes to develop new construction single-family homeownership units for sale to low and moderate-income families. A total vacant structures will be 10 acquired and rehabilitated under the Office of 11 Housing and Community Development's Homestart 12 Program as affordable homeownership units for sale 13 to first time home buyers. 14 A total of 34 properties, 11 vacant structures and 23 vacant lots, will be acquired for Susquehanna Seniors Development, a joint venture made up of ventures and the Susquehanna Business Association Community Development Corporation, which proposed to develop a 65 to 70 unit low-income housing tax credit project. A total of vacant properties, all 22 vacant lots, will be acquired on behalf of the 23 Pennsylvania Horticultural Society's Vacant Land 24 Stabilization Program. 25 A total of 39 properties, 36 vacant 218 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681 lots, vacant structure, and occupied structures, will be acquired for future institutional development. Hope Partnership for Education has expressed interest in developing a Charter school at this site. A total of four properties, vacant lots, will be acquired and made available to the neighborhood garden association. A total of properties, all vacant 11 structures, 5 of which have been encapsulated by the 12 Department of Licenses and Inspections, will be acquired and made available for rehabilitation under the Redevelopment Authority's Homeownership Rehabilitation Program. A total of 60 properties, 55 vacate lots and 4 vacant structures, and 1 occupied structure, will be acquired on behalf of the Women's Community Revitalization Project.
WCRP proposes to utilize low-income housing tax credits to develop 32 new construction rental townhouses and apartments for very low income families. A total of one property, a vacant lot, at 1810 Ridge Avenue is being acquired on behalf of Complete Wilding for expansion of their existing 219 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681 business. A total of three properties, vacant structures, will be acquired on the 1600 block of Montgomery Avenue for the Advocate Community Development Corporation for a special needs housing development. E. E. will rehabilitate these properties utilizing the Redevelopment Authority's Homeownership Rehabilitation Program. These homes will be made available for low and moderate income first-time home buyers. This amendment, which will result in the enhancement of the property, was approved by the City Planning Commission on October 15, 2002. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 020681 and would ask the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on December 12, 2002.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Could I just ask, the first three items 220 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681 you mentioned, all land banking, how many properties of the 1500 are included in that land banking?
And with the exception of Mr. Brown at Complete Welding, the others are either projects that are publicly subsidized or have some social service mission of some kind?
But not generally private sector projects with the exception of Mr. Brown's expansion?
No, none of these are what you would call a fair market rate other than the business expansion. 221 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681
Mr. Brown's expansion is probably the only private sector besides the potential land banking uses?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I'm Richard Redding representing the Planning Commission testifying on Bill 020681, involving the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area proposing acquisitions in many project areas, including Strawberry Mansion where our community planning from the Planning Commission is well under way. The Planning Commission approved this at their meeting in October, and I'm able to answer any questions if you'd like.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Councilman Clarke, do you have a question for these witnesses?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to reference two of the land banking initiatives in particular, 222 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681 particularly the Sharswood Acquisition Zone and the Cecil B. Moore Acquisition Zone. Both of those acquisition packages are adjacent to current development initiatives, so this hopefully will build upon what is currently a relatively successful development both in the Sharswood area where we approximately a year completed 72 units of housing and those acquisitions are around the perimeter of that particular development. I think probably all of the parcels are vacant with the exception of two. The Cecil B. Moore Acquisition Zone is around the perimeter of the current funded Homeownership Zone in addition to which it is adjacent to the Temple University area. So we're very sure that the development initiatives in those particular areas will be enhanced by its location. So I just wanted to clarify that for the record. I'll assume the Chair. Are there any other questions of these witnesses? (No response.)
Councilman, you were on the phone. I had to steal the initiative.
I appreciate it. Is this the last bill? 223 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681
I can hold my questions for that. I would ask, Mr. Wetzel, and I know there's been a lot of discussion going back and forth about what's ready for development, what's possibly in a land bank. Was an earlier question asked for data regarding a delineation between those two for the upwards of 2500 properties that are part of today's --
Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify on this bill? Please identify yourself for the record.
My name Patricia Smith, and I'm Director of Neighborhood Transformation. I did submit written testimony on behalf of the Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Project, which is part of the 224 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681 Model Cities in the Cecil B. Moore Urban Renewal Area. Briefly, that's a 296-unit development project that was funded by HUD in the mid '90s. We're moving towards the final and last phase of that project. The intent is to complete approximately 151 units, in part, using resources from NTI bond proceeds to support the acquisition and site preparation and demolition activity where new construction would be involved. Also, we will be moving forward with constructing a community-based development organization as required by the HUD regulations which will consist of a qualified developer to partner with a community-based organization. The CBO will be comprised of several individuals and organizations represented in the community in earlier planning processes. That's just an overview of the initiative.
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Chairman and Committee Members. I'm Alfred Essandoh, and I'm Director of Operations for Habitat for Humanity in 225 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681 North Philadelphia. We have been in the neighborhood for 4 years now, and we enjoy the support of our 5 Councilman Darrell Clarke, and I'm here to lend our 6 support to this initiative. Thank you. 7
Thank you very much 8 for waiting. 9 Finally, Reverend. 10 REV. MOORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 11 Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'll 12 respect the fact that you have been sitting a long 13 time and I'll get right to the point to say that I 14 do want to lend my support to this initiative. I 15 think for the record I need to give my name. 16 William B Moore, I'm Pastor of the 1300-member 10th Memorial Baptist Church in North Central Philadelphia and president of two non-profits: One has built a 60-unit senior housing at Ridge and Master and also a second development, 10 townhouses just across the street from my church in the 1900 block of Master Street. And on both of those projects as well as the other initiatives, we worked cooperatively with our Councilman, Councilman Darrell Clarke, and he has been very sensitive to 226 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681 all of the issues that, not only we've had, but also the community initiatives. I do want to say that I do support the land acquisition strategy of this bill. I think it's so vitally important because being a part of having done development in the past, I've seen what dangling participle development has meted out where you have a block of good development and then two blocks of vacant and abandoned housing, and it really does not engender people wanting to stay in the neighborhood. So this bill, I think, provides an opportunity, a window of opportunity, to do it right, to do wholesale development to build houses so that it does in fact invite and encourage other development that makes a community whole and strong. And I want to add my strong support to this bill.
Thank you very much. We appreciate it. REV. MOORE: Thank you.
Thank you for I'll be fast. I'm Steve Kaufmann, I'm the Executive Director of Community Ventures and we're going to be involved in partnership with Susquehanna CDC in the 227 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681 seniors development at 15th and Susquehanna, and we appreciate very much the opportunity to be allowed to do this work and the consistent support of Councilperson Darrell Clarke. I just wanted to state briefly that this is a development that won't work unless we do do some relocation perhaps on a private basis. And I think it's appropriate to ask developers, particularly if they're involved in big projects that generate significant fees to get involved in the relocation issue financially and also in terms of working with the residents. Details would have to be worked out with the Redevelopment Authority in terms of all these timing and notification issues. But I think it's appropriate to ask developers to step up and help with the problems since there's genuine human concerns here. Thank you.
Good afternoon my name is Susanne Stone. I work for Sherrick Project Management. I'm here today on behalf of the Board of City Trusts who is represented in this bill by the five properties on Thompson Street. 228 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681 The Board of City Trusts has made a commitment to the Girard College area to renovate blighted properties and has done so over the past couple of years. With the renovation of these five vacant properties, there will be no more vacancies on this 1700 and 1800 block of West Thompson. So the Board of City Trusts is in full support of this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Ms. Stone. Could you just very briefly, because the time is late, talk about the initiative, focus of the Homeownership Initiative and the residents that we have targeted for placement in these homes?
Absolutely. The program has looked at the immediate area surrounding Girard college and looked at all the vacancies. They have begun renovation. Actually, they've renovated -- I don't have the exact number, but over the last two years they renovated several properties in that area. The properties are then sold to first time 229 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681 low-income home buyers.
Exactly. And I guess it's because it's second nature, so everybody else must e know this.
I know I'm leading the witness, but this is not a courtroom so I can probably get away with it.
Thank you. I'm a little punchy from not eating lunch. Absolutely, the parents of the children that go to Girard College are targeted to be those first time home buyers. And then also, people that buy the homes that may not have their children enrolled are offered a scholarship and encouraged to enroll their children at Girard college. So it's a really unique and exciting project that the Councilman has been very involved in and have been 230 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681 very supportive of.
You're welcome. I'm sorry. I think if I had eaten lunch I would have picked up on that a little bit better.
Good afternoon. My name is Carolyn Placke. I am Housing Community Development manager for Project H.O.M.E., and my colleague also David Cleghorn who's Housing Project Manager at Project H.O.M.E. Project H.O.M.E. is testifying in support of this ordinance which will result in a total of 11 units of homeownership, five of which are included in this bill. The five properties will be rehabilitated through the RDA's Homeownership Repair Program. And I'd also like for your consideration to know that Project H.O.M.E. has been committed to this neighborhood for the past 10 years. And the neighborhood that we're focussing on also falls within the NTI designated Strawberry Mansion neighborhood. 231 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681 In addition, these units will help complement the many investments that have been made over the years as well as community anchors, including eight units of rental housing, six open space sites, a community center, and extremely vibrant after school program. Thank you.
Again, I want to ask a question. Do I have to re-identify myself?
Jordan Muhammad Akbar. I want to ask the Council the position of an Administration. When can an Administration own something? My understanding, the way this process happened with the Declaration of Independence that the Administration's origin is out of the consent of the people to be administered over or for, not ruled or et cetera. That's my understanding. You have to work with me because I may be back in time. So whenever the citizens fault or don't hold up their end of the bargain, my understanding is that the land or the houses or something reverts to an Administration, but the Administration cannot be an 232 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681 owner because that's a conflict of interest. That's why I asked Mr. Wetzel what was the origin of the RDA or the PHA, et cetera. Because I'm confused there. And the people I represent -- I'm also the Director of the Islamic Officers, the 197th Legislative District. And as Darrell knows, I was in Andrew's office. Andrew is my cousin, as a matter of fact, he was state representative for X amount of years. So it's not new to me. So I'm asking again. Then I wanted to read something and then I'm done. " The need for universal ownership in response to dialog with Wally Wilson Goode, Mayor of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, enjoyed Muhammad Akbar, Citizen, native Philadelphian, property owner. At the North Central Philadelphia Association Board Director and Members Meeting, 100 Sullivan Hall, Temple University, 10:25, 1984. Mayor Goode stated that public housing along with the rest of the blight in Philadelphia was his pilot priority. And I quote, Iman Muhammad, 233 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681 teacher of the American Muslim Mission, quote, the circumstances affecting our lives as members of this nation are no long a question for the court. The American ownership papers we allow in, so called African Americans have are in way different from the ownership papers or title of citizenship held by any other racial members or ethnic persuasion of our nation. The lonely marching song must give way to the ownership song. Once identified with America in terms of ownership, I don't approach the problems with an eye of an embittered or hurt person standing outside. From ownership sentiment, I approach the problems of American with a courageous and healthy mind, with the strength of my intelligence and of owner sentiment and responsibility, unquote. " I'm going to skip over that and come to here. Today we are confronted with the negative effects of a longstanding national policy which undermines land and homeownership in American life. Those who are gravely concerned about such a policy need little reminder of a third sinister and 234 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681 rapacious law at work in the area of public policy. We call the law of bureaucratic scavengery. Whenever no barriers exists in any area of our common life, the government bureaucracy always tends to move and stake its arbitrary and all-consuming claim. We simply site here one tragic story presently being enacted involving so-called black American which exemplifies the process at work to demean and lessen the lives of an overwhelming majority of people. I represent a people whose time has come, and I'm questioning the process in this land-grabbing all-staking claim that an administration or those subsidiaries that exist out of that Administration and, I want know what makes them an authority and, et cetera, that was my question earlier. So I put these things together because I am also spearheading a movement called the Rediscovery of America. So I might want to discover where you live at and see whether for the sake of progress, as I understand it, whether your property et cetera and the things you've invested all your life, et cetera, don't mean anything. And I have an 235 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020681 offer for you that you can't refuse. So I'm asking of those lines, you see.
And there are more than I can count on all of your hands and toes qualified people to plan something for me. This cage is not my habitat. I don't care if it's gold, I don't care -- my sackcloth is more important to me than your gold cage or anybody's gold cage. Again, I want to know when an Administration -- and I want to separate the two because government is people, City is people, and they elect representatives not leaders, you see. And leaders are not servants, they're stewards and they're governed by an oath. That's my understanding. Now, when the City owns something, then I'm the City. And you all are our elected representatives. Is that right or wrong?
Then I'm asking up those lines. And it would behoove me not to ask these questions, but I have to go back and face some people. I'm going to talk to some people on the radio, et cetera, about the response because, again, this language is sickening. I'll ask again, is this 236 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 the same language the ancestors of the Caucasian world used when they moved our people out of the Continent of so-called Africa? Is that the same language with a three-piece suit. I'm asking. Thank you.
You're very welcome. Thank you. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill. (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now move to the final bill, 020682, an ordinance 14 approving the 9th Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the Whitman Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at a point of intersection of the northerly side of Snyder Avenue and the easterly side of Front Street, including the 9th Amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan and the amended relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 30 properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring the condemnation is not imminent with respect to the project. 237 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 Please identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Chairperson, Members of the Committee, my name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 020682, which would approve the 9th Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the Whitman Urban Renewal Area. A total of 30 properties, all vacant lots would be acquired under this for the purpose of land banking. The bill would advance NTI goals of eliminating blight assembling land for future development in restoring, in the end, properties to the tax roll. This amendment was approved by the City Planning Commission on October 15, 2002. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 020682 and would also ask for the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on Thursday, December 12, 2002.
Thank you. How large is the Whitman Urban Renewal Area? Do you 238 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 know how far it goes up, how far north? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Snyder Avenue is the northern boundary.
And these properties are all vacant lots at this point?
This was a request that came through the District Councilperson's office. And I believe he received that request from State Representative Keller.
But there's no 15 developer for this land at this point?
No. I think they're working on a conceptual plan at this point in time and wanted to just bank what was vacant now.
Councilman DiCicco is not here now, but I know that for quite sometime with a developer ready to go there's been a large number of parcels in the northern end of, I guess, south of Washington Avenue, east of Front Street which has been known forever, I guess, as Jefferson Square. I was just curious as to when we make 239 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 decisions as to taking of property without developers ready to go, how did we not get this particular project that's been, I guess, on the drawing board for three years with a developer ready to go? How does that not make the list?
Let me understand, if you're asking the second set of condemnations requested by Jefferson Square?
I'm talking about the movement of the project forward. We are going to approve today, with my affirmative vote, we're going approve today about almost 3,000 properties, many of which do not have developers ready to go. This particular proposal has had a developer waiting to go for quite sometime and money that's in the pipeline which is not coming forward to move the project forward. Who makes that determination that we go through and take properties that don't have any development plan for them but leave properties on the table or put properties in limbo that have a developer ready to go that could be a good model project for NTI as something to show off, it doesn't make the final cut or at least this cut.
I think the problem right 240 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 now is that we did do a major condemnation. We did supply the land. We did allocate $3 million in CDBG for the project. We supported it for a million dollars worth of Pennsylvania finance and there's no 6 movement. And we have attempted to work with the developer --
What's the reason that you understand for lack of movement?
At this point in time, the last thing I heard, and not directly from the develop, was that their construction numbers are coming in higher than the subsidies that are available.
Well, Councilman DiCicco is not here now. I don't know if that's necessarily the case. So I would appreciate if you could provide in writing what your understanding of why there's a delay.
The second part of this was that the second proposal for a second condemnation included well over 30 relocations. And between that and the rising property values down there, it might have been a 5 or $6 million condemnation only to creat enough land to maybe build 30 houses. It 241 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 would be very -- I mean, that real estate market since this started has changed so dramatically down there that what we appraised and condemned four or five years ago, we couldn't even come close to that. I think the market is really taking off there.
What information do you have? I don't know how you do comparables on vacant lots because a lot of them are vacant lots.
I can just tell you what the developer supplied us. When this project was first proposed, the appraised value of their three-bedroom units was 85 and for their four-bedroom units was 95. In our most recent discussion with the developer, after construction values on the three-bedrooms are $195,000, and he can sell the four-bedrooms for 210,000. That's just how rapidly the market has changed down there.
Is this a problem with that particular scenario? 242 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682
No, I think it's great. I mean, there's nothing wrong with that. I think it's good. I mean, I'd just like to see them put a shovel in the ground get moving.
There's a second round of condemnations, would that speed up this process?
So the ability to build more volume would not be beneficial to a project?
That seems to fly in the face of anything I've understood about housing development, that if we could do market rate housing development on a larger scale, that would not more beneficial than doing it on a smaller scale?
I can't argue that. If you're going to do 200 versus 100 houses, there are some economies of scale to be realized. I think the issue here is, we have not been presented, including with 4 million in public subsidy, including with spending well over 3 million 243 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 to put the land together, the developer has not come in and said "I'm ready to build" yet. We have 4 million in public subsidy --
But we have developers in these other bills that did not step to the floor and said "We're ready to build" either.
No, but they don't have 4 million in public subsidy and the land. I mean, we've already conveyed the land to Jefferson Square, put 3 million in CDBG, 1 million in PHFA finance.
What is the amount of all the acquisitions that we're going to approve today preliminarily?
So a substantial sum of money without developers waiting, with the exception of 686 and one private sector development in 681 I don't see much on this list that developers waiting in line to do it or private sector expansion or the private sector development with the exception 244 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 again of Westram and Mr. Brown up the Model Cities Program. So while I understand there may be a change in the real estate environment in Jefferson Square, we are going to approve preliminarily today $14 million in acquisitions without much of a development scheme. Which I'm willing to do. Again, I'm voting for this. When I a project that's on the board for three years which has great potential to improve a neighborhood, it has tons of planning behind it, gets left off the list when we're going to move forward and do 3,000 properties which have similar situations without -- this project has a developer. These properties don't necessarily have developer and are costing $14 million. Again, I'm voting it. I think that Westram especially is a tremendous opportunity and I think some of the other things may pan out to be great opportunities. We don't know. I think we have a pretty good idea that Jefferson Square because of, as you testify, as a changing housing marketing would be very substantial project which would bring middle and upper middle income people to the neighborhood and a greater tax base and improvement to South Philadelphia community all 245 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 tolled. I mean on one standard, we don't have a developer ready to go so we're not going to do that. But we don't have developers ready to go here and we're gong to condemn 3,000 properties.
I understand. I think, if I can articulate this. There as was an acquisition put together for the first phase of Jefferson Square. $3 million in CDBG was set aside. The City supported it for another million dollars of PAHA financing.
Right. And we spent a little over 3 million on acquiring the land for this project. That is all -- we've turned over the land well over a year ago. The other financing has been placed well over a year. I think we need to see that thing move. I mean, you're right, it's ready to go, but it's been ready to go for over a year. And to justify spending another 5 or 6 million assembly land, you'd like to see this developer put a shovel in the ground. It's not that they don't have the money.
Well, is 5 or 6 million your supposition of what the houses are, or 246 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 do we have appraisals of those properties?
I think that our market studies in what we did for NTI is do different 5 market studies to do baseline budgets are indicating 6 substantial increase in property values in that area 7 that would rise -- and then remember, you've got 30 8 relocations at, you know, alone are going to cost 9 well over a million dollars, just the relocations, 10 not including additional subsidies that would be 11 required if those persons relocate into those new 12 house. 13
And, again, I'll say 14 for the record, I'm happy to vote on all these bills 15 today, but we're spending $14 million with not a lot of developers lined up to do anything.
Good afternoon again. I'm Richard Redding from the Planning Commission testifying on Bill 020682, involving the Whitman Urban Renewal Area proposing acquisition of a approximately 30 properties. I'm testifying in support. The Planning Commission approved this at its October meeting. Thank you very much. 247 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682
Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses? Councilman Nutter.
Thank you. I have a couple questions. They're not specific to the bills in front of us. They are pertinent, though, to the matter at hand. And if I could just ask a couple questions, some of which the witnesses may actually have answers to at the moment; the rest, if they can get the answers back, I'd certainly be satisfied. But I think they're relatively short. Mr. Wetzel, for the record -- and I think there was an information request made earlier. You're going to be able to get us copies of all the various urban renewal areas or renewal zones as well as a City-wide map that would show everything; is that correct?
Well, actually, what we committed to have was have what maps for these ordinances put together. It's going to take a little bit longer if you want -- the Planning Commission does have a City-wide map that covers all the redevelopment areas and they're working one that then superimposes the urban renewal areas on top of 248 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 it.
All I'm asking for is for the matters that are in front of us today if we could have kind of small user friendly version of the maps that have gone back and forth as well as take all of that information and then put it on one map just for the bills that are in front of us today so you can then get a City-wide perspective of the bills. We could then take the 13 bills and the 11 areas involved and properties and put them on one 12 map which is of a City-wide nature so you can see 13 actually visually where the development activity is proposed to take place.
Excuse me. If we go down to the parcel level on City-wide map, it's all going to get blurry. So at this level of map, if we go down to the parcels that are being taken, if you want to see like the property lines, does that matter that much to you?
No, it doesn't. I think if you want to -- on a City-wide map if you took -- it seems like on this map, for instance, you have two things going on here. You've got the boundary of the renewal area. And then, unless my 249 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 eyesight is failing me, the properties being taken which are in the red all seem to be up in the upper left hand corner there. So for my purposes, at least, I would say give me the boundaries and then to extent that those properties are close to each other, why don't you just either make a circle, a square, a triangle, use whatever shape you want, the ones you like the most in grade school, and have that be the designation for what's going on there. That's obviously easier with that one and a few others that are very close to each other. Where you have an area that has two or three things going on in different places, just designate them that that's where active is going on. You'll just be able to visually see what's happening.
Now, I've had meetings with yourself and a number of other members of the Redevelopment Authority and Planning Commission and the like related to proposed takings in my own district. But I would like to get some clarification for the record. How did you decide -- give me the shorter version of this story. How did you decide 250 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 which packages or which parcels or which areas or zones would be a part of this series of bills 4 versus my understanding that there will be another 5 package of bills coming to us late winter, early 6 spring, and if you can tell us actually what the 7 timing is for that. But how did you decide what's 8 in this round versus any other round. 9
I can share with you, and 10 I'll deliver to you a set of principles that we 11 looked at, for example, a set of principles for land 12 banking versus a set of principles for side yard 13 acquisitions versus a set of principles for projects. And I'd will be glad to share that with you. But just generally, what we were looking for in acquisition zones was already a tremendous amount of vacant lots. And if you look at the acquisition zones and you look at the numbers, there already was a substantial amount of vacant land that was in each of those acquisition zones. When we looked at projects, we looked at, you know, is a project, or example, part of the City's Consolidated Plan, and I think the example is Cross Street which I think the Councilperson says has probably been the plan for five years or more. You know, something that hadn't 251 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 moved forward and now there's an opportunity to move it forward by using NTI resources to do something with it. So we looked at projects that had a real chance to move. And I can share with you the kind of principles that we have because we've committed to those to writing as a team in order to review, analyze these packages and then make recommendations. And we came back to each District Councilperson. We worked with them during the process, came back, said this is our recommendations. And in some cases we had to go back to the drawing board and take properties off and add properties, but the whole process in the end was to arrive at a mutual agreement between us and the District Councilperson as to what would be in the package.
Can you take for us the 2500 properties and break them out by vacant lot, vacant building, occupied structure, and tell us what the 2500 properties or parcels are composed of?
Can you also take those parcels and tell us, for instance, how many in 252 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 a line item kind of fashion how many are going to CDCs, how many are going to private developers, and then I guess possibly as a result of the Chair's earlier request, I guess the balance would then be going into a land bank; is that how they would be split up?
How many known CDC projects are a part of the bills in front of us 11 and how many are private sector developments? 12
Did I hear you say earlier that this package in front of us represents $14 million in acquisition costs?
Is it my recollection at the NTI budget hearing that we put aside $10 million at the acquisition?
No, there's actually 14 million, 14.5 in the Year One Program Statement and Budget.
So you don't need any additional acquisition dollars for this package 253 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 in front of us.
Pat, you may want to comment on this, but I think there's going to be a request to add some money because we're going to be doing this in the spring.
My name is Patricia Smith, Director of Neighborhood Transformation. In the FY '03 budget, which was approved by Council in June, there was all total approximately $14.5 million for land assemblies, specific development projects, and acquisition of buildings for rehabilitation. We're also, based on the pending request, looking at somewhere in the area of another 30 million. The approved acquisitions as a part of this ordinance, including indirect and direct costs, are totaling about 14, 15 million. So we're almost, you know, neck and neck in terms of the ordinances. Last week, the Administration -- I believe has been transmitted to Council, a resolution to amend the program statement and budget so that we can allocate more funds in acquisition as part of this year to support anymore takings going forward. And we also described as a part of that process the beginning of a recycling concept where 254 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 most of these properties are tax delinquent and abandoned to the extent that we realize the collection of any liens to begin a fund to recycle resources to support acquisition in future years.
So, I'm sorry, what did you say was transmitted to Council.
A resolution to amend the program statement and budget. That was, I believe, transmitted last week. I know there was some conversations with the President's office. I don't know if it's been physically transmitted yet. And there have been prior conversations because we realize that the pending requests are exceeding what we had budgeted for Fiscal Year '03.
Let me make sure I'm understanding. Are we talking about a bill or a resolution.
It would be a resolution 20 under the ordinance passed by City Council. That resolution and the additional dollars would be tied to the acquisition package for what in essence is next year, although still in the course of this fiscal year; is that correct?
Yes, we're still in this 255 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 fiscal year. I mean, it's a budget. What we presented to Council and approved was a budget and at the time was our best estimation of what demand for acquisition dollars were. And based on the pending request, we want to up the budget amount for this Fiscal Year. And that must be approved by a resolution.
But there are no 10 acquisitions -- you will not be at a disadvantage in terms of acquiring properties because of the resolution that has been sent over to us may not have been introduced --
No, that does not impact this. By the time the Declarations of Takings and everything will be followed.
Last question is actually related to kind of who's doing what these days. You are the NTI Director, correct?
Now, I read not too long ago that the Administration has recently brought on -- I may not have the title correct. Is it the Secretary of Neighborhoods? 256 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682
The Secretary of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation. And Mr. Kevin Hanna. Mr. Hanna will be responsible for overseeing basically what I call the City's housing and community development delivery systems, including any reorganization of the housing agencies that will place that we've outlined in prior materials. I'm still a member of the Mayor's staff. Often I describe my role of sort of like if you think of an orchestra and the conductor, that the orchestra is made of various parts, various agencies, so I interact with the Managing Director's Office, with the Capital Program Office, with OHCD, PHA, RDA.
Where does Mr. Hanna fit in with all of these activities? Does he report to you? Do you report to him?
Mr. Hanna, as a secretary position, reports directly to the Mayor. He's a member of the Mayor's Cabinet and reports directly to him in the same way the Managing Director, the Finance Director, the Director of Social Services Public Safety.
Okay. Lastly, the things that he will be doing, who presently does 257 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 them?
Currently, the work that's currently being done, I mean, some members of the OHCD, Redevelopment Authority, you know, the delivery system is spread out. So he's the secretary or the point person that will oversee those positions.
At this point in time, it would be the Director of Housing, Deborah McCullough. Then there's a what I call a collaborative relationship between Redevelopment Authority, the Housing Authority. We meet on a monthly -- the City Housing and Community Development Directors, we meet on a monthly basis with the Mayor and so we're part of that sort of like cluster. We call them clusters. So we have a community development cluster made of a variety of agencies that are involved in housing and community development activity.
Thank you very much. 258 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682
I know this has been a long day, but I have to take this opportunity to update the Committee, and especially Councilman Nutter who I came before many times and the question was, are we going to get any legislative changes. I want to report to you that both the House and the Senate unanimously passed legislation reforming both Act 94 and the Urban Renewal Statutes and it was signed by the Governor on October 5th. The became law last week. One of the key provisions of that that's really important is that in these budgets, this $14 million, there's 35 percent contingency in there. In other words, if we appraise the land at a million dollars, we need to set aside another 350,000 to handled any challenges that might come up and pay those. Under the previous statute, that money -- if we paid that money in the court, it could sit there five years and individuals had five years to come forward to challenge the value. The statute now is one year. So 12 months after we pay in the court, if nobody comes forward or very few, we'll be able to release that money and recycle it into more acquisitions. And that is a real 259 12/9/02 - RULES - BILL 020682 fundamental change that's going to make doing business better. So I just wanted to report that update. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. That will conclude the hearing of the Rules Committee. - - - 260 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - December 9, 2002 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Rules, held in Room 696, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 020666, 020667, 020668, 020669, 020671, 020672, 020673, 020678, 020679, 020681, 020682, 020685, 020686. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, Chair COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN RICHARD MARIANO - - - 261 12/9/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now convene a public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Verna for a motion on Bill No. 020666.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020666 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020666 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Verna for a motion on Bill No. 020667.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020667 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, 262 12/9/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020667 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Verna for a motion on Bill No. 020668.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020668 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor? (Aye.) 263 12/9/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020668 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The chair recognizes Councilmember Verna for a motion on Bill No. 020669.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020669 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020669 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 020671. 264 12/9/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020671 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020671 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 020672.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020672 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.) 265 12/9/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020672 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 020673.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020673 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020673 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our 266 12/9/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 020678.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020678 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020678 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 020679.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that Bill No. 020679 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request for a suspension of 267 12/9/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020679 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 020681.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020681 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request for the suspension of the Rules as to allow for first reading. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020681 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for 268 12/9/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 020682.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020682 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020682 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 020685.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that Bill No. 020685 be reported out of Committee with a favorable 269 12/9/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING recommendation, and a request for a suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020685 reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 020686.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that Bill No. 020686 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request for a suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020686 reported out of this 270 12/9/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING committee favorably and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. That concludes the business of the Rules Committee. Thank you for your attendance. (Council adjourned at 3:25 p.m.) - - - 271 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of December 9, 2002, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON RULES ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public