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?