COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Friday, 2/15/02 10:30 a.m. Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, PA - - - BILL 020036 - Authorizing and approving the execution and delivery of a service agreement between the City of Philadelphia and the Redevelopment Authority relating to a comprehensive Neighborhood Transformation Program. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK J. DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2/15/02 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE INDEX WITNESS Joyce Wilkerson, Mayor's Chief of Staff........ Patricia Smith, Director, NTI.................. 17 Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director, RDA........ 43 G. Whitman Temple U. Center for Public Policy 85 N. Lichtash, Women's Community Revitalization 92 J. Robinson, Real-Estate Broker................ 96 R. Sauer, Philadelphia Association of CDCs..... 106 Joe Wingert, Partnership CDC................... 110 Ann Ewing, East Mt. Airy Neighbors............. 112 Ed Schwartz, Inst. for Study of Civic Values 118 Jeff Brown, AFSCME Local 1971.................. 130 Nancy Salandra, Liberty Resources.............. 156 Omjasissa Kentu, Grassroots Political Network 161 Kermit Newkirk, Philadelphia Interfaith Action 166 James Shrode, Disabled in Action............... 169 Ruth Birchett, Heritage CDC.................... 185 Maxine Griffith, City Planning Commission...... 190 Tully Speaker, Logan Square Neighborhood Assoc. 192 Sharmain Turner-Matlack, GPUAC................. 195 James Connor, Beneficial Savings Bank.......... 203 Galen Tyler, Kensington Welfare Rights Union... 207 - - - 3 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036
Good morning, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill No. 020036. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of the ordinance.
Bill No. 020036, an ordinance amending Bill No. 010694, an ordinance 9 authorizing and approving the execution and delivery of a service agreement between the City of Philadelphia and the Redevelopment Authority relating to a comprehensive Neighborhood Transformation Program for revitalization, renewal, redevelopment, and transformation of blighted areas within the City of Philadelphia and other activities to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Philadelphia.
I believe our first witness is Joyce Wilkerson, Chief of Staff, the Office of the Mayor. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning, Madam President and members of City Council. My name is 4 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 Joyce Wilkerson, the Mayor's Chief of Staff. With me today is Pat Smith. Miss Smith is the Director of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. I'm presenting the Administration's testimony in support of Bill 020036, amending Ordinance No. 010694, the NTI legislation signed into the law by the Mayor last month. These amendments will result in NTI legislation that is different in many ways from the bill transmitted by the Administration in April of last year and also the bill passed by City Council in December. It will reflect the negotiations with City Council's own technical staff in hours of meetings with Councilmembers one-on-one and in groups. I believe that with the passage of the proposed amendments, we will have legislation superior to the Administration's proposed bill and the bill enacted last month. The proposed amendments to Ordinance No. 21 010694 will establish a healthy balance between legislative oversight and executive action, they eliminate the overly-burdensome aspects of the ordinance, while maintaining and, in some cases, expanding the authority of Councilmembers to effect 5 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 NTI decisions in their districts. The amendments also remove those aspects of the enacted legislation that were illegal or prevented the sale of NTI bonds. There are two types of oversight engagement of program design budgeting and planning and verification of implementation. The amended bill addresses both of these oversight mechanisms while in no way reducing Council's current powers with respect to development activities. As a brief review, the NTI Transformation Initiative is a revitalization strategy for Philadelphia's neighborhoods. It strives to reduce decades of decay and inattention through four general activities: blight elimination, including demolition and stabilization of vacant buildings and the cleaning and greening of vacant lots; blight prevention through code enforcement and anti-predatory lending activities; proactive land assembly; and housing investment in neighborhood preservation activities. The proposed amendments authorize the 6 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 approval of a service agreement that includes the NTI Program framework. This framework articulates the parameters for the expenditure of NTI bond proceeds, including City Council's oversight role. Because it's an exhibit to the service agreement, this NTI program frame work can only be changed through City Council passage of an ordinance. The binding NTI Program framework mandates an annual process to gain City Council approval of a detailed program statements and budget. Copies of the budget template dealing with the type of information the Administration will be required to provide City Council are attached to the testimony. These documents will govern and control the expenditure of NTI bond proceeds. The documents also compel the Administration to describe all other community-development expenditures, even those not funded with NTI bond proceeds; therefore, under the proposed amendments, City Council would retain important oversight functions over NTI's general strategic thrust and the specific appropriation of funds supporting NTI activities. In addition, the amended bill goes even further: It also provides City Council with oversight role 7 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 in each and every NTI activity. FIRST: BLIGHT ELIMINATION NTI will eliminate the City's backlog of dangerous buildings by demolishing approximately 14,000 vacant buildings and by stabilizing between 1,000 and 2,500 buildings.
Each and every District Councilperson will have the opportunity to review, comment, and otherwise participate in: The selection of properties for demolition and stabilization work; the Project Procedures Manual; pre-bid inspection tours and conferences with contractors and conferences with contractors and vendors; and any non-emergency relocation plans. " The only caveat to this would be those emergency situations where health and welfare are at risk. Much of the City Council engagement will 8 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 be supported with information technology such as the GIS decision support model developed by the project manager. The Administration recognizes that's demolition and encapsization program exceeded the City's management capacity and, therefore, hired Hill International as a program manager. Essentially a technical consultant to the City, Hill International is charged with: Monitoring field work and providing monthly reports; working with City departments and City Council to prepare program procedures; and managing program delivery. The City will remain responsible for all program planning prioritization, and decision-making, and for the issuance and awarding for all bid packages and contracts. NTI has also initiated the unprecedented cleaning of 30,000 vacant lots. It is now engaged in a planning process to develop long-term cleaning, maintenance, and greening strategies. Councilmembers will have the opportunity to review and comment and participate in the development of strategic plans for greening vacant land and the interim treatment of vacant properties after demolition. 9 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 SECOND: BLIGHT PREVENTION NTI will strengthen code-enforcement activities and foster a comprehensive anti- predatory lending effort. Through the City's General Operating Budget and the Community Development Block Grant, City Council currently reviews, comments, and approves funding for the departments and entities that will implement these strategies. The amended bill in no way diminishes City Council's role in oversight in these areas. THIRD: LAND ASSEMBLY The aggregation of vacant land will proceed almost exclusively through the use of the Redevelopment Authority's eminent domain power. These powers are specified in the Commonwealth's Urban Redevelopment Law, and that law mandates City Council's role. Accordingly, City Council approval is required to use RDA's eminent domain powers to: Acquire properties; propose a reuse; or sell, lease or in any other away transfer properties. These amendments completely maintain City Council's role of oversight in these activities. FOURTH: HOUSING INVESTMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION The Administration is committed to working 10 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 with Councilpersons in revitalizing Philadelphia communities. On an annual basis, the Administration will request from every Councilmember a list of the potential redevelopment and housing preservation projects within their district. These projects must be consistent with NTI's organizing principles, and the Administration will meet with every Councilmember to discuss the project's development strategy and to identify the resources such as markets studies or requests for developer qualifications necessary to advance the project. Again, at the request of Councilmembers, the amendments include a provision that will compel the Administration to provide funding for a development consultant for City Council, selected by a majority of Councilmembers, to enable Councilmembers to play a more active role in the development discussions. PROGRESS REPORTS The Council's oversight mechanisms I have discussed involve engagement before activities occur. Several Councilmembers expressed their concerns that City Council also have an opportunity 11 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 to verify the implementation of NTI activities after City Council approves the annual program statement and budget.
I am pleased to reassure Councilmembers that the amended bill provides such verification. With respect to blight-elimination activities, the Administration will maintain an NTI Project Administration Website to which Councilmembers will have access. The NTI project Website will regularly post updated reports on: demolition, stabilization, and encapsulation activities; demolition bid packages and a list of dangerous buildings;
I believe it was delivered to all of the offices.
I have an extra. the Master Schedule and Master Budget; relocation activities; Equal Employment Opportunity Plan compliance and monitoring; Citywide vacant lot cleanup schedule; 12 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 and District-specific calendars of community meetings on NTI activities. The NTI Project Website will also post: Field surveys and social-service assessments; the Project Procedures Manual; the Program Manager's Phase and Phase findings and recommendations; and copies of brochures, pamphlets, and other materials for community meetings. These reporting requirements are quite extensive, and, in hard-copy format, would literally consume hundreds of pages of information. With respect to blight prevention activities, the Administration will continue its current practice of measuring department activities through the Budget Office quarterly reporting process, as required by the ordinance. In addition, the Administration commits to: 1. Provide each and every Councilperson with a written monthly status report on the land assembly, redevelopment, and housing preservation activities in his or her district which are funded with NTI bond proceeds; and 2. Meet quarterly with each Councilperson 13 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 to discuss any problems that are delaying land assembly, redevelopment, and housing preservation activities with his or her district, and to develop economically-feasible solutions. In extreme situation where a project is defunded, the Administration will provide the District Councilperson with a detailed written explanation and will consult with District Councilpersons in reprogramming the funds to support other projects within the district. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS: I want to comment on two other changes the amendments would make. Bill No. 010694 would have conditioned the Administration's access to bond proceeds on Council's approval by resolution of an economic-opportunity plan. In April 2001, the Administration transmitted to City Council a comprehensive Economic Opportunity Plan; the amendments would result in its immediate adoption. Bill 010694 also condition access to bond proceeds on Council's approval by resolution of a house reorganization plan. This requirement is dropped; instead, the Administration commits to consult with Councilmembers as it proceeds with 14 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 housing reorganization plans. Finally, the amendments have deleted the "non-severability clause." CONCLUSION: As amended, Bill 010694 would ensure that City Council can fulfill its oversight responsibilities. The Administration is committed to engage Councilmembers at the planning stage of NTI activities and to engage Council in verification of NTI's implementation. Through the mechanisms I have described, the amended bill would balance Council's oversight role with the Administration's need to avoid yet further delays. Passage of the amendments to Bill 020036 will allow us to begin the much-needed work of transforming our neighborhoods. - - -
Madam President, I also have -- would like to request that this committee consider two amendments. Apparently, the Economic Opportunity Plan was not actually attached, or was not a part of the Clerk's record, and wanted to submit for Council's consideration an amendment that would actually attach the Economic Opportunity 15 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 Plan. And, secondly, I believe there are amendments that have been proposed that would add a City Council program evaluation consultant and also provide that no development project or geographically targeted housing and neighborhood preservation program shall be funded with bond proceeds without the prior approval in writing of the District Councilperson in whose district such project or program will be undertaken.
Do we have a copy of the amendments that you just read?
Madam President, I'd like to pull back the amendment that would -- that does not address the addition of the Economic Opportunity Plan as an exhibit. I was mistaken in submitting that.
I'd like to withdraw -- there's an amendment that would amend Section VII (a) and Section VII(d) to provide for an evaluation consultant and also City Council approval of the 16 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 District-specific housing development. I'd like to withdraw that request for consideration.
Thank you. Are there questions from members of the committee? I just have one: When will acquisition monies be made available?
My name is Patricia Smith, and I'm Director of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. Attached to the program framework is a budget where we estimate using approximately, I believe -- if we're able to get to the markets in time, we would allocate and seek about $2 million for acquisition. In addition, we have begun to look at -- so I would say we could probably start budgeting the beginning of the fiscal year July 1 -- I mean, actually, July of this year, to begin to spend 21 dollars. 22
And when do you 23 anticipate going to the market? 24
Based on my conversations with 25 the senior underwriters for the bond issue, we 17 1 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 anticipate it can take about six to eight weeks to develop what you call the "offering statement," so about six to eight weeks after passage of the legislation by Council.
All right, thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam President. First, what specifically will be the role of the Redevelopment Authority in the program? Will they have any substantive input, or will decisions be made by the Neighborhood Transformation --
Will the Redevelopment Authority have any impact on the substantive content of the program, or are they merely the financing agent?
The Redevelopment Authority will be the issuer of the bonds. The 18 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 Redevelopment Authority also will perform its traditional role in connection with land acquisition and disposition, and it currently is involved in underwriting development projects. So, you know, the only new role for the Redevelopment Authority would be its role as issuer. I mean, right now, the Redevelopment Authority undertakes, you know, creation of urban renewal areas. The Redevelopment Authority does the actual underwriting when a development is financed by -- with CDBG bond proceeds. The Redevelopment Authority is the entity that decides, you know, that evaluates the transaction and advises and actually commits dollars on behalf of the City.
Well, is it that the Redevelopment Authority technically will have the last word in determining the nature of the program where the project is done?
No. The way it's been structured is that it's all City-driven, and the 19 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 actual activity that is going to be undertaken is proposed initially by the Administration, submitted to City Council for approval by resolution. And if you look at the exhibits to my testimony, the budget templates, when we come to City Council, there will be a detailed statements of exactly what the Administration proposes to undertake with the bond proceeds. And so we'll be identifying for that year exactly how many properties are intended for demolition, how many properties by district, the estimated cost of those demolitions. The same level of detail will be provided for encapsulation activities. If there's a development that's proposed for actual development, that will be reflected in the budget that City Council will approve. Then the bond proceeds can only be spent in a way that's consistent with a City Council-approved budget. So we won't be able to draw -- the Redevelopment Authority won't be able to draw down bond proceeds unless the expenditure the proposed proceeds unless the expenditure, the proposed expenditure, complies with a City Council-approved budget. 20 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036
What did you mean by -- in your answer you said, "And if there is a development project proposed, it will contain the details of it"? A development project different from cleaning lots?
Right. For example, if it's proposed that funds be expended to acquire a lot or perhaps commit some level of dollars to a preservation strategy, for example, you know, not just encapsulation but encapsulation and perhaps some funds made available for homeowner rehabilitation, that would all be reflected in the annual budget that's brought to City Council. So if you look at the templates, the Administration would be required to come to City Council, describe the program, the amount of dollars that are proposed for expenditure, where the program will be implemented. So, for example, if it's a -- it might be a program that makes sense for the 6th Councilmatic District but is not necessarily, you know, a good strategy for a another neighborhood, we would say 21 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 at the time we come to City Council for approval of program budget, the overall NTI program budget, for the year exactly where those funds would be expended. So, you know, what we heard Council say from the beginning is, We want to know how the money's going to be spent; you know, we just don't want there to be $250 million out there. We want to understand exactly where the dollars are going to be invested. And so we will come back to City Council on an annual basis, say, This is how it's proposed that the monies be spent. The expenditure of dollars will be con --
City Council will either approve or modify or reject the budget. I mean, we can't -- we won't be able to access those bond proceeds. The only thing exception is for emergency demolitions. But other than that, the Administration will not have the authority to access bond proceeds unless City Council has signed off on the program statement and the budget. 22 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 The -- I think, you know, that's the answer.
What is going to be the role of these companies? How many companies will be hired as contractors who have some kind of a supervisory or overview role or...
The Administration has a program manager that was retained, and that's Hill International that you hear about. Hill International is helping the City manage all of the pieces that are related to the demolition and encapsulization [sic] work. It involves -- in order for the City to execute what we think is a reasonable demolition and encapsulation strategy, we have to have good surveys of what's going on in neighborhoods, we have to have a mechanism for letting people in neighborhoods know what it is that's being proposed, we have to make sure that we get bid packages rolling through on a regular basis, we have to make sure that adequate provisions are made for a -- for disposal of the demolition debris. We have a very aggressive Economic Opportunity Plan that creates opportunities for 23 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 small businesses; we have to make sure that we're sizing development in a way that provides those opportunities. We have to also, at the same time we're doing demolition and encapsulization [sic], be thinking of what's going to happen next. This is not simply a demolition program. It's important to know what happens next in a neighborhood, and so the people on the housing-development side have to be coordinated in. There is no infrastructure within government that would permit that kind of coordinated decision-making. What Hill International bring --
I always thought just at that point -- if I may, I always thought that was the main function of the Managing Director's Office, that that's the reason that the Managing Director is the supervisor of basic agencies, then we have people that work with the independent authorities.
I think that, to some extent, is what's set out in the Charter, although though not completely because the Charter never anticipated an Office of Housing, for example. 24 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 What we've learned inside the Administration is that even when that's the vision, there's not the apparatus for actually accomplishing the integration of all of that work. We actually have no trained project managers within government who understand how to coordinate all of these pieces, set out critical paths so we know what has to happen first, what has to happen next, to make sure that the steps that are required, for example, if we want to do a demolition, you know, has everything been liened, are the people out of the properties, you know, to make sure that all of those steps happen in an orderly way. We don't have the capacity within government right now to accomplish that, and that's why we have identified and obtained the services of a program manager so that we can undertake the work in a coordinated way. Our goal is to transfer the expertise to City government. We don't want to have to always be relying on outside program managers; we don't have that capacity right now in government. And so part of -- a part of what you have happening is people beginning to understand what 25 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 program management is -- project management is also about. There's information technology that's being used so that we have -- you know, there are tools to enable to us better track what it is that we're doing, and folk inside government are learning about all of that. We don't have those skills now and so the Administration --
No. The program manager -- the prime contractor is Hill International that has --
Yes, International. At the previous hearing, we provided information on Hill and who all the subconsultants are, but Hill International is the prime contractor that is responsible for coordinating the whole project. Hill has --
And the information you supplied, did that indicate a history of managing 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 these kinds of projects?
You mean, there have been other blight programs before that which they've managed successfully?
No. This initiative is the first kind of its kind in the country.
Philadelphia has the dubious distinction of having more abandoned and dangerous properties per capita than any other city in the country. So nobody else has done exactly this. Hill has a long record of managing very complicated projects of all kinds, and so Hill, I think, is a manager out at the Airport, Hill managed the Convention Center. Those projects are not like this one, but they all involve the basic project-management expertise, integrating diverse components into one -- into one well-coordinated undertaking. I mean, I think that's part of the basic, you know -- 27 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036
Hill has headquarters here in Philadelphia and also -- they have an office in Philadelphia and their main headquarters is in New Jersey, in southern New Jersey.
Yes. They've managed both public projects and private projects within this region and nationally and, in fact, internationally. They --
They've been in existence, I believe, for more than years. I -- one of the 17 top industry magazines ranked them among the top 18 ten, I believe, program project managers in the 19 country. 20 They were selected by a competitive RFP 21 process last spring. 22
Does it have any local 23 affiliates? Is there going to be some local 24 corporation that's formed? 25
Yeah. What we can do is 28 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 resubmit, and we want to make sure that all of the testimony and information that we submitted in December is incorporated as part of this record, but I'm happy to resubmit the breakout of the table of organization for this project and then the qualifications of the subconsultants that work at Hill.
Any there any other companies in addition to Hill that are going to be a part of the --
Oh, yes, and many of them are locally based. For example, Gannick Flemming (ph) is doing things like the MIS/IT work. A group by the name of Quick is looking at the -- how do we effect -- implement the minority and women participation and training programs. The other, ACG Associates, is working with us in coordinating the community strategy, and I have met with a number of the Councilpeople around community engagement, community information, community outreach. Hail is a disabled community advocate, and Vision Consultant is responsible for planning and scheduling. 29 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 Powell Harfsted (ph) for the environmental and geotechnical components. We have not talked a lot about things like identifying appropriate landfills to dispose of construction demolition debris. One of the sad things is that as a result of the September 11the incident, we are going to be really impacted because the demolition and the debris coming from New York City has impacted landfills throughout this region. This group has begun with G&C Environmental Services, a minority firm. They have begun to work with the State Department of Environmental Protection to come up with a game plan about disposal of demolition debris as we move forward. And then there's architectural engineering support. This will be particularly important where we're looking at stabilization work for buildings, what we need to do where we're not going to demolish. And as I said, we'll make copies and provide this information to all of the Councilpeople again. 30 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036
The other large area of opportunities are all the demolition packages. Hill will not -- and the group Pat just identified will not be actually doing any of the demolition. And so we project that -- demolition or encapsulation. And so for the demolition, on a regular basis, there will be bid packages that will be advertised by the City's Procurement Department. We're trying to size those bid packages so that there are opportunities, you know, for community businesses. You know, so there will be a huge number of contracting opportunities for businesses to actually carry out the demolition. As the rehabilitation moves forward, you know, there will be opportunities in neighborhoods for organizations to engage in encapsulation or rehabilitation of properties. So we'll be, you know, looking to have active involvement of a lot of parties. I think in launching an initiative of this size, one of the things that is important is bringing other developers and parties to the table. The City, over the years, has begun dealing with a 31 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 smaller and smaller cadre of developers, and one of the reasons it was really important to the Administration to have a process that had certainty and transparency to it is because we need to have more active interests among the development community in Philadelphia's neighborhoods if this is going to be successful.
How much of the bond proceeds are going to be spent on management of the project by non-City personnel? Is there any calculation of the total cost of these various project managers?
What we did was to break down the program management component into three phases. The first phase -- they're going to have to get me a number. The first two phases is under contract, and we're negotiating the third phase. If you look at the industry, you usually think, you know, the costs can range, and sometimes there's a pro rata cost ranging from to percent, I think, is the historic number with program management costs on complex projects usually cost. I'm not in a position to answer on Phase 32 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 3; we still have to size of scope of work of Phase 3, but I can get to you the amount, which I'm sure somebody will hand to me in a second for the first two phases. (One of Ms. Smith's colleagues hands her a document.)
Thank you. So it's $720,000 for the first two phases, which was the planning project management, and then the oversight and implementation of two prototype projects. What we decided -- again, we want to emphasize, since we have never undertaken something of this scale and size, one of the things that we thought was very important is that we test our assumptions. It's one thing to put up on a chart and have computer-generated, you know, schedules and budgets and all of the other, but we thought before we took it to scale, we wanted to test out our operating assumptions in the field, using different sized bid packages so that we know we're allocating the correct amount of time for field surveys and things like that. So we also built into the 33 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 process what we call "a prototype phase."
But is there any dollar figure in the planning that you've arrived at for management expenses? What of the bonds issue -- how much of the bond issue is going to go to the management of whatever takes place under the program?
What I will do is that we'll get back to you. Once we have finalized the phase -- I would just been guessing at this point. Other than the $720,000, once we finalize the scope, we'll --
No. I think one of the things -- this is not a program that supports ongoing operating expenses within government. Those will be funded out of the City's operating budget. The --
Well, some of the work. I mean, Some of what we're talking about is simply government doing business differently. It's not new; it's just doing it differently. 34 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 So, for example, we already have people in L&I who are engaged in demolition in the City. They will continue to be engaged in demolition activities in the City. They'll be coordinating their work with the other City departments in order to accomplish what it is we're talking about. So their work currently is funded in large part out of the City's General Fund; it's funded, you know, to some extent out of the CDBG. Those dollars will continue to be dollars supporting demolition activity, you know. So moving forward, demolition will continue to be supported out of the City's operating budget. It will not be -- the staffing of that in large part won't be funded out of the bond proceeds. The -- some portion of the project manager's work might be, but not the everyday work of government; that will not be funded out of bond proceeds.
Well, you know, in part, we'll be creating budgets and we'll be coming to you every year with a budget that will reflect how 35 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 we propose to spend bond proceeds, so that, you know, I think it's fair to say Council will not, you know, turn around after five years and find out that we've, you know, put millions and millions of dollars into everyday governmental overhead, dollars that everybody anticipates will be spent in dealing with conditions in our neighborhoods. And so, you know, we'll be coming to City Council annually for authorization of a budget, and you're not going to see a lot of soft costs in it.
Well, I just think it important that in budgets presented, we're told what portion of the budget comes from bond issues and what portion of the budget comes from operating funds generally.
Mm-hmm. That's something that Council, you know, in the conversations that have happened over the course of the last couple of months, Council has indicated that it wants to see a picture of all dollars being expended. The budget detail that is attached to my testimony talks about Council approval of NTI bond proceeds, but the Administration's commitment is to paint as complete a picture as possible, so we'll 36 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 be coming with descriptions of all the other dollars that will be committed to neighborhood transformation-type activities. For example, you know, the CDBG budget will be presented in an integrated picture. If there are going to be City capital dollars that are also a part of the picture, those dollars will be reflected in the comprehensive budget. Although Council's approval is -- in this level of detail, is limited to the bond proceeds.
It started as a Logan sinking homes situation which now has expanded into a number of other communities almost throughout the City. Does the blight program intend to deal with the problem of the sinking homes? which seems to be a problem related to the existence of underground bricks, you know, in the Philadelphia area and maybe the improper building a hundred years ago, when homes were constructed. That seems to me to be a very threatening situation because new areas seem to continue to develop there. Is that part of the blight program?
What we don't anticipate is using NTI bond proceeds to buy people out in 37 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 situations like that; that is not a part of the program. I think that the way we will -- we will begin addressing it because when we go into neighborhoods and start talking about what it takes to stabilize a neighborhood, one of the conditions we'll have to grapple with and plan around are the subsidence conditions, and you're right, this is a problem that is endemic to many neighborhoods in Philadelphia. You know, what we've learned over the last two years is it's a big problem for cities up and down the eastern seaboard. And, you know, NTI is not the only answer to conditions in our neighborhoods. We have Joe Perillo and other people in government working on a whole host of different strategies. We have had some conversations about perhaps a subsidence insurance program. We're not there yet with it, but we think that this is one of those issues that is sufficiently series not only for us but for other cities, that there's going to have to be a comprehensive strategy identified. Another piece of NTI, though, will perhaps bear on it. We have also learned that although people 38 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 may be living in homes that are built on inadequate fill, that fill doesn't have to become a problem. If property owners have proper gutters, drain water away from their properties in an appropriate way, even though the house is built on inadequate fill, it doesn't necessarily have to erode. And so there's, you know, with nominal dollars invested in, you know, drainage, you can probably forestall some of these problems. And so I think you're going to hear more and more talk about doing education around the issues. And also, you know, perhaps, you know, I mean, one of the strategies that could be proposed where you have subsidence as a program that would work with families, or give loans or perhaps grants to families to deal with drainage problems around their houses. But what we envision -- you know, NTI would permit all of that. If you look at the framework that talks about stabilizing neighborhoods, that's an activity that clearly would fall within the framework. What Council has asked is that on an annual basis, we develop a detailed program that is 39 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 consistent with the framework that would explain how we intend to tackle those specific issues. And so I think, you know, we'll be going around. Our commitment is to meet with every Councilmember, develop a real understanding of what's going on in neighborhoods. And so if, you know, in Councilman Mariano's district, you know, where Feltonville is, you know, subsidence is a huge issue, so we sit down and talk about that, you know, and perhaps put together a program that is perhaps Feltonville- specific, that would work with homeowners on drainage issues or the other challenges. Not all of it's going to be bond-funded. You know, Councilwoman Krajewski has her Clip Program that relies heavily on code enforcement; you know, that doesn't involve NTI bond proceeds. But as we talk about what the strategy is for some of those neighborhoods, you know, it will involve some NTI money, but it also involves making much better targeted use of other City resources. And so we would, you know, on an annual basis, we'll be coming, describing programs. Some of them will target subsidence programs' needs 40 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 where it's appropriate, but it may not be citywide.
Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for your patience and not cutting me off before.
That's fine. Can you tell just tell us, what is the criteria for encapsulation and stabilization of a property and how will you be streamlining the acquisition and disposition process?
I'll ask Mr. Wetzel to the table to talk about acquisition and disposition. With respect to encapsulation in NTI framework, which is appended to the pink copy of the bill of our amendment on Page... Let's see, beginning on , we set out the stabilization and encapsulation priorities, and what we talk about is in selecting structures for stabilization and encapsulation, we'll give priority to buildings that are residential and mixed use or commercial properties of four stories or less located on a block with a low vacancy rate. The intention of encapsulation and stabilization, the objective here is to folks on where we're beginning to see, unfortunately, in 41 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 some of our neighborhoods, one or two vacant properties popping up, and we know that the longer that property -- if water begins to penetrate, and the longer that property hangs around, it increases the likelihood over the time that it becomes a dangerous building and we need to demolish. So the objective of this is to really target these resources where, in neighborhoods and communities, we're beginning to see, you know, a low level of vacancy cropping up, enabling us to stabilize the building as we proceed to acquire it and then cause the rehabilitation of that building through issuing an RFP.
Can you tell us how many properties that you plan to encapsulate in the first --
We've budgeted over five years sufficient money to encapsulate or stabilize 2500 properties. We also are putting in place vehicles that gives us the capacity to acquire and rehab. We may not in the first five years be able to acquire and rehab all 2500, but we know we can do approximately a thousand, and that's what we're budgeting at. 42 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 And that's in the five-year budget, which is also a part of the program statement in the back. That's a projected estimated budget. And as we said, each year, with the annual program budget and statement, we'll come back with the specific number of properties to be stabilized by Council District and how that relates to the vacancy rate in that Council District.
My name is Herbert Wetzel, and I'm Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. With regards to acquisition, let me start out by saying that the City essentially uses five ways to acquire properties: Through urban renewal takings; through Act 94, what's called "spot condemnation"; through sheriff's sale; through donor-taker and the gift property programs. The first thing that strikes me, and has always struck me about this particular problem, is 43 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 that we've had a policy for at least years that we would only acquire a property if there was a party interested in it, so that when people knocked on our door, we didn't even own it for the most part. The truth is, if own it, we generally are able to dispose of it in 90 days or less. It is the year or more that it takes to acquire it that has been sort of the public perception problem because when the person asked for it, in many cases, we didn't own it. So one of the things we want to do is change the policy, which has been only to acquire that for which somebody has asked and aggressively go out and assemble land and put it in a land bank. The second part of that is, is that land is owned by more than one public entity, and that is the City's Public Property owns land and buildings, the Redevelopment Authority owns lands and buildings, PHA owns land and buildings, and PHDC owns land and buildings. In some cases, when developers have come to do a development, they've had to go through all four different entities to assemble the land. So conceptionally what we're talking about 44 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 is that Public Property, the Redevelopment Authority, PHDC, and PHA put all of their surplus property in the land bank so it's all in one ownership, so you don't have four different entities to go to on a block that may own land on a block; it will be one entity that owns it. The next element of that is, we've brought in a consultant who is documenting the existing systems step by step, what goes on in each of the those processes -- from Act 94, to the urban renewal takings, to the sheriff's sale. And that's a twofold process: One is to be able to build the appropriation information technology system so that we will have a database management system for tracking the acquisition and disposition process. I think I mentioned at the last hearing that all of those procedures, whether sheriff's sale or urban renewal, right now are 98 percent and only 2 percent automated, and we want to flip that to make that 98 percent automated and only 2 percent annual. That piece of it is -- there's a second piece of that, and that is uncovering processes that may not be required by law but somebody 45 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 decided at some point in history, We need to do these three steps. And they may not own be required by law and they may not even be necessary so that we could reduce the amount of time by getting rid of unnecessary steps in the process. And the last element, that is seeking reform the State in terms of changes to the urban renewal law and the Act 94 law. And we have submitted to the House Urban Affairs Committee legislation that would fundamentally improve the Act 94 process significantly and tweak the urban renewal. The urban renewal process is fairly well established and can work well. The Act 94 process has some features in it regarding the requirement of L&I to certify a property as blighted, either a vacant lot or property. And what can happen in that process is, someone can pull a building permit or go out and clean up the lot, and suddenly it's not blighted anymore, and we can't proceed to take it as a result of the fact that it's not blighted. We have proposed two items in changing the law.
One is that if the vacant land as a demolition lien on it, it is blighted, and we can 46 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 proceed to take it, so you wouldn't need L&I to certify it as blighted, and the (indiscernible) itself would create the blight. And the other is if that if the real-estate taxes and other municipal liens exceed the fair market value of the property by 150 percent, then it is a blighted property under the Act, and we can proceed to take it. Those two changes alone would probably take two months out of the acquisition process, and it would eliminate -- the only way the property who owns the property could eliminate our taking would be to come in and pay in full the municipal liens or pay in full the demolition lien. And in many cases, you have a $10,000 demolition lien on a lot that's worth $1,000; they're not going to come in and pay 'em, and we're going to be able to take that property. So those are the basic elements that we're working on to improve the system.
When do you anticipate that the State legislature would be considering this? Do you have any indication?
Yes. I spoke to the director 47 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 of the Urban Affairs Committee just this week; he called to ask if we had any modifications that we wanted to make to it, and he told me that they're actively working on it right now. I mean, our objective would be to have it done this spring.
With the sheriff's sales, how long are we waiting before -- because I know that in the past, I have requested that properties be put up for sheriff's sale, and we literally wait years and years, and I know the Revenue Commissioner has said that more often than not, it costs us more money in paperwork than the property is worth.
I agree. And I think what would be very valuable, though, is that if we can get this change in Act 94 legislation, we would rely much less on sheriff's sales as a process and use this Act 94 legislation to aggressively go after these properties. I mean, there are just inherent issues 48 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 with the sheriff's sale program, because it was intended to be a revenue-collection program, not a land-assembly program. And so that's one of the reasons we were seeking this change in Act 94, is to allow us to essentially use that as a superior tool to the sheriff's-sale process.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. I had a couple of quick questions. One has to do with reuse strategy. As you know, the particular district that I represent has a substantial amount of vacant property currently. As a result of the implementation of NTI, that will probably increase maybe even twofold. And one of the concerns that I hear from my constituents is, what happens after you knock down all of the vacant buildings? what's the interim reuse strategy? what's the long-term reuse strategy? And I must be honest that I haven't heard responses to that in the meetings that I have attended that put me at a comfort level. 49 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 Can you maybe here today put me at Phase 1 of a comfort level and talk about how you get me to Phase 2, 3, 4, and 5? And then I have to figure out a way to get my constituents to 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Let me take the first shot at it. As sit we down and begin the conversation with the Councilmembers about demolition, the conversation about interim and long-term use comes up, that we understand that you just can't run through neighborhoods, tear down a lot of properties, and step away from the communities, as the City has perhaps done traditionally, and I think that's why even before launching this phase of NTI, we've made a commitment and have committed dollars to maintaining vacant land in neighborhoods. And so that's what the cleaning of the 30,000 vacant lots is about. It's not a one-time deal; it's something that we're going to do on a consistent basis. We're also working with the Horticultural Society and others to try and come up with a greening strategy for neighborhoods, and we've 50 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 already begun developing resources for that. We've gotten over $300,000 out of the federal government, we've gotten a grant from the William Penn Foundation, because we do know that when we go into neighborhoods, we're not going to be able to rebuild everything in the short term -- and in some cases, even in the long term. And so we're putting together resources so that the vacant land won't be a nuisance in neighborhoods, and I think if you look at what's going on in a lot of communities -- Frankford, I think, is probably the best example, where communities, working with the Horticultural Society and others, use greening strategies to make vacant lands assets in neighborhoods, not simply problems in neighborhoods. It's not easy to do: It takes resources, it takes a commitment from communities to work with government in order to preserve land. But I think, you know, the question that people don't, in some cases, want vacant land at all, whether well-maintained vacant land or anything else, and there, the conversation with Councilmembers at the very beginning will be one 51 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 that takes planning into account. We'll be asking, you know, what is appropriate in this area? Should it be housing? if so, what kind of housing? and begin trying to identify the resources for that. NTI, although it's a lot of money and probably more money than has been committed by the City probably forever, NTI dollars cannot be the only dollars that are committed to rebuilding neighborhoods. And so we've been very aggressive in trying to identify other resources. We've had meetings with HUD, we go after those dollars when they're available, we went after them with the HOPE VI projects, with the support of public housing. We've engaged -- we've started conversations with The secretary of HUD. We're going to be going to Harrisburg in a more aggressive way as a strategy for attracting additional dollars. We're already talking with private developers. Historically, when we wanted to have housing happen in an area, it's always been affordable housing, and so we always tap into the same pot of money; it's the only resource we know about, and so all we ever have to bring to neighborhoods is our reservoir of low-income 52 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 housing dollars, but we think that there are a lot of other dollars out there. So we're going to be going into neighborhoods, talking with people, helping people understand that it's not going to be a matter of waving a magic wand, but it really is going to be sitting down and having hard conversations with people and putting together real strategies. I think one of the things that I think has been very productive over the course of the last two months is really talking with Councilmembers about how you take ideas to actual -- to the point of implementation so that, you know, when Councilmembers want to see something happen, it's not just a wish, but we actually begin putting strategies in place. And so when we go and talk with you and talk in neighborhoods, we'll begin talking about actual strategies for making development happen.
But it's not going to be overnight. It is going to take decades to rebuild some of the neighborhoods in Philadelphia, but we will move aggressively in order to try to identify the resources to do that. 53 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036
Getting back -- an I understand, you know, the development process, that it is a lengthy process. Getting back to the interim-reuse strategy, will there be alternatives other than greening? because some people just don't want green grass, vegetables. I mean, I've heard, as an example, some constituents say, Well, if you tear down those properties, can I have a top lot, or can I have a sitting park for senior citizens, or can we have -- some young folks want to know, can we do a basketball court or some other type of recreation? Some people want to just have it black-topped so you're able to maintain it a lot easier. I mean, are there going to be alternative strategies other than greening?
Yes. I mean, our intention here is to bring resources to bear to stabilize lots, to make sure that there's some sort of interim treatment -- that may be the better phrase to use. We're not just talking about community gardens. And different communities have experimented with different things, from, you know, 54 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 even tree-planting as a deterrent to short-dumping. What's going to be critical here and what we've been doing is beginning to look at other resources that are non-City resources that can support that. And particularly at the federal level, we think there's going to be -- vacant-land management and abandonment is increasingly for many cities becoming a major policy issue, so you have non-traditional federal -- what I would consider agencies that we may not have historically thought of as a resource for urban communities, you know, funding projects in Chicago around land-management strategy. Some of it can come out of the Environmental Protection Agency. Here in the City, there was a treatment that was done to -- how can you treat asphalt, a lot for recreational use that protects the watershed, using new techniques. So that's the way we're looking at it. And we think there will be a host and a variety of treatments. The strategy planning (indiscernible) for each neighborhood will start talking about, you know, those different type of treatments.
Okay. Councilman Rizzo originally asked this 55 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 question on my behalf in the Capital Budget hearings the other day, talked about regional choice communities which were designated by NTI, and they spoke specifically of an area -- another part of my district, in Logan Square, where it is clear that there will not be a demolition strategy, there will not be a vacant-lot strategy, but those residents want to participate in this program, and the question was asked specifically about amenities association with those regional-choice type of neighborhoods such as street-lighting enhancement, pedestrian-lighting enhancement, and could, or will, the NTI supplement the capital program's budget in instances of those types of communities; whereas, in the capital budget program, there's a limited amount of dollars to do street lighting or pedestrian lighting. Will NTI, particularly in private-activity bond dollars mbe in a position to be utilizing those kind of neighborhoods?
You know, I think we're going to have to be very judicious. These -- I think we're going to have to make very judicious decisions about that. 56 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 In the very first presentation that the Administration gave, we started talking about what the appropriate role of government is in various kinds of neighborhoods, and one of the things we identified for regional-choice neighborhoods is a marketing strategy. And so, for example, working with the Center City District, the Center City District has contacted the William Penn Foundation and obtained dollars in order to market regional choice in some of the other neighborhoods in Philadelphia. I think when you start talking about doing street lights and some of those other kinds of expenditures, it's going to require a very careful analysis of what -- of what role that plays in stabilizing neighborhoods. These -- as large as the pool of dollars is, it's finite. The strategy is a strategy of trying to stabilize neighborhoods and eliminate blight. And I think we're going to, time and time again, have to ask as a group very tough decisions about street lights or, you know, curbs and sidewalks, because that will rapidly blow through all of the dollars. And so we're going to be 57 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 framing, you know, for ourselves and for others very tough questions about what an appropriate expenditure is. It may be that there are other pots of money so, as you know, the foundation community has taken a real interest in providing that level of amenity along the Parkway, you know, so we'll be looking at that as a potential resource. But, you know, I don't that's it's adequate to say that this will be the first stop, and we'll be working very hard to identify other resources.
Let me be clear that I understand your response. You say although in terms of priority, these regional-choice communities may not be at the top of the pole, but there is a clearly identifiable -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- did I characterize that wrong?
Yeah, I think you did mischaracterize it. I think that all of the neighborhoods are of equal importance. I think that there are different strategies, and the role of government might be different. 58 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 So, for example, we do understand that the City has to be as interested in regional-choice neighborhoods to assure that they continue to be regional-choice neighborhoods, and so we're going to be engaged in thinking about those issues, but the government's role might be different.
But there will be concurrent planning initiatives in those various communities.
That's right, and be working to identify dollars. And so, you know, when we went to the William Penn Foundation, and they said, Well, you know, we'd like to work with you on some marketing. You know, just because it was regional choice, we didn't say, No, that's not our priority. You know, those neighborhoods are critical for the health of the City, and so we're going to be spending no less time and energy.
I just want to clarify. Those initiatives will be run out of the 59 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 NTI Office? I mean, will it be the Center City District? I mean, I just want to know, who's the catalyst to get this discussion going in those regional-choice communities?
I think one of the things that is important to understand is that we feel that government doesn't have to do everything, and that one of the things that we believe that the NTI initiative does, it says, This is our priorities and these are why. And it gives others an opportunity to kind of step up to the plate and define a role. And I think the perfect example of that is the marketing campaign. We didn't initiate that, but people knew we said, you know, that we have strong, good neighborhoods, that one of the things is sometimes we don't -- just like we have a public-relations campaign, if you remember in April, for tourism, why don't we have a public-relations campaign for marketing the amenities in our neighborhoods? So we -- you know, and someone else said, Ah, we see a role for ourselves in that. We would like to go raise money, develop that, and convene a 60 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 steering committee of public and private individuals, and then there are also -- and we raise the money for that. And I think this is an opportunity to invite others to initiate and so, like, help carry the ball.
That's fine. I just want to know who's going to facilitate the initiatives in those particular neighborhoods. Is it --
I think that if you look at our housing-reorganization plan, we've tried to -- our proposal is to develop a housing organization that reflects the NTI framework, and so there will be an Office of Market-Rate Housing. The City has never had an Office of Market-Rate Housing. Market-rate developers, you know, call the Councilperson, some of them are coming into the City through the Commerce Department. They go to Maxine Griffith, the City Planning Commission. So we will have an Office of Market-Rate housing in the new organization so that folk on the outside will know where to go. These people will be specifically focused on addressing the conditions in those neighborhoods. 61 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036
And so we hope to, for the first time, have that be a core function within the whole housing apparatus.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chief of Staff, on the issue of consolidation of the agencies and departments, where are we on that and what is the process and timeline that is going to finally -- and what's going to emerge at the end?
What our vision is, our goal is to have the new organization structured so it will be included in the FY '04 budget. Right now, we have an RFP out on the street, soliciting from consultants -- you know, soliciting consultants who will help us, that we can contract with to help us create in this new organization.
Excuse me, you're contracting with somebody to come in and advise you to do the consolidation? 62 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036
To actually put together the various components. For example, one of the things we don't have in the City are any procedural manuals. I think that the whole acquisition disposition got out of control because it's as much guided by word of mouth, urban legend as it is by anything else. The last manual for acquisition disposition in the City was done in 1974, and so we've done a very, very detailed study of, you know, what goes on now. We have some very clear ideas about how it ought to work. But actually creating a process and procedure and documenting that is the kind of thing that we've never done.
That's from the RDA? In 1974, the RDA produced that document?
That was the last time. Having worked at the Redevelopment Authority, I can tell you that there's a lack of consistent documentation. If you go to one person, you get one set of procedures, you know, you hear about some memo that's supposed to exist that requires that something happen. And what we're --
So this consultant, his 63 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 job is going to come in, one, to update the manual, the procedural manuals?
Let me -- it's more than just updating a procedural manual. I think everyone in this room can tell you all of the horror stories about our acquisition and disposition systems. They're very much antiquated, they're at least 98 percent manual; even the components of it that's automated is based on, I think, an IBM computer system that even IBM doesn't service anymore.
The issue of sheriff's sales is going to be included in that process?
So what we're looking at is a process redesign of our real-estate operation. And as Herb talked about, you know, primarily, we're focussing first and foremost on the tools we use for land assembly and redevelopment activity. Second, it's also going to look at the rest of government. If we're going to reconfigure a housing agency, you know, some -- yes, you can move people around; yes, you can change names, and maybe that's been done before, but we never really designed the processes, we never created a formal -- 64 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036
Well, give me a vision of what it is that we foresee, because, you know, this is one of the problems that we've had going back and forth, and this is going to be probably one of the key elements of whether this thing goes forward or not, how you structure this brand-new entity in the amalgamation of all of these different institutions.
RDA, OHCD, what is PIDC, how is PIDC going to function into this?
How is -- what is it going to look like? Give me -- two years from now, I'm going to be sitting here, you're going to be sitting there; what am I going to be asking you about in terms of these institutions?
First -- and, again, we're willing to give out this document again to make sure it's incorporated at the public hearing. We included in our Administration testimony what we call the "high-level functional organization" for what we're calling the "Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation" and how the other 65 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 different or existing entities fit within that and, you know, the role of the Redevelopment Authority, OHCD, how that would be reconfigured or reorganized under the housing and neighborhood preservation, and we can resubmit that to Council Second, when you talk about the vision and what does the process redesign accomplish, I mean, my vision will be very simple. I mean, you know, we state that we want to make sure we can do -- I'm just saying this -- 1,000 dispositions a year and that we want those 1,000 -- we want to be able to timeline when we have title to getting it into someone's hands, we say, That ought to be 90 days, because if you were in the private market and you went to buy a house, usually it's 90 days from the agreement.
Does OHCD merge into RDA? PIDC, what happens with their role? What is going to be -- how is that going to come into the overall aspect of this new entity that is going to 66 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 be, I would imagine, on top? Okay?
No, it's not on top. What we would do is -- the functions, unless they're legally-mandated functions, the functions and the personnel that are needed to support those functions would come under the umbrella of the Housing and Neighborhood Preservation Office. The RDA in particular, for example, will then have a relationship, and because of its special and unique powers, it would still exist as an organization, but it would have a very clear and defined relationship with the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, and that its roles and duties and responsibilities will be set out in intergovernmental cooperation agreements, which is anticipated by the Commonwealth.
So there's going to be an Office of Housing Preservation, and what is the other title to it?
And then it will four lines of businesses. It will be the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation and --
Who merges into that, OHCD? 67 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036
The functions of the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation, certain of the functions that the Redevelopment Authority, and the current functions of the Office of Housing and Community Development would all be transferred along with the supporting personnel under the Office of Housing and Neighborhoods Preservation.
So PIDC, because it's industrial development and business, doesn't fit into that.
No, mm-mm. And, again, I think it's -- visually, it's much more -- one can see it and we're happy to send out and sit down with you and walk through each of the lines of businesses. We did share that with Council.
So how are the legal technicalities, the aspect of it? because, like you said, OHCD has certain aspects that are legally mandated. 68 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036
Well, OHCD is the office -- is a part of the Office of the Mayor. Its role was determined, I believe, by executive order. I mean, one can, you know, change --
Well, the funds are usually already targeted for certain populations, right?
Well, let's not confuse the -- I guess you would call it the "operating mechanism" or "apparatus" with the restrictions on the funding requirements.
But what we want to get to is an understanding of how this thing is going to function.
Right. The Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation will oversee the City's housing and neighborhood preservation activities, but not just exclusively to CDBG dollars. We envision, as a part of this Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, a division or a unit that focuses on market-rate housing. Historically in the City, our housing policy has been driven by what we can and cannot do with Community Development Block Grant and 69 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 (indiscernible) and to a lesser degree, certain State funds. So we kind of constricted our ability to work in neighborhoods by tying our mission, so to speak, to the federal requirements for certain funding. What we've done is, we said, What is the mission of this office? and then there would be different sources and resources to advance that mission. Some of it would be federal, some of it would be State. You know, bond proceeds will play a role in that. And the mission is housing and neighborhood preservation. And the reason why we went to the discussion about neighborhood preservation going back to the original NTI framework -- in fact, going back from my understanding, comments from vary Councilpeople about the limits of CDBG is that we need to look at our city and its neighborhoods in their entirety and then craft strategies that are specific to their strengths and to their opportunities, as opposed to having all of our housing endeavors driven simply by what federal funding is available. And so that, to me, is the paradigm shift. 70 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036
District 33 employees are going to be impacted by this reorganization, and what are the discussions that are going on between District 33 and the Administration along these lines?
We are -- we are beginning to talk with a number of different stakeholders about the vision that we have. We're talking with -- with people within the agencies trying to validate the basic model. I think that there are going to be extensive conversations that are necessary, negotiations that are necessary with the union if this is going to be successful.
Are they taking place now, or are they going to be taking place?
No, there have been conversations. I don't think -- you know, I don't think we've reached the point yet that, you know, we're engaging in the way that we ultimately need to, but we understand that Jeff Brown and the other leaders of District Council 33 are critical. One of the things that the consultant is going to be doing for the City is helping us create job descriptions. The job descriptions in some of 71 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 these organizations, to the extent that they exist at all, reflect a 1954 vision of rebuilding neighborhoods. We've got to bring those forward so that they reflect the kind of challenges we have now. We've got to have -- you know, and we're going to have to provide training for people so that, you know, they can carry out the kinds of challenges -- you know, meet the challenges that are in our neighborhoods. So, you know, all of that is a part of our vision. It will take a lot of interaction and participation by the union. We're not there yet.
When do you foresee meaningful discussions with the union taking place; two weeks from now, three weeks?
How far along in the process are you going to begin discussing it with them?
We've begun discussing. I think that as we begin refining the plan, you know, talking about how many positions and which part of 72 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 the organization, I think those conversations will take a whole different character, and that's what I meant by "meaningful," not that we're not sitting down and engaging. I think, you know, there are tough issues around pension. You know, we understand, you know, that this is not going to be easy to do. I think that, you know, City Council was critical in laying down the challenge. You know, last year, we were asked, you know, what is the Administration's plan for reducing the administrative burden to the CDBG budget? We have taken that charge seriously and are really proposing back a very comprehensive plan, and as soon as the document comes up, you know, we'll reintroduce it. For doing that kind of consolidation, you know, we understand it's going to be difficult, but I think that we all understand that the vision for rebuilding neighborhoods can't happen if government's not willing to also change in order to accommodate the challenges.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. 73 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036
Thank you, Madam President. My question is for Mr. Wetzel, probably more for L&I, but I was just curious. We were talking earlier about the process and getting certain pieces of legislation in place that will make the acquisition or taking of these properties easier. A year or two ago, we passed some legislation in this Council -- I can't remember the number of the bill, but I call it "the broken window bill," and everyone agreed that that was a good tool to get to that point where we were able to, as a city, agency, or whatever, be able to today those properties because the liens would be so sufficient, if the -- if the fines were imposed on a daily basis, $300 a day for every single broken window, we would get to that 150 percent of the market value, and in many cases, probably in less than 30 days or 30 days or so. Have we done anything with that, with the implementation of that bill? And if you can't explain it, I could understand it, and maybe it's more L&I, but it should fit into what we are 74 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 talking about, and why aren't we using that legislation already?
I will have the commissioner come over. There were two different pieces of legislation for liening. I know that you had asked about this at the last hearing. One of programs had begun and they had actually started doing the liening. I will have the L&I commissioner come over and answer in detail what's going on.
22nd and Arch, my signature building, right? Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter. Is he in the room?
Councilman Nutter, do you want to yield to Councilman Cohen?
To Mr. Wetzel, in my maybe not-too-well-informed judgment in this area, 75 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 'cause I haven't dealt with the Redevelopment Authority too many times, I like the changed atmosphere in the way in which the department operates, and I wanted to thank you for bringing that about. Now, you referred to changes that are needed at the State level and at the City level to consolidate ownership in one entity for the City. Could we move ahead at the City end? Is there any State law that has to be changed to permit bringing currently into a single City ownership the property owned by the four agencies you enumerated? Because I think people go by example.
If we could do it citywide within the limitations of law, I think you'll do a great favor to the State legislature 'cause you'll that something could happen to the archaic method in which we deal with land transfers.
Yeah, let me say I don't know if there are any legal impediments. I know what we're looking at is what would be the form of that; would it be a quasi-government non-profit-created? 76 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 You know, under the City, would it be title-held by the City itself? And I think we're doing that research now to make that determination. And the process would be, for example, where hypothetically PHA owns 800 vacant lots, for example, that are in their inventory for which they have no future plans, you'd want to go -- and PHA, it requires HUD approval from HUD in Atlanta, Georgia, of all places, but they've got to submit this to Atlanta, Georgia, and get approval for each parcel of land that they transfer; for example, the Public Housing Authority. What we would want to do here is go through that entire inventory and, let's say, declare 800 of those surplus and go to HUD for approval of moving all 800 of those into the land bank at one time. So we're working on the mechanism. It hasn't been finalized yet, but the concept is, we create the mechanism and then the entities deliver the land to that mechanism.
May I urge upon you for consideration just the reverse approach; to instead take one property and try to run it through HUD, 77 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 and you'll learn what the difficulties are?
You may by the number, 800 or even a hundred, create almost an insuperable obstacle to doing anything, because with we in government are not known for our courage to embark on a new path; we're always frightened about new paths, so we're looking for a safe way. And I'm fearful you'll never get any HUD administrator or HUD lawyer to spend sufficient time to feel comfortable with this mass transfer unless you have first established a procedure in an easy way for them -- one properties or two properties at most -- and then they might be comfortable in doing it.
Councilman, we've actually -- to answer that, we have some small-scale experience with HUD with packages of four and six and eight and as many as ten properties at a time, and what we've uncovered is, whether it's one or fifty, it's the same procedure. And I do agree with you, though, that it would be good to have a meeting with HUD and a heads-up rather than just submit 800 at one time.
You'll frighten them to 78 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 death.
Right. To have concurrence that this is part of rebuilding neighborhoods and we need this federal assistance.
The reason I discuss that with you is that these same kinds of discussions have occurred during the 35 years that my Council period of service spans. At various times, people get the same ideas, and then they always -- nothing ever happens and, therefore, I'm suggesting, if we can bite off a little piece, get it underway, we may really start, you know, the development of a series of building blocks on which we can built.
And you're the kind of person that I think might be ready to do that. Thank you.
The other question I have, if I may, Madam President, is, in my community, the 17th Ward where I am the Ward leader and Councilwoman Donna Miller is the District 79 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 Council member, and I think the problem is a general one in the northwest, we have terrible problems with apartment buildings ranging from two units, they can be much larger units. And is there any City department that deals with the specific problem, say, of apartment houses? I think their problems are altogether different from the problem of the single vacant home. And because blight to us means a vacant apartment building, because people gather in there, there are always report of women being dragged in, we never know whether they're true or not, sometimes we get information from the police, we don't know whether we want to go to the police to confirm it, but we'd love to be able to go to the police and, say, disprove that an attack occurred, but if they confirm it, it's only worse in the neighborhood. But the places are dangerous, they're dirty, they gather lots of trash, and they deny people an important availability. Senior citizens desperately need housing in Philadelphia, and they're wonderful for senior citizens because even if they go up three our four or five flights, as 80 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 long as they have an elevator there, it's safe for senior citizens. And we find that the community tends to accept housing for senior citizens, they don't raise all the questions that they raise in other kinds of housing, in the single-family housing. So I'm asking Pat or Joyce Wilkerson, because I think you're the two that would know, is there any special intention, and if not, I would urge that you develop some method of separately dealing with apartment housing. I think they create unique problems, and will be (indiscernible) tremendous benefit for the City if we can learn how to stabilize them, how to give them support where economic support is needed, because that's what I assume is the problem, that people in the private sector have not found a way to convert many of these into a worthwhile economic venture and as a part of the blight program, and that gets you in, Pat.
I mean, that would be one of the things we look at. As part of our preservation strategy, we acknowledge that sometimes these small vacant apartment buildings have been problematic in 81 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 neighborhoods, and sometimes maybe the reuse may not necessarily be another apartment building. I think one of the more successful, I think, strategies that was used by a CDC working with a for-profit developers as part of a joint venture was taking a scattered-site, garden-style apartment building, you know, where there was like the duplex units, and then in some instances, converting those into market-rate home-ownership units. And Herb could -- they underwrote that project. We also had the Law Department to begin to look at other jurisdictions in terms of what powers we may be able to use to think about doing more than just the traditional citing and liening. I think one of our frustrations is that we in the City, you know, we can lien it, we can cite it, but if the owner is not around and we can build up all the liens, you know, the challenge is if you take it, you know, then is the City the owner, if you don't have the resources to redevelop. But we're looking at other strategies that other cities have been using with these smaller apartment buildings. I think Boston, in 82 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 particular, they call them "triplexes" or something, have three-tier buildings that they've done combination home ownership/rental type activities. They're too big for single family triple-deckers. I think they're using different kind of strategies there.
I know the Redevelopment Authority is involved in one on the (indiscernible) in the Suffolk Apartments.
That's a huge project, and it is not an example of the best work done by City agencies in the management over the last five or six years, but we need a strategy for those that are already owned.
But I'm thinking particularly of the smaller ones, not as gigantic as Suffolk, but the ones that run from 2 to maybe 16th and Grange Street comes to mind. It's a building that's been vacant for at least ten years, an apartment building. Somehow it defies the elements, the structure's still sound, people and private investors or land owners come, look at it, 83 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 and then when they add it up, they always decide the arithmetic doesn't make sense for an investment.
It's a blight to the neighborhood. We're always concerned that it's a danger to people and youngsters in the area, and sooner or later, it's going to be become structurally unsound even though it's managed to somehow defy the elements so far. It seems to me that a very effective and a cost-effective way would be to find some method not necessarily of becoming a City apartment, but that's kind of subsidization, to my colleague Councilman DiCicco, that I would gladly support. If it needs governmental funding to make it available and make it economically attractive to investors, I think that would be the best kind of investment to make.
And in Northwest Philadelphia, that's a very urgent issue.
Right. You've raised, I think, an important issue. There are a lot of 84 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 strong residential home-ownership neighborhoods that have a small number of apartment buildings that are the blight, that the homeowners in their houses are in very good shape, and I can think of two. Pat mentioned one at Wissahickon and Manheim where a 200+ apartment complex, owned by some New Yorkers who milked it, was destroying the neighborhood; and the other, I believe, would be Councilwoman Krajewski's district, the Carl Mackley Apartments up in Juniata Park, surrounded by solid home ownership, but it was the blight, pulling down the rest of the neighborhood. If you owned a house across from the Carl Mackley and you put a for-sale sign on it, it would have been difficult to sell that house, given the condition of that. And we intervened in those, and those are larger ones, I understand, but we also, I think, need to look at that 14-, 20-unit building that's also pulling down the neighborhood, and I think you make a good point. And I think we've talked about the larger ones and we need to talk about the medium-sized ones that you're bringing up.
Thank you, Madam 85 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 President.
You're welcome. Councilman Nutter, I'm sure that members of the Administration will be here for the remainder of the hearing. If you're not ready, can I go on with the witnesses that we have?
Thank you. Anyone else have questions at this point of the Administration? (No further questions.)
Seeing none, I would ask Mr. McPherson to call the first witness.
Good afternoon. My name is Gordon Whitman from Temple University Center for Public Policy.
Good afternoon. My name is Martha Aviles with the Eastern Pennsylvania Organizing Project.
Hello. I'm Kathleen Cruz, also from the Eastern Pennsylvania Organizing Project. 86 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 I live in Hunting Park.
Reverend Avinger (ph) from Greater St. Matthews Baptist Church was scheduled to testify; he had a funeral, so we regret that he's not here today. Council President Verna and members of City Council, this is the sixth time we've testified or briefed Council on blight legislation, and we appreciate the continued opportunity to be of use in helping frame and create an effective blight strategy. Our goal has been to bring a neighborhood perspective to this debate as well as solid research, and throughout, we believe that NTI represents an historic opportunity for Philadelphia to deal with the set of problems that it hasn't dealt with for years. We very clearly would have liked to have seen much stronger Council oversight within the blight legislation. Nonetheless, we believe that the current bill before Council includes a number of very important improvements over the original proposal, and we want to just briefly highlight three changes that we think are important and then 87 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 make a number of suggestions about implementation that we think would strengthen NTI as we move forward. The first change we believe is particularly significant is the extra $45 million for neighborhood development. This was at the initiation originally of Councilman Clarke and was included in the bill that was passed in December, and it continues in the bill that's before Council today. The initial proposal had just $20 million for neighborhood stabilization and vacant property prevention, which would have been roughly $4 million per year. The current -- the current proposal increases that by $30 million to 50, and while we -- we believed all along that there needed to be a balance between resources for demolition and resources for development, we think that's an improvement that's substantial in terms of creating resources for the kind of activities that prevent housing vacancy and rehabilitate houses in the City. The cap on demolition at $160 million, we also think, creates some pressure to be efficient about the cost of demolition and strategic about 88 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 what demolition takes place. The second piece that we want to note of importance is that the revised framework includes a new program category called "geographically targeted preservation programs," and while the name is awkward, we believe that it's a vehicle to do the kind of geographically-focused work anchored by our hospitals and universities and nonprofit institutions and private employers that we've talked about as blight-free zones, and we think that's on important recognition of the importance of anchor institutions in framing and guiding NTI as it moves forward. The most important part of the current bill may be the annual approval process of district-by-district budgets and work plans. This makes NTI a citywide program and puts District Councilpeople at the center of neighborhood revitalization. And we think that's a vehicle to move away from the individual project-by-project strategy that's guided community development in the past and has been so criticized as not having an impact on the neighborhood level. So we think that process, if it's used right, along with the 89 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 advisory person hired or a firm hired to work with Council, really helps shape Council's role as central to guiding development in the use of yearly both plans and targeted evaluation of that is an important step toward making sure that this is citywide as a blight initiative. From our perspective, it's very unfortunate that the symbol of neighborhood transformation will be bulldozers knocking down vacant houses.
While this is clearly something that needs to happen, the commitment to make NTI more than just a demolition program in terms of the public perception of what NTI is and what neighborhood transformation needs, we believe that bulldozers will not create strong communities and that demolition alone isn't the right symbol of what NTI is about. So we are strongly urging the City, as it moves forward on a parallel basis, begin large-scale, publicly lifted up encapsulation so that we're sending a clear message that this is not just about demolition; we're committed to dealing with the roughly 1400 vacant houses that appear on our City streets each year as new vacants, and that 90 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 we're really going to tackle that. We're disappointed in the numbers that we've heard, that there seems to be a discrepancy between the original proposal to not only encapsulate but also renovate 2500 per year for over the 5-year period. It seems as though what we heard today was the encapsulation of 2500 but a step back from that commitment to do the renovation and the preservation. Those blocks are in every single Council District. One out of every four blocks in the City has a vacant house. People across the City are touched by those vacants that are one, two, three vacant on the block, and the importance of a substantial commitment to deal with those and renovate those is essential to the success of NTI. We appreciate the opportunity to testify and we offer our continued support to Council as it rightly moves to the center of shaping neighborhood transformation, and we're available and will be back at budget time. So we appreciate the opportunity to be here.
Thank you. Mr. Whitman, I want to personally thank 91 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 you for your interest and certainly the input that you have given us in trying to shape this NTI bill. I know that you've worked very, very hard on this, and you and your group are really to be commended, and I wanted to personally thank you. Please proceed. Identify yourself for the record.
(Addressing a colleague.) Do you want to add? We'll leave it at that.
Oh, fine. Thank you, thanks for coming in. Our next witness?
And after Miss Lichtash is Judith Robinson, so maybe she could come up to the witness table at this time also. (Witnesses come forward.)
Madam Chair, I need to leave the chamber but wish to be recorded as voting aye on this bill and aye on the 92 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 amendments offered by the Administration.
Thank you, thank you. Miss Lichtash, please proceed. Identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yeah, my name is Nora Lichtash, and I'm the Director of the Women's Community Revitalization Project, and we're also a member of the Philadelphia Affordable Housing Coalition. It's a coalition that's been working to increase decent, accessible, and affordable housing in Philadelphia for people earning less than $18,000, and that covers a lot of people. In the most recent census data that we have, it says that one-third of the City's households earn less than $20,000, which actually comes out to about 500,000 adults and kids. Every study that we see confirms what many of us see day in and day out: That there's very little housing that's affordable to that income. We understand that the reason that NTI was created was to bring higher-income residents back to the City and keep higher-income people here, and 93 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 we support that and applaud the Administration for doing that, but what's also been presented as NTI is not just the bonds that are being floated and it's not just the private-sector resources and public-sector resources that are going to be leveraged; it's also all of the resources that have historically built new housing and rehabbed housing and fixed up existing housing in the City. For that reason, we want to ensure a balanced approach and that for NTI to be successful, we want to make sure that there's a substantial amount of housing that's created that is truly affordable to the income population that makes up so many of the people in the City, that stronger real-estate markets have a lot to offer the City, but private markets won't develop one affordable house, and that, again, a third of the City's population is what we're talking about. It's only the government and you in Council and the City Administration who have the power and the responsibility to set policy and make sure that Philadelphians are adequately housed. As much as we believe in NTI, we want to make sure that inadvertently, families aren't left 94 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 in a worse condition, especially those who are relocated and dislocated. So given the critical shortage of housing that we're talking about and the fact that in June, a lot of folks are going to lose their income because of welfare cuts and the fact that NTI is going to demolish so many houses, many of them vacant, but there are also many that have people in them, we want to ask and make sure that Council have thought through questions about how many people in your district are going to be relocated or dislocated, and is there our housing in your district to ensure that those families have a place to live. We want to make sure, and we ask you to make sure, that there are resources, staff, money, and policies that are in place to really address families that are being relocated and dislocated. We believe that the constituency that we work with and the organizations in our coalition are prepared to be assets to NTI, and we'd like to work with Council and the Administration to ensure that NTI's success, especially around the issue of relocation, it's a really important issue in the community. We thank the members of Council who fought 95 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 for the basic public accountability on NTI and are pleased to see that in the current bill, it still retains the requirement that Council approve annual NTI program statements and budgets. However, there's one important class of information that's missing in these reports, as we read it in the current bill: That there needs to be information on affordability and accessibility; we need information to be provided to Council on sales prices, rent levels, accessibility status, and amount of subsidy for all of the developments. Just as we support accountability that's included in the bill, we also support the amendment that Joyce Wilkerson mentioned this morning around including a program evaluator, someone that's going to evaluate NTI for City Council.
Just as believe that Council must be informed and involved, we also believe that all of this information -- the program statements, budgets, and evaluation reports -- should be disseminated to the public. Just as there's mandatory public hearings for all the money that the Community Development Block Grant plans for and spends, we believe that there needs to be an annual 96 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 public hearing, and we weren't sure that that was something that was going to happen on NTI plans prior to any vote in Council.
Thank you. Any questions or comments of this witness? (No response.)
Seeing none, Miss Robinson, please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yes. My name is Judith Robinson. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here this afternoon. I am a licensed real-estate broker of nearly years, I'm a 15 lifelong resident the 5th District in North 16 Philadelphia. 17 I'm here today to testify against the Bill 18 020036. I am requesting that all of you 19 Councilpeople vote no on this ordinance. This bill 20 amends Bill 010694, which, Madam President, I thought was an excellent bill. You all as Councilpeople voted on that bill 17 to 0. It came back, from what I understand, unsigned by the Mayor. Correct me if I'm wrong. That bill, the initial bill requested that 97 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 the Mayor provide all of us with a comprehensive strategic plan. It also had controls to ensure that a plan is adhered to. On the other hand, the amendments would allow the Mayor to issue bonds to finance a project without a detailed plan or oversight -- $250 million without a real plan. I am deeply concerned. As I have done research as it relates to this NTI hearing process, I contend that we in the community cannot get input at this point. , that is in process now. To talk about the annual process where the Council would have some oversight, this is the same annual process that happens with OHCD and the Community Block Development Grant. It's inadequate. There are projects that are not identified that are a part of OHCD's business that move forward that are not of value to the community. I contend there has been no market studies done to determine what really needs to be done in neighborhoods and no community planning. I contend 98 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 all taxpayers should have some input at some level on how neighborhoods are transformed; after all, we live there. Why are not Councilpeople at-large included in this process? They represent us also. Some Councilpeople will be more loyal to the projects that the Mayor and the NTI Committee contends need to be done. I am concerned because I see this happening right now in our community as it relates to demolition. We have had no real input from the NTI Committee, and the community does not have any real input in what is being demolished as it stands now, and we have written to our councilman to try to get this information and have been waylaid, and at this point, it's impeding our ability to truly plan in our community. We want to make sure that the Councilpeople at-large understand that we want them to represent us too, along with our District Councilpersons. Mayor Street is -- was formerly, I should say, the Councilman of the 5th District. The 5th District is one of the most blighted, if not the most blighted, district in the City. With all due respect to the Mayor, he has no track record of 99 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 transforming that district. I'm talking about with the rules and regulations and the laws that are already on the book. I'll give you an example. Back in 1998 -- and this is when I did my research, you all, so, you know, please beg my pardon if some people in the audience don't understand what I'm talking about, but I'm sure Councilpeople will. There was a Select Committee on Land Management and Reuse. This committee went through all of these processes to consolidate all of the departments -- this was back in 1998. Go through your records, you'll see that that select committee was in place and did do some of the work that supposedly is being done now like dealing with Act 94 and going to the State to see how this could be done. All of this work was done before, so I'm really trying -- I'm really so perplexed as to why we can't get a comprehensive plan or, as Councilman Cohen stated, some of these processes have already moved forward. How much money do you need to consolidate departments? You should be saving money, I contend. Whatever. I'm concerned that there's no request in 100 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 the amendments to reorganize the City budget -- the City agencies, I'm sorry.
I see where that has been taken out, so that will no longer be in the bill that's being presented. I'm very much concerned about that. I would like to see the Administration move forward with consolidating some of these agencies to show the community what you're working with as far as your ability to get some of these agencies to work effectively for our community. For instance, L&I. There's been years of no code enforcement and no abatement, even when the laws are on the books. We already have designated abatement areas; the 5th District has been one for about years, and the Mayor, as our councilman, 17 didn't use this to waylay or stem some of the tide 18 of abandonment that we have now. That could have 19 been done, there's no doubt in my mind. 20 And I just wonder why we're not making it mandatory that the Administration move forward in doing some of these things before we run ahead, giving up $250 million, not knowing detailed plans as to what will happen with it. PHA. I'm sure everybody has read in the 101 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 paper most recently about the mismanagement and disrespect of the other tenants in PHA by one of the managers of PHA; I'm sure you all have read that. What has the Mayor done and the Administration done about managing just that one agency? I don't want to start getting out pictures because I always bring you all pictures, but I have pictures of where PHA, all over the Susquehanna section, has abandoned many of their properties that no longer than a year or so ago had total rehab done on them and now they're vacant, sitting open. I would just like to see that one agency manage their affairs better before we move forward with talking about spending $250 million. PHA every year gets a separate budget of money from the federal government that's being wasted and mismanaged, and it can be documented. I would love to see the Administration deal with it. The Empowerment Zone. All of you remember the project that never was, the Billy Holiday Project that became the big hole on Cecil B. Moore Avenue. No one knows where over a million dollars went. , let me see where you could do something better with these limited resources that we find occasionally coming to our city, such as the Empowerment Zone. With all do respect, with whatever little bit of stuff that has been done, I am really concerned that the empowerment money did not have the kind of impact that it should have in North Philly, especially that west side of Broad Street. In addition, PHDC is supposed to be our housing development agency. Every project that I have researched that they have developed has been built poorly and with very cheap materials. Now, if we're trying to get 5,000 or more new people to come into the City, this is not what we should try to be offering them. We need to do something about the management of PHDC and the product that they are putting out for people to purchase. I'm a real-estate broker, I know what people are looking 103 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 for, and a person would buy one of these old homes in a minute before they would buy that cheap properties that they are putting up. I am very concerned about a project that you all voted on through that annual process of Community Block Development Grants, the 3-S project, Silver-Seltzer-Sterner Street. This is what I'm very concerned about this and what the Mayor is projecting for our community, because I went to Zoning to try to fight that project because it was ill-conceived and it was waylaid, and they went on through the zoning process. 9 million on one block. I have many years of experience; I know when a block has been transformed and what it should look like. It doesn't look like it has been transformed to me. In closing, you all voted on the original Bill 010694. You supported Madam President with a good bill that was for the people, I contend.
I request that you vote no on these amendments that leave us all unprotected without a real plan for 250 to possibly $300 million that our great- grandchildren will have to pay back because this is 104 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 over a 30-year period that this funding is going to be spread out over. And I really thank you all very much for your attention. I hope you really hear what I'm saying based on where I live and my professional experience. Thank you. )
Thank you, Miss Robinson. Miss Robinson, I believe Councilman Goode would like to either make a statement or ask you a question.
Not really a question but really a comment responding to something she said in her testimony. I appreciate all the hard work she's put into this process, I appreciate a lot of concerns she has and I share a lot of those concerns. This is actually the third Neighborhood Transformation Initiative bill. I can say for the record that I think both the Administration and the Council President hoped that there could have been town meetings on this process. I think that through 105 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 town meetings on this process, a lot of good things would have happened. We've had three bills, no 4 town meetings. Beyond that, in terms of the inclusion of at-large people in this process, I can tell you this bill amending the ordinance does address that issue; I saw to it that it addressed that issue, and at-large members will be involved in the project development process as well.
Let me just say this to you, Councilman: NTI coordinators came through our community. There were several community meetings, however, they were brief and they were not --
I'm referring to a City Council town meeting process in terms of considering all three bills. We could have had a town-meeting process. I talked to the Council President about it, I think the Administration would have loved the town-meeting process. They had a chance to explain it on their terms, along with City Council. That process did not take place, for whatever reason, for any of the three bills. I agree with you that there probably 106 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 should have been a town-meeting process across the City, but I also wanted to say to you that we did see fit that there will be at-large people involved in this process as well in terms of project development.
I still respectfully request that you all vote against these amendments until we can get a detailed plan. I liked the first bill; I do not think it needs to be amended. Thank you very much.
Rick Sauer, Joe Wingert, Gerald Sultan-Ashley. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Rick Sauer and I'm the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporations, 107 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 which is a citywide association of 80 local community development corporations and other organizations working to rebuild communities and revitalize neighborhoods. With active support from the City, CDCs have played a vital role in eliminating blight, increasing self-sufficiency, and rebuilding the physical and social fabric of our neighborhoods. And NTI provides an opportunity to build upon these accomplishments and implement a comprehensive and more coordinated strategy to address the housing and other community-development needs of our residents and their neighborhoods. In my previous testimony back in December, I addressed some key NTI-related issues, including the need to streamline the City's property acquisition system and expedite property disposition to the creation of a land bank, the use of community development block grant funds and --
Excuse me, sir. The noise level is much too high; we cannot really hear the witness. Thank you very much.
I also spoke to the need to 108 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 use community development block grant funds and other community development resources in a strategic manner to complement the use of NTI bond funds and to fill in gaps such as to provide funding for housing development and economic development and also the critical role that CDCs need to play in the neighborhood transformation process. We continue to believe that the City needs to address these issues as a part of NTI, but I didn't want to rehash all of those issues today. I just wanted to briefly comment particularly on the oversight issue that both City Council and the Administration has been grappling with as of late. Clearly, City Council has an important oversight role to play in the process with regard to both the use of NTI bond funds as well as the implementation of NTI activities. And as has been commented on earlier, the new proposed bond ordinance requires that Council approve an annual program statement and budget, it would get quarterly reports. In addition, individual District Councilmembers would have a significant role to 109 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 play in decisions regarding demolition, encapsulation, acquisition, development, and other aspects in their districts. Also, Council already must approve the transfer of property as well as the City's annual consolidated plan, detailing expenditure of CDBG funds. However, I think that the issue of oversight and accountability extends beyond Council. Neighborhoods and local stakeholders that will be most directly impacted by the implementation of NTI need to be involved in the process as well. Along this line, Councilman Nutter had introduced a resolution in December that was passed by Council to create a Housing and Economic Development Task Force that has representatives from the community, from Council, and other important interests in the neighborhoods. We certainly would like to see that task force move forward. In addition, the City needs to provide access to information and data that would be used as part of the NTI planning and decision-making process, and also provide a clear avenue for 110 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 neighborhood stakeholders to have input into this process, including which buildings will be demolished and encapsulated, what the future use of projects will be, and how funds will be allocated. However, the actual development process in Philadelphia is already too cumbersome. If we hope to spur redevelopment of our neighborhoods and grow our population, we can't risk adding even potential additional obstacles to the development process, either through the bond ordinance or through other avenues. Quite the opposite, as I think we've continually heard, we need to create a more predictable, streamlined, and customer-friendly delivery system. So in summary, we support NTI, we're glad to see that it's moving closer to implementation, and we certainly look forward to working with the City around NTI in making sure that our neighborhoods are transformed.
Thank you so very much. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Joe Wingert, and 111 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 I'm the Director of housing for the Partnership CDC located in West Philadelphia. Our area covers between 40th and 63rd Street, from Market down to Baltimore Avenue. I want to in general offer our support to NTI and the program, and I note from the Partnership's standpoint, we appreciate all of the effort that's going into streamlining this process and making it a better program for everybody in the City. Specifically, we want to offer our support of Bill No. 020036, introduced by Councilwoman Blackwell. In general, I won't comment on the specifics of the program, but from our standpoint, it offers a more streamlined process in general terms and -- as well as some Council participation in their respective districts. We see that there are many, many projects that we feel merit some attention from the City and from this program that would directly benefit from these streamlines. For example, the 60th Street commercial corridor, which is severely blighted, we believe, would benefit from this type of effort. There are other specific projects, 112 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 residential projects. One is a large apartment building in West Philadelphia that we believe will serve low-income families as well as elderly families in that area. There are other housing programs as well. And, again, I don't want to go into the specifics, but I simply want to offer our support for the program.
Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming into testify.
The next witnesses are Ann Ewing, Sharmain Matlock-Turner, and Ed Schwartz. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. My name is Ann Ewing. I'm here representing East Mt. Airy Neighbors and Mt. Airy USA, the Northwest Philadelphia Community Development Corporation. I want to thank you for making it possible for us to testify. We appreciate being a participant in the government. First, we want to say that we're very much 113 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 in favor of the principles of the Neighborhood Transform Initiative; its time has past. In our neighborhood, we have a lot of talent and determination, and we have worked on improvement of both commercial and housing -- commercial properties and housing for years, but there are certain intractable problems and certain very difficult properties on which we need the City's assistance, and we look forward to working with NTI. Responding to the first news reports about NTI, we began to hear that big word "demolition" an awful lot. And I heard this morning the Mayor's Office representatives saying that the City has the highest percentage of abandoned properties in the country. We were a little shocked and we took a good look at the list of abandoned properties as they were provided by L&I for our neighborhoods. We had to sort out a few things that were extraneous, but when we got down to it, L&I listed us as having 279 vacant properties. That seemed too many. We organized a committee and we walked the streets, and people looked directly at those 114 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 properties one at a time. 9 percent of the structures were simply not vacant. They were not squatted; they were occupied. They were occupied by people who put their strollers on the front porch and their laundry on the line. They were clearly living there. Many -- there were a few properties that were not at that moment occupied, but they were being rehabbed, they were being painted, they had for-sale signs on them; that's not a vacant property, an abandoned property. 4 percent were in fact in some way being cared for. We didn't speak to the ownership of those properties, but we did see their condition. One of them was St. Michael's historic cemetery, which has been there since the middle of the 18th century. That's not a vacant lot. And I can just imagine what would happen if the bulldozers came around and knocked over the Revolutionary War graves that are there. There were some other properties in similar condition. 115 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 Other properties have been kind of taken over by neighbors. You can see what happens: A neighbor has a house go down beside them, clearly it's going to become a dump if don't do something, so they start cleaning it up, and then to preserve their work, they put up a fence and pretty soon, there's a lawn mower, a picnic table, a barbecue, a bunch of tomatoes growing. That's not a problem in the neighborhood; that's an asset. We did find buildings that need to be 12 demolished. Some of them we've been trying to get 13 demolished for years and years and years. 14 In the end, we found not 279 vacant 15 properties, but 143; the same that the neighborhood 16 was reported to have had in 1984. 4 percent are publicly owned; the rest are in private hands through the tangled titles and confused and intestate inheritances of the past. We've attached the report of the survey to this testimony so that you can see exactly what we did. We would propose two things for the City: The first is that the list needs to be corrected. 116 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 Neighbors need to be involved in this because they're the people who know what's going on in the neighborhood. " It's important that that happen. We can't have houses being knocked down on top of people's heads, whether they live there legally or not -- and most of them live there legally. You can't make plans for a city if 50 percent of the properties you think are vacant are not. It just doesn't work, the whole budget situation goes out the window.
We request that the City get its data and its documents in order so that proper, comprehensive planning can be done. Secondly -- and several people have addressed this today -- the ways to acquire vacant properties need to be streamlined. 4 percent of publicly owned means that we have a lot of vacant property in private hands that nobody can get their hands on, that nobody can do anything about until a huge number of -- it probably takes five to seven years to get control of a single 117 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 vacant property. Neighborhood development corporations can't wait that long, neighborhoods can't wait that long. And I'm talking about any kinds of things. Roofs can't wait that long. Our housing stock is good. And as long as the roof holds, the house can stand abandoned for a while, but as long as nobody's watching it and the roof goes, then we have a problem, and eventually have, instead of a nice little house that could be rehabbed, a lot with cement on it. We think that we can work with this. We're looking forward to having these rules changed so that we can work in a climate of renewal and positive thinking with the City. Thank you very much.
Thank you. It's quite evident that you did a lot of work, and I think it's wonderful that you have the interest in your community, and I think more people have to do that.
That's wonderful. Thank you so much for coming in.
And it's quite apparent, as I said, that you have done a lot of work. Thank you so much.
My name is Ed Schwartz. I'm here representing the Institute for the Study of Civic Values and, I suppose, my own involvement in some of these issues for a few years. I'm here to testify on behalf of the quick passage of now yet the new formulation of the neighborhood transformation bond issue bill, as introduced by Councilwoman Blackwell. I have not been to a lot of these hearings, aside from the Council hearing on population, 'cause I've respected the fact that negotiating an oversight and collaborative process between the Council and the Mayor is a delicate process and just had to work its way through the system, but I am fairly pleased with what seems to 119 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 be unfolding, and so I'm here to offer my full support. I would add, and as evidenced even in some of the testimony you've heard, that just about everybody I know who's been involved in neighborhood revitalization in Philadelphia -- not everybody, but most have hoped for an agreement as well. Many of us took part in the Mayor's Transition Team two and a half years ago, offering our own ideas as to what should be done under the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative to improve neighborhood quality of life. We were aware then, and are aware now, that this is an ambitious undertaking without a detailed, scripted plan to guide us every step of the way, but the passage of the bond issue does not end the public discussions surrounding NTI; it merely moves the process to a next phase. We have been, and will be, debating what should be done to transform our neighborhoods for many years to come. Nor is this the first time that the City has undertaken a large-scale project without an iron-clad guarantee that it would pay off in the end. 120 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 Did we have a precise plan for expanding tourism at the time Council supported building a new convention center in the 1980s, when I was here? Hardly. But we were convinced that the hospitality industry had great potential for growth that simply would be not be realized unless we built a new convention center. There was enormous controversy surrounding every aspect of that project, first from within the City, and then from Harrisburg. We watched new hotels open and close while we wrestled with how it would be done and how it all would work. But a decade later, it is clear that the City is reaping great benefits from what we did and what you have done since then, and there will be many more of these benefits to come. And in a similar fashion, I believe that this NTI bond issue represents an expression of confidence that many of our older residential neighborhoods have great potential for recovery and growth, but this simply cannot be realized at this point until we clear away thousands of boarded-up houses that are now beyond reclamation at a reasonable price and create the physical space for 121 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 new developments and new kinds of development that will shape and reshape the future of the City. The Mayor now refers to the NTI bond issue as a "predevelopment program," and I agree with this formulation. Redevelopment and new development will proceed over many years, as Miss Wilkerson testified earlier, neighborhood by neighborhood. We will all be taking part in this process. But without the resources, there will be no development, and the public discussion surrounding it will end as well. I do not believe that the City can afford to let that happen now, and that is why what City Council seems to be prepared to do today is so important to us all. Assuming that this bond issue does finally pass, what's next? More than 30,000 lots are now being cleared and cleaned, even without the bonds. With the bond proceeds, large-scale demolition will proceed and the encapsulation of buildings that can preserved. There are various issues that do arise from this in a long-range issue.
The two immediate issues that I have identified in my testimony have 122 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 already been addressed today, so I will merely refer to them and add my voice to their importance. The first is the ongoing maintenance of vacant lots, which was addressed in the questions that Councilman Clarke asked earlier. I think this is a critical immediate issue, and I do understand that there is a commitment on the part of the Administration to have something done here. I am not yet convinced that the resources needed to do a proper job of ensuring the 30,000 lots that we are cleaning -- I understand that the number that we've already cleaned is 17,000 -- exists to make sure that they stay clean. If these vacant lots are well-maintained and look nice, whatever they ultimately become, that will be a great asset to the City. If they rapidly become new centers for dumping trash, that will be a disaster for the City and for this project. That's something that we have to address, I believe, right away. The second problem that has been well-addressed right up to my friend Ann Ewing from East Mt. Airy Neighbors has to do with the speed, or lack thereof, of disposing a property or 123 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 transferring a property from the City to someone else who might do something useful for it, and, God knows, we're claiming it from some private owner often living elsewhere and then putting it through that process. We've heard a lot about steps that are being taken to deal with that. I support those steps, and I'm glad to see it's still a major priority. I have to tell you that I'm a little mystified as to why, a decade later, we aren't already there. Somebody in an earlier testimony mentioned some task first in 1998; I can tell you that you I organized and chaired for three years an interagency task force on this and left the government at a time when we had not finished our work. No accounting for history. But obviously, if we hope not only to encourage the kind of development that depends upon subsidies, where people might be willing to wait because they're going to get a subsidy, you know, it's been important -- it's even more important if we hope to encourage what in the plan calls for 6,000 market-rate houses. These are developers 124 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 that are not going to wait. And if we can't solve this and make it work, and I think some of the proposals that I've heard today to do that make some sense to me, we're going to have some real difficulty. So that's the second high priority, and everybody understands that who's involved in this at all. But in my judgment, the fundamental challenge of NTI is long-term, and it relates to neighborhood development itself. As I've been arguing for many years, particularly since leaving the government and seeing how development unfolded after I departed, we need to develop comprehensive strategies for improving our residential, neighborhoods comprehensive strategies so that people will want to remain in Philadelphia and others will want to join us. However, this program, NTI, was first conceived as a blight initiative; that is the way the Administration is defining it now, and it is why NTI has my full support. In fact, it's mystifying to me why many of those writing about this in the press, and even in these discussions, seem not to have grasped this critical dimension of 125 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 the program. The Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, when you read it in the City's documents, is no longer just a demolition program leading to new housing development in the future. NTI is now the framework around which the Street Administration as a whole is organizing all of its strategies and programs, even indeed its thinking about neighborhood revitalization. That is precisely what those of us who served on the Mayor's Transition Team on Neighborhood Development urged Mayor to do, and he is doing this. Is this easy? Of course not.
Are there ready-made fail-safe plans that can be easily adapted in every neighborhood in the City? Hardly. That's where our challenge is now: To develop them, just as the work of making Center City a decent place to live and work didn't end with the opening of the new Convention Center; in some sense, it began there, with the creation of the Center City District. The Neighborhood Transformation Initiative challenges us to undertake a similar process of planning an improvement all over Philadelphia, and 126 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 that's what we need to start doing it as quickly as we can. The City itself in its documents has set forth its own priorities in this process. Philadelphia More Beautiful, under NTI, is now trying to recruit at least 1,000 more block captains beyond the 6,000 currently within its network. Within the framework of NTI, the City intends to take a much tougher stance on building code violations and trash dumping that undermines neighborhood revitalization, just as the litter and trash all over Market and Chestnut Street not so long cast a pall on Center City development. Within the framework of NTI, City departments are wrestling with how to reduce crime, to strengthen after-school programs, and develop more effective ways to deliver social services to the at-risk residents of our neighborhoods. The annual Children's Report Card, developed by the City under the auspices of Philadelphia Safe and Sound, is very much now seen as part of NTI. In an article that I wrote for the Daily News last year arguing that if can't raise 127 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 kids in neighborhoods, we're not going to save them has generated a lot of discussion not only in the community but within the Administration as well. Moreover, anyone who thinks that City government by itself can achieve neighborhood transformation in Philadelphia or anywhere else is missing another big point. The City can organize itself better to keep our blocks and our streets clean, to reduce crime, to provide new opportunities for businesses and residents, and to improve the quality of life and education for young our people, but unless we, the citizens and businesses and community organizations in Philadelphia, are equally engaged in this process, it simply won't happen. After all, it isn't the City that dumps trash on our lots or deals drugs in our neighborhood main streets or commits acts of violence against kids in our schools; people do. And if we, the people, the rest of us citizens, aren't as determined as City agencies to move from destruction to construction, from decline to progress, then all of the City workers in the world are just not going to do it by themselves. 128 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 And even when we turn to new development, the same principle applies. A lot of discussion is, what is the City agency doing to develop this, that, or the other? For the most part, as you all know, City agencies aren't developers; companies and nonprofit CDCs are. I'm proud to have played a role in helping many organizations and private developers, for that matter, become important contributors to housing and economic development in Philadelphia, both as a councilman and as Director of OHCD, but all we could do is provide encouragement, technical assistance, and critically financing; the developers and CDCs are the ones who do the work. And that's my own final answer to those on City Council who are worried that not enough will happen in their neighborhood or their districts to justify the approval of this bond issue today. You want oversight over the process, fine. Start meeting with CDCs and community organizations and businesses and developers interested in working within your districts and see how you and they can take advantage of this new framework, and some of the new resources made possible by NTI can make 129 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 progress for their people of your neighborhoods.
Every Councilperson does this now within framework of the City's economic plans, our capital budget and for the low- and moderate-income areas of the City, as has been noted, the community development block grant. None of this comes to a grinding halt because of NTI; quite the opposite. All of it gets a boost from being part of a much larger, comprehensive process to improve neighborhoods throughout the City so that we can hold on to our population and begin to grow again. NTI is not a threat; it's an opportunity. The Street Administration has made it clear what it hopes to do. It has started in removing abandoned cars, in cleaning lots, and in the acceleration of demolition. The bond issue will reinforce and broaden the process. The question, then, is not how we can simply provide critical oversight of this process but how we can join it. Citizen groups like mine all over Philadelphia are ready to work and have started to work. We look forward to working with every member of City Council in this process. 130 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.
Thank you very much, Mr. Schwartz. Any questions? (No questions.)
Thank you very much. Jeff Brown, AFSCME Local 1971 (Applause.) (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
My name is Jeff Brown, and I am President of AFSCME Local 1971 that represents employees at the Redevelopment Authority, at the City's Office of Housing and Community Development, and at the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation. Let me first apologize. The last time I 131 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 testified, I prepared testimony for the Committee of the Whole and it was before the Finance Committee. Today, I've prepared testimony for the Finance Committee and it's for the Committee of the Whole. Next hearing, I will have it right, okay?
You're absolutely fine. And as Chair of the Finance, I'm still here and we're still fine. It all works well, we all work together.
Okay. And as I said last time, I'm not going to elaborate the duties and responsibilities of the three agencies that I represent employees for. I think City Council is well aware of them, it's in the written testimony, and how crucial a function all three agencies currently perform -- the Redevelopment Authority, OHCD, and PHDC. And virtually all of the work that are performed by Local 1971 union members and the agencies for which we work is proposed as part of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. Therefore, we have a crucial interest in the NTI, both as employees and as residents of the City of Philadelphia. After my testimony on December 12th, 132 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 representatives of Local 1971 met with NTI officials and were shown a PowerPoint demonstration and given a copy of a booklet entitled "City of Philadelphia Housing Agency Reorganizations Project," dated December 11, 2001. That was the first time union learned how the City Administration was proposing to reorganize the housing agencies. However, neither at that meeting, nor since, have NTI officials asked for union or employee recommendations regarding any housing reorganization. They had not, up to that point, responded to concerns and issues raised by Local 1971, as requested by Chairperson Blackwell at the last hearing, until I received a letter just two days ago, which replied to some of the issues the union has been raising since September. And the only time NTI officials apparently have initiated contact with Local 1971 is, coincidentally, just prior to City Council public hearings. Let me reiterate that Local 1971 is not objecting to NTI, although we do have some concerns and questions about it. Our primary focus here today deals with the proposed housing 133 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 reorganization, which is summarized on on a housing agency reorganization brochure. In a language that would do George Orwell proud, NTI officials proclaim that OHCD will contribute 72 employees to a new Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, will eliminate 0 with personnel undecided, will contribute 9 106 employees -- I'm sorry, PHDC will contribute 10 106 employees while eliminating 15, and the 11 Redevelopment Authority will retain 43 but 12 contribute 113, with 3 personnel undecided. " As George Orwell's Newspeak so effectively taught us, merely changing the language does not change the situation. Employees may be laid off, they may retire, they may resign, and they may be fired, but they're not contributed. Revising the language in order to get rid of people does not make the functions any more palatable to those losing their jobs. Earlier in the booklet, NTI officials 134 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 spoke of functions and programs "migrating," some more Newspeak. In our opinion, if the unresponsiveness and the actions of the NTI officials thus far are an example of the way the City functions, it's no wonder why so many people have migrated out of the City of Philadelphia. In any event, the elimination of OHCD and PHCD in order to create two new organizations -- an Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation and a land bank -- merely shifts the work from two current agencies to two new agencies. The cannibalization of the Redevelopment Authority strips the Authority's staff of staff necessary to carry out its significantly increased workload. It's also of questionable legality since it proposes the administration of the Authority's State-mandated functions by municipal employees, thereby raising issues about the Authority's ability to issue bonds and its independence to pursue eminent domain. NTI officials have not provided the union with any logical explanation as to why they're proposing such a reorganization; nor, despite claims to want input from the union and the 135 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 employees, have they asked for or accepted any such input into a housing reorganization.
When union representatives attempted to speak about labor issues at the December 12th meeting with the NTI officials, we were told to have our attorney, the union attorney, contact the City attorney. NTI officials previously would not respond to union representatives regarding programmatic matters. So if one is to take the NTI officials at their word that they want input, what kind of input are they limiting union representatives to? On February 8th of this year, the City advertised in the Inquirer for a consultant to help in reorganizing three housing agencies. The advertisement indicated price is not a consideration in the determination of technical merit. Apparently, the City is more willing to pay any price for high-priced consultants than to work with the union on reorganizing and improving the current housing agencies. Having lived through at least 7 housing reorganizations and over 32 years of Redevelopment 136 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 Authority employment, I've seen time and again how layoffs and staff reductions result in decreased productivity. Layoffs cause an enormous amount of disruption. They require an inordinate amount of time to be spent on bureaucratic functions in dealing with the laid-off employees. The amount of time and energy spent on these functions reduces the time and energy that could be spent on blight elimination. Add to that the problem of establishing two new City offices, hiring staff, finding space, obtaining furniture, equipment and supplies in a timely manner, and integrating all of that in a City system, and you have many months of unnecessary delay. In addition, the NTI officials propose to reduce staffing levels of the current 3 agencies from 359, of which approximately 250 are union- represented, to 291, none of which would be union-represented, while the City Administration wants to expand blight elimination activity as significantly as it proposes. That make no sense. People are needed to make the housing and blight elimination functions work. The current 137 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 housing agencies have been understaffed for years, and despite what some efficiency experts with no 4 housing experience may think, you can't get more work in this field out of less workers. There's a point of diminishing returns. Even if some of the current experienced employees are hired at the new agencies, the transition from one agency to another, the issues about their titles, their wages, benefits, including their pensions, hours and working conditions will cause delay and disruption. So will hiring of new inexperienced employees to perform blight elimination functions. Local 1971 has emphasized to the City Administration since May 2001 that the union is willing to work with the City and the three housing agencies to ensure a smooth reorganization of the current housing agencies in order to help improve living and working conditions for all citizens of the City. The union has repeatedly asked to be informed of and be able to provide input regarding any reorganization on a continuing basis, not after any such reorganization has been determined. We 138 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 have implored the City Administration not to present us with a housing reorganization fait accomplis. However, NTI officials have done exactly what we beseeched the City Administration not to do: They presented the union with a fait accomplis. The decision has been made to create new housing agencies without any union or bargaining-unit employee input. If this is the treatment that the union receives from the City Administration prior to the authorization of the NTI, what can we expect after its approval? )
AFSCME Local 1971 is extremely concerned about the employees we represent. NTI officials have not said which current housing-agency employees will be laid off, who will be hired by the new agencies, where the employees will be assigned, what will their wages, benefits, hours, and working conditions be, or who will represent them. Based upon the union's experience in dealing with NTI officials up to this point, we're exceedingly apprehensive about the future 139 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 employment and working conditions of our union members. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee of the Whole, on behalf of the City employees who happen to be residents of the City and members of AFSCME Local 1971 and their families, I respectfully ask City Council not to authorize the NTI until written details of the housing organization are provided to Local 1971 and the City Administration works with the union to ensure that current union-represented employees are not adversely affected and continue to be represented by this local. We of Local 1971 District 33 thank you, Madam Chairperson, and the committee and City Council for your support. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Brown, and thank you for your continual and constant communication with regard to this and for the work that you're trying to do to keep us informed and to certainly protect the City workers and your membership who work here. 140 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 Are there questions? Councilman Cohen.
Yes. I think that's a pretty damning indictment. When you refer to NTI officials, are there any in particular? There were two people who testified this morning; they're the only two that I really know. There's Pat Smith, who's the head of it, and Joyce Wilkerson, the Chief of Staff. Are there any other involved?
And Linda Berkowitz. Is Pat Smith and Joy Wilkerson still here? I'd like to hear what they say about this. I don't think this can wait. I think we've got to get a quick answer to the labor thing because maybe the NTI is merely a subterfuge for union-busting. That may be what's -- (Applause.) (Witnesses come forward.)
I would like to ask (inaudible) could Pat be specific or Joyce or whoever it is.
I would like to hear the Administration's response because we're very concerned about charges that agencies that have union representatives are being abolished and new ones created without accepting the obligation and the new agencies' continued representation by the same bargaining unit. I'm not even sure that would be satisfactory to the union, but at least that would be a showing of some good faith.
Just on behalf of the Administration, I want to indicate two things: One, the Administration respects its responsibilities to the collective-bargaining process, and we'll engage in that as we move forward; and secondly, the last time I testified, I testified that the Administration does not plan on laying off anybody as we go through this whole restructuring process. People may not have the same jobs that they have currently. For example, we have people in the housing organizations that are engaged directly in workforce development activities. They may more appropriately, you know, be working as a part of the overall workforce development 142 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 initiative. And so as we go through this reorganization, it may be that people have different jobs within government as we move forward, but the Administration's commitment is to retain the current employees but to restructure the functions of the organization so that we can operate more effectively and more efficiently. Miss Smith -- Pat Smith can talk more about that.
Excuse me, Councilman Cohen. We have a point of order from Councilman Goode.
It's a point of information. Would you have Councilman Cohen clarify the record when he suggested that the Administration was floating $295 million bonds just to consolidate three agencies. Was he actually making that suggestion?
Councilman Cohen, 143 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 did you hear the --
I heard it, but I don't understand the question. If he wants to know if I'm making a serious charge, the answer is yes. I'm very concerned, and apparently several hundred members of the union are concerned, that their union rights are being lost.
I'm not as concerned about whether or not that's one of the major purposes of this program.
I'm asking the officials of the program to explain that and to explain why they have not done the kind of things that are normally done when the union is representing workers who are threatened with changes. Why haven't they consulted with the unions?
Madam Chair, we are all very well aware of the union's concerns. We've received constant information from them. I would simply ask him to clarify the 144 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 record, whether Councilman Cohen was actually making a statement that the Administration was trying to float $295 million in bonds simply to consolidate three housing agencies.
I'm concerned about whether that is a major purpose of the --
But I want you to clarify the record, whether that's what you were saying or not.
You have not been appointed to censor of what people say.
-- period, loudly with 145 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 an exclamation point --
Could you have Councilman Cohen clarify for the record whether he was directly suggesting that the Administration was floating $295 million in bonds simply to consolidate three housing agencies, whether he was doing that or whether he wasn't doing that.
Yeah, I think Councilman Goode is able to form his own conclusion as far as the public and the unions and everybody else is concerned.
No, I would not say that. I am very serious, very, very serious about actions of an administration that seeks to crush 146 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 unions or eliminate them.
And I'm very concerned that part of this program is aimed at eliminating union representation.
But the overall purpose of the program is to eliminate blight.
Please ask your own questions to yourself. I'm not interested in answering that question.
I was asking the Chair to have this clarified -- (Unintelligible; parties talking over each other.)
Since we have the Chief of Staff Joyce Wilkerson and Pat Smith here --
I want to note that Miss Wilkerson did not in any way refer to union representation or consultations with the union in her answer.
I was simply asking the Chair to clarify the record. 147 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036
No, we're going to go on and we're going to get answers to a lot of questions despite Councilman Goode's efforts to apparently prevent the answers to questions.
Let the Chair state that what I heard -- and certainly Miss Wilkerson can repeat and Miss Smith can respond. I believe Miss Wilkerson just stated for the record that no jobs would be lost in the transition. Some may be changed, but none will be lost. Is that correct, miss Wilkerson?
But she did not state that there would be any consultation with the union, any discussions, any conferences, any effort to protect the rights of the present procedures that exist, and that's what I'm concerned about.
I commit that the Administration will work with the union, solicit advice on both the model and in the details of the 148 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 program as we move forward with the planning on a housing reorganization. The Administration put forward a proposed reorganization plan. We are vetting it with a number of different stakeholders, soliciting reaction to it. That process has not come to an end yet and look forward to, you know, having more conversations with Mr. Brown and both the represented and non-represented people within the housing organizations.
Well, Mr. Brown, as I understood it, expressed concern that NTI officials arrived at conclusions before discussing things with the union. He was seeking to find a way to have some union input at a time when the Administration was considering what it was going to be doing, rather than waiting until the Administration had finally reached a decision, when it's too late to have an impact.
I don't think it is too late to have an impact. We have had conversations, continue to have conversations. People are coming forward, saying, Well, have you concerned this? You know, if you were to get rid of that function, 149 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 how did you propose having it accomplished? And we are revisiting issues in the proposal that we made, and the process is not final yet -- the proposal is not yet final late, and it is not too late to --
Have those discussions included formal representation and formal meetings with union representatives?
Again, I didn't hear any reference -- I heard that you're talking to people, but the question is, if there is a union that legally represents workers in a bargaining unit, they have rights under a contract to be consulted whenever there is a program being considered, that they have some kind of impact on the working conditions. And that's the reason why every union everywhere insists on wanting to be involved in the process rather than wait until (inaudible) makes its ultimate decision.
We understand that there are 150 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 contractual obligations, and that was one of the reasons why -- that we said, when we met with representatives of 1971 in December, that a number of legal and labor-legal questions that were being raised, why we said that it would be important, 'cause I'm not a labor specialist or practice as a labor lawyer, why it would be important for the attorneys to talk with respect to those specific things that impact on contractual and collective- bargaining obligations.
But there have been I don't know how many meetings but, you know, we commit to working actively with the union leadership on this. I've known Mr. Brown for a number of years, and I do believe that that he is very committed to delivering quality housing and blight-elimination services to the people of Philadelphia, and I think that with that in mind, we will be able to come up with a proposed reorganization of the housing agencies that serve the City's interests but also protect, you know, the interests of employees, the workers of Philadelphia.
I'm just trying to get 151 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 to a very simple answer. If the union makes the request for meetings with the officials of NTI -- and I assume that means Pat Smith and it may mean you also, Joyce -- to discuss the proposals for changes and to have an opportunity to explain their point of view and the protections they feel are necessary, will such meetings be promptly arranged and will they have a chance to discuss it?
I commit to, you know, to participating and listening to and understand the process leading to -- listening to and understanding the issues being raised by Mr. Brown.
That's what is said. Of course, when we've had two meetings with City officials on this, the first meeting, whenever we were asking for information, they said, Well, it's really too early, nothing is finalized, we don't know what's going to happen. And then I tried meeting since then because after that first meeting, I think, in early July, we started reading newspaper reports that a 152 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 housing reorganization was signed off on. And we wanted to have input before any of that happened. I tried -- we did contact them to get another meeting, and we were told, Well, we don't feel it's needed or we're ready to meet again. I did not -- and even though we kept trying to meet until the day before December 10th or 11th, the day before the last City Council public hearing, did I get an urgent call saying, Oh, can we meet with you? Okay? And when we did meet with them, which was the day after we testified, on December 13th, I think it was, or December 12th, they showed us a PowerPoint presentation. When we tried raising labor issues, as was said, they referred our attorney to the City attorney. Well, we don't need to have the attorneys just talk about some basic issues, number one. Number two, previously when we tried to talk about housing and programmatic issues, they wouldn't deal with us because it was programmatic and we're union and they don't have to deal with us on that. So the issue is, as I pointed out in my 153 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 testimony, if they don't want to talk to us about labor issues, if they don't want to talk to us bout programmatic issues, what do they want to talk to us about? That's number one. (Applause.)
Number two, you can say, Joyce, that nobody's going to be laid off, but if you're going to eliminate 117 jobs at PHDC, is everybody going to retire at once?
Is everybody going to resign at once? They have to be laid off in order to go somewhere else. The Redevelopment Authority is in a totally different ballgame 'cause it's a State-established agency and it even has a different pension. Is everybody going to retire when they get the notice that there's no more funding? No, they're going to be laid off. You can call it "contribution," you can call it "migration," I don't care what you call it. It's layoff. We've been there before, we've done that. (Applause.)
I think it's important 154 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 that I clarify what I intended. What was indicated in my last testimony was that there would be positions for employees within local government. It may not be the same organization that they're with currently, but they will not be out on the street. That is the Administration's commitment. All of the steps involved in migrating from one organization to another, you know, and whether or not that technically constitutes being laid off for one and employed, you know, I don't know the labor answer to that, but we are committed that these individuals will have jobs within government if they're interested. And we also, as I've indicated, committed to renewing our effort to work with Mr. Brown to solicit his input on both the model that was proposed by the Administration, and to the extent collective bargaining is involved, to bargain in good faith on the issues where that's required.
All right. Well, let the Chair request that the Chair be informed of these meetings that are set up, and also that we be informed about the specific job situation, 155 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 employment situation with the membership, so that we may keep the rest of Council involved, and that may help -- Councilman Cohen and other, that may help to keep this matter clarified. So we'll ask -- and Councilman Cohen, I ask you to listen to this so that you'll understand. We're going to ask that the Chair be involved in notification of the meetings and also be informed about the job situation with regard to specific individuals and who leaves where and where they go.
And I'd just like to respectfully suggest to the Chair that we ought to be informed of the process that's being made between the two parties, and that either of the two parties can at any time come to the Council for whatever assistance we might be able to render to have this transformation, to whatever extent it takes place or remains the same, move as smoothly as possible. We don't need a labor problem in addition to the normal problem that come with the development of a new program.
All right, thank 156 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 you very much. Are there any other questions? (No further questions.)
The next witness is Nancy Salandra, Liberty Resources; and Omjasissa Kentu, Grassroots Political Network. Following them will be Philadelphia Interfaith Action so that you can folks can get ready. (Witnesses come forward.)
Thank you for your patience and we ask that you identify yourself for the record and begin your testimony.
My name is Nancy Salandra, and I'm speaking today on behalf of Liberty Resources for Eric Von Schmetterling (ph), who couldn't make it. I am an activist who's the chairperson of the Board of Directors of Liberty Resources, Incorporation, which is a Philadelphia center for 157 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 independent living for any person with a disability. We are a consumer-controlled, cross-disability, nonprofit organization that provides critical services to people with disabilities, services like advocacy, peer counseling, attendant services, and helping people get out of institutions. The need for affordable accessible, integrated housing is the number-one need for our people today. OHCD in its Consolidated Plan Year 27 identified 65,300 persons with disabilities who need housing in Philadelphia. It is this need and the lack of the currently available housing resources that Liberty Resources became and remains a core member of the Philadelphia Affordable Housing Coalition. The Coalition's goal is to increase available housing resources and options for families and individuals receiving $18,000 a year or less. People with disabilities fall far below that, as 80 percent of us are unemployed, and those on SSI average about $6,000 a year. This new bill inspired by NTI can be called a good start in some respects; however, it 158 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 lacks critical components that would make it a truly responsive and critical necessity. Any manifestation of NTI must continue the concept of the three A's, and these are: Affordability, access, and accountability. To say that they are included in the bill must incorporate the following items: Accountability. , NTI's $250 million price tag. A review committee answering to the City's Councilmembers and with direct input by residents of the various neighborhoods impacted by NTI must provide oversight review of the NTI element. A hired consultant or two does not reflect the scope of the required (indiscernible). Access. All designers, builders, and providers of housing developed under NTI must adhere to all access laws -- specifically 504 of the National Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Fair Housing Act of 1988, and the ADA where applicable. There can be no exceptions or waivers on this. Also, the new visibility ordinance, Bill 25 010742, introduced by Councilwoman Blackwell on 159 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 December 20th, should be endorsed and passed into City law. Moreover, the City's Adaptive Modification Program must be increased to $8 million from its current $2 million. This is simply not enough to cover the need for this program. Affordability. , receiving people who make $18,000 or less must be able to live decently in these units. Relocation policy. As responsible Philadelphians, we need to develop specific questions and guidelines about relocation. As current housing is demolished in the various neighborhoods, where will the people go? Will they have access to affordable, accessible, and decent housing with similar tax levels as opposed to raised taxes in NTI-targeted neighborhoods? Will people have choices available to them as to where they can live? Will they be able to return to their old neighborhoods? We simply cannot allow residents of NTI-demolished housing to join the thousands 160 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 already struggling to survive our City streets. City streets or some institutional-like nursing homes are not homes. Such is the precedent Philadelphia can never afford to allow to happen. As City Councilmembers deliberate this bill and any other or even NTI itself, you must remember the public mandate: You are public servants in service to all residents of this city. In this desire to better our city, a noble effort, you must not forget the so-called little people -- the poor, the disabled, the elderly; in fact, all of the disfranchised people. Because we vote too, we are a necessary part of our society.
As such, we are entitled to share in the rewards of any grand plan like NTI or any other. Thanks for the opportunity for Liberty Resources and myself to express. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions? (No questions.)
Thank you. Mr. Kentu, please identify yourself for 161 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 the record.
Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. My name is Omjasissa Kentu, Chairman of the Grassroots Political Network, social-change organization, 17-member civic, community-based organizations. I would like to take this opportunity to thank City Council for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. Being a lifetime resident of Philadelphia, residing in the section of this city known as North Philadelphia, the Grassroots Political Network states our support for this initiative put forth by Councilwoman Jane Blackwell. The revitalization of this city must now be directed to neighborhoods. From City Administration to City Administration, the focus in the past have been on revitalizing Center City, while at the same time surrounding neighborhoods continue to decay and residents took flight from this city. With that, a loss of population, which led to a loss of federal resources and political representation due to the 2000 census. Also with 162 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 that, a loss of needed City tax revenue. For over 33 years as a social activist in this city and a resident of North Philadelphia, ambitious plans and promises have eluded my community, starting with: The May 7, 1969 Charette Homes Neighborhood Strategic Plan between the City of Philadelphia, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Temple University, and the community; The 1966-1969 anti-poverty programs that infused the City with billions of dollars, where housing and development was targeted to be done, and it wasn't; The Model Cities Program under the leadership of the late Goldie Watson; The 1980s, the Uptown Revitalization Plan, led by the late John Bowser (ph), quote/unquote, the new tech; Under the Mayor Green administration, housing dollars being redirected from North, South, and West Philadelphia to build the commuter tunnel; Galaxy I and II under the Rizzo administration; The Philadelphia Plan under the Mayor W. 163 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 Wilson Goode administration; I watched former Mayor Ed Rendell become Houdini, the magician, when he committed $5 million during the community/Temple conflict regarding the building of the Apollo, now the Liacouras Center. Now you see the money, now you don't, and not one house has been built. (Applause.)
The many promises made by Willard Rouse, who came into North Philadelphia and offered to the community a very bright vision of how North Philadelphia can be, but nothing of any great magnitude was done; Promises made by former Mayor Rendell regarding the Avenue of the Arts, and we watched south of Market Street develop while north of Market Street still looks much the same; And let's not talk about the Philadelphia Empowerment Zone. I have for over 33 years participated and advocated for serious changes in North Philadelphia, but much of the blight that plagues this city that will be spoken about today is in North Central Philadelphia and other communities 164 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 throughout Philadelphia. We, the community and residents of Philadelphia, need this Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. In the current commissioner report of 1965 commissioned by then Lyndon Baines Johnson after the cities of America went up in flames in the section on housing, it states, "You cannot do urban housing with a Band-Aid concept. You cannot stop a gunshot wound with a Band-Aid." And Philadelphia, as it relates to housing, we are bleeding desperately. So we, the community of residents of Philadelphia, need this neighborhood transformation program. The City of Philadelphia needs this initiative or the flight of residents will continue, along with tax revenues. But we must reinvest in the communities in an equitable way. Just building low-income housing alone isn't the answer. Just this approach will generate a return in population, but will the economic character of the community change? We at the Grassroots Political Network says no. 24 There have to be an infusion of working people, professional people, and business 165 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 coexisting to truly make a neighborhood have the balance of character communities demand today. Anything less will fail. We, the Grassroots Political Network, ask that Council approve this bill, and together, we can restore these communities. If not, not only will we not save communities and neighborhoods, we will not save this city. As more and more people take flight, with them tax revenues, so goes the City. I would like to thank this Council for allowing us to testify today.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Seeing none, our next witnesses will be Reverend Newkirk and Reverend Miller. (Applause.)
Thank you. 166 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 (Witnesses come forward.)
My name is Reverend Kermit Newkirk, and I'm a leader in Philadelphia Interfaith Action.
Reverend Mary Laney, leader in Philadelphia Interfaith Action.
On behalf of the Philadelphia Interfaith Action and its 30 member congregations and organizations throughout Philadelphia, first of all, I want to thank you, the members of City Council, and all who are gathered here in terms of congratulations. By supporting the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, Bill No. 020036, you are leading our city into an historic time of rebuilding. The successful implementation of NTI means that we will rebuild Philadelphia on a critical-mass scale. We will create large buildable sites, attract new builders and 167 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 developers for a wide range of residential and commercial developments; in short, we will recreate our city and stop the exodus of people out of our neighborhoods. Our success in Philadelphia will redefine our city and how we will rebuild our cities in America. This is a defining moment not just for Philadelphia, but for all of the older shrinking cities like Baltimore, like Washington, like Trenton, and other cities across the northwest and northeast corridor. Already PIA's sister organizations and their industrial-area foundations have met with Governor Glendening of Maryland, a leading proponent of smart growth, to lay out Philadelphia's strategy to reinvest in rebuilding the blighted urban areas, the most obvious solution to suburban sprawl. Fifty years from now, the citizens and leaders of the future will look back and recognize that this City Council, Mayor Street, PIA, the Reinvestment Fund, and others had the guts and the vision to change history, to chart a new course for our nation and our inner cities. 168 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 Twenty-five hundred years ago, the people of Jerusalem wept for their city just as we in Philadelphia have wept for Philadelphia. Today, we are reliving this ancient story. Nehemiah did not sit still in the face of devastation, and we are not sitting still in the face of devastation in Philadelphia. And as the book of Nehemiah says, we have rebuilt the walls and all the walls are joined together, for the people had a mind to work. With this new bill coming forth, the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, we now have a mind in Philadelphia to rebuild the walls of our city, and we congratulate this Council for taking the initiative to move the City of Philadelphia forward.
James Shrode, Ruth Birchett, and Floyd Alston. (Witnesses come forward.) 169 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. My name is Jimmy Shrode, and I am President of Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania, Incorporated, which is a grassroots advocacy group by and for people with disabilities. Disabled in Action was created 28 years ago to address the issues facing people with disabilities --
Excuse me. The noise level is much too high; it's very difficult to hear the witness. Thank you. I'm sorry to have interrupted you.
Thank you. Disabled in Action was created 28 years ago to address the issues facing people with disabilities in education, employment access, attendant services, health care, and more importantly, housing. There is a dire housing crises in the City of Philadelphia for people with disabilities. Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania is 170 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 proud to be a member of the Philadelphia Affordable Housing Coalition. The Philadelphia Affordable Housing Coalition is a group of organizations that is dedicated to obtaining affordable, accessible housing for Philadelphians who earn $18,000 or less a year. The need for affordable and accessible housing is very great in the City of Philadelphia. Therefore, we feel that 3500 units slated for development under NTI should be accessible and affordable for this population. Disabled in Action applauds City Council for their work on Bill 010694, especially in calling for oversight and accountability in the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. This is a very important component of any venture and cannot be discarded for the sake of convenience. Ultimately, the taxpayers will foot the bill for NTI, and we should know what we are paying for. In reading current bill, 020036, I am concerned that there is no mention of accountability, and even more important, no mention of housing that is affordable or accessible. This is Disabled in Action's biggest concern. 4, entitled "Summary of Estimated Housing Needs," the number of people with disabilities in needs of housing is 65,300. This is 30 times more than people with AIDS, times more than the frail elderly, and 10 9 times more than people with mental health and 10 mental retardation. Again, 65,300 need affordable, accessible housing in the City of Philadelphia. In order for Bill 020036 to meet the needs of our constituency, it must do the following: Produce accessible, affordable housing for people with disabilities. Many disabled Philadelphians are living in inaccessible apartments that they cannot afford. Disabled people are paying anywhere from 80 to 120 percent of their incomes on rent for inaccessible apartments. Most of these apartments are managed by slumlords and are in deplorable condition. People with disabilities are 80 percent or more below the median area income. Additionally, there is an 85 percent unemployment rate for people with disabilities due to lack of education, lack of 172 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 skills, and discrimination in the form of physical and attitudinal barriers in the workplace. In order to find an accessible and affordable apartment, it takes an average of three to five years or more to locate one. Many families have been torn apart because they cannot find a place to live with a disabled family member. Many people with disabilities end up in nursing homes because there is nowhere else to go. Housing choices for people with disabilities are not integrated. Housing for people with disabilities has to be integrated. Currently, housing that has been built for people with disabilities have been in congregant that are disability-specific. These so-called apartments are institutions. It is no accident that many of them are owned by nursing homes and other service-providers. " We want to live in homes in communities that are integrated with non-disabled people of all ages around us. There must be a clear and careful relocation program. When homes are slated to be 173 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 demolished, you will be surprised to find people disabled people living there, since, as I have stated earlier, that finding affordable and accessible units will be extremely difficult and can take up to five years, what does the City have planned? How will people with disabilities be moved? To where? Who will pay the moving costs? I have helped some people with disabilities get Section 8 vouchers, and I can tell you that finding a place to live in the City of Philadelphia is a nightmare.
Finding an apartment that takes Section 8 and that is accessible is like searching for the Holy Grail. Will City Council and the Mayor throw people with disabilities out into the streets without a plan of relocation for the sake of political expediency? All new construction should be built incorporating visitability. By "visitable," we mean a home with a zero-step entrance and a 36-wide doorway, a path of travel that is 36 inches wide, and an accessible powder room that a person in a wheelchair can use and be able to close the door behind them. This allows people with disabilities 174 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 to visit people in the neighborhood, allows the elderly to age in place so that they are able to keep their homes. There is a Website that describes visitability clearer and it also gives you more information, and I've included that in my testimony. We also want to see that the City of Philadelphia live up to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The City has been lax in the enforcement of Section 504 in new housing construction. The Philadelphia Housing Authority has been found liable in court for failing to build 5 percent of its scattered-site units accessible. Happily, we have settled that lawsuit with PHA and are looking forward to the 248 accessible units they will be building. To make sure that this does not happen again, we need NTI to have a statement saying that it will live up to Section 504 and so must any recipients of housing dollars. The City must be prepared to take actions to punish those who neglect this. The access modification program that's 175 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 administered by OHCD needs to be increased to $8 million. Currently, there are large waiting lists where people have to wait up to five years just to get a modification on their homes so that they can live in it. This program is the only stopgap for many people who are facing or losing their homes and apartments due to them not being accessible. There needs to be coordination with the Emergency Home Repair Program, a program under the Redevelopment Authority. Many applicants have gone through the waiting list only to find that they have a code violation that prevents all of the work from being done. Finally, accountability and oversight. " We would like the communities being affected to be involved in the process in the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. There should be public hearings that allow citizens, not special interests and developers, to voice their concerns. Most important of all, there should be an oversight of how the money is spent and to 176 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 ensure that it is being spent responsively and responsibly. Thank you very much.
Councilman Cohen, your light is on. Did you want to be recognized?
I would like to hear what the NTI officials say on this. I think this is another issue that has to be dealt with promptly before the NTI program gets too far underway. Have there been meetings with the NTI officials?
I did have one meeting with representatives from the Affordable Housing Coalition. It was probably in the fall of the year. A number of the issues which have been discussed by members of that group, we've talked about. We stressed that one of the things that 177 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 still is applicable to how we spend bond proceeds are the existing federal requirements around relocation and the benefits that you're entitled to under that -- that's the federal relocation laws. There's also the requirements around, you know, accessibility in Section 04. All of that is still applicable to redevelopment or new construction activities that would be undertaken with bond proceeds. So we are committed to that. We've also stressed that, you know, affordability is a commitment, but we also recognize and heard people say that what also is critical is keeping people in their homes so that they don't lose their homes. And we know that many of our Basic System Repair Programs and a number of the programs that particularly elderly households tap into are, you know, over-subscribed, and that's why there's a heavy emphasis on the preservation component of NTI.
Well, my specific question would be, how many units of housing has the City agreed to provide for disabled under the NTI program?
I generally -- we have 178 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 projected over the course of five years that NTI will facilitate somewhere in the area of 16,000 units. Not all of that are new-construction units. I mean some -- we're including in that, for example, what we call "preservation investments," where we're making available grants to homeowners to improve their homes under some of our existing programs or new programs. So all of it's not new construction. Historically, I believe -- I can get back to you. I know there's usually a percentage set aside on accessibility on any RFP that the City puts out under block grants, and I just don't know what that percentage is, but I can find that out.
It seems to me we have an urgent problem here that ought to be dealt with very specifically and as soon as possible, with the full-time involvement of the disabled community to make sure that their needs are being met.
You know, I think together with the senior citizens you talked about, they represent two elements of the community that this program ought to emphasize. 179 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036
Well, what do we do about bringing them closer together to you and having mutual discussions from which something can evolve?
I'm happy to have further discussions with representatives from the Office of Housing and Community Development, since historically that pool of money has been the dollars that have been used to build affordable units for very low-and low-income persons as well as representatives from the Office of Adult Services (OAS), so we will be happy to meet with members of the Affordable Housing Coalition around that.
With your permission, please, I would like to respond that when I read this bill, there was no mention of affordable or accessible housing, there was no mention of how a relocation plan is going to be put into place, especially for people with disabilities. I think just handing somebody a Section 8 and expecting them to somehow 180 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 magically find someplace that they can live is irresponsible and short-sighted. I would also like to say that while OHCD may have developed housing for people with disabilities that was labeled "affordable," a lot of these units were tax-credit units and were aimed at people who live about 30 percent below median income, which far exceeds the average person with a disability to afford something. The average person on disability receives about $6,000 a year, and a lot of what HUD calls "affordable housing" is not affordable for our people.
The issues that you're raising are very complex and difficult issues. You are correct that the tax-credit units are able to charge rents at 50 percent or 60 percent of median. The problem is, the only way we're going to solve the problem that you're saying is the provision of rent subsidies to these individuals. You cannot operate an apartment complex in this city for less than 350 to $400 a month, so you 181 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 have to have rents at least at that level just to break, and in many cases, you need even a little bit more than that. So if the individuals who are seeking these units can only afford 100 or $150 a month, the only solution is rent subsidies. So you have to combine both the rent subsidies with the units to make what you're talking about work.
Councilman, we require every project to meet the 504 guidelines. I note the gentleman spoke about PHA, and that's a separate issue that they've dealt with and effectively have PHA developing those units. But all of the units that have been developed with CDBG or home financing require a set-aside of units that are fully accessible. In all of the elderly projects that we fund, we require accessible units at the 504 level, but we also require every other unit in the building to be an adaptable unit, meaning it can be easily converted to a fully accessible unit. And that's been the City's policy for the last five 182 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 years.
Well, it sounds like a very good answer, except I don't know how to apply it to -- what did it provide for disabled housing?
Well, it didn't provide nothing, but we could give you the number of units. I mean, when you raise the need of 63,500, that's a very difficult one. You know, there's no one in here who's going to be able to develop that many units to satisfy that particular demand.
But we will give you the numbers. We have enforced 504 on the CDBG and home side of the equation and, again, we've extended it when it comes to the production of affordable elderly units, to require all of the units be adaptable; meaning they have the wide doors, the wheelchair turnaround capacity, and just minor changes that it can fully convert it to a fully accessible unit. 183 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036
Well, couldn't we make this final suggestion that there be set up a regular means of communication between the disabled organizations and their representatives and your office, the Redevelopment Authority, or NTI so we can begin to count numerically how many additional apartments are there really available, not only technically so, but really available for the disabled?
We've gone through a big battle over the last year or so with the neighborhood transformation program, and I think all of us now want to see real progress in it, we want to get things started, and we want to see that those that need the housing most get it first, and we want to work fully in every aspect of the transformation program. So we're hoping that you begin to deal -- that you understand that certain parts of population have needs which are -- maybe at the priority level ought to be dealt with first, or at least assurances ought to given that they're included in the program, and that's what I'm urging 184 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 you do. And, again, I'm urging, Madam President, when the last chairperson was in your seat while you were otherwise occupied, an arrangement was made to let the President of the Council know what's going on. And we would urge that regular reports go by both groups to the President of City Council with respect to the meetings and the results. Would that be agreeable?
Yes. And as you know, in both the bill and in the framework, we talk about the submission of quarterly reports on the production activity funded through NTI bonds.
I don't mean quarterly reports. I guess maybe we're not talking the same language. I mean specific reports on this particular issue to indicate that it's an issue of special concern to the NTI people.
We will include in our reports to Council and to the public that information. 185 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 Specific to that.
Well, I don't know whether that would be satisfactory, but at least let's get it on the road.
We have always been open for dialogue, and we remain open to dialogue.
Well, would you begin to initiate it by requesting the dialogue?
Miss Birchett, please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Ruth Birchett. I'm pleased about this opportunity to testify here and I thank my Councilman, the Honorable Darrell Clarke, for the notification of this hearing. 186 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 I want to commend Council and our mayor on continuing to work toward bringing this important bill forward to reality. Our neighborhoods -- and we represent an area of North Philadelphia -- is extremely deteriorated, and we're in desperate need for support with regard to restoration of housing, also the prevention of the continued deterioration of our community. We also are in need desperately support to strengthen and restore our social structure to a way that it would be more desirable and that our quality of living can be as other Philadelphians have it. With regard to this particular bill, I would like to express particular concern and interest, rather, for the Appendix 1, which makes reference to the urban redevelopment condemnation by RDA, and it speaks about the Redevelopment Authority's ability to request that the City Planning Commission certify areas as blighted. What I would like to state to you in reference to that is that while I understand that might be a process that's needed to enable things to happen with regard to the revitalization, I 187 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 would like to have you know that there is particular concern that such -- how you achieve the designation. What I mean is that too often in the past, it has been a regular practice that the City Planning Commission has not sought the input of the very people who are affected by the decisions that they recommend. And therefore, I'm very, very concerned that disadvantaged people in historically disfranchised neighborhoods will once again, under the hopes of a better day for the neighborhood, may end up being played even further out of position than we are today. And so I caution you and also ask, what kind of process will be underway that ensures that the City Planning Commission does acquire legitimate input from people who reside in the neighborhoods where they are making decisions and plans for and recommendations for, in particular, families that are long-term residents of this community, families that may be third, fourth, fifth generation in these communities, who are vested, well vested by the presence of their continued residence here in these communities. Essentially, all I'm saying is that we do 188 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 not want people planning so far above our heads that we don't -- that our interests really aren't being served. These departments exist to protect us and to serve us and, we fully expect to have that happen. Consistent with that too, I understand from my Councilman, that in the area of housing preservation activities, that there will be funds to expand the existing programs that are identified in this area. This is extremely critical. I am very pleased to hear Pat Smith acknowledge that the existing programs are overloaded, over-inquired into. It's true, it's true. You have -- you are hard-pressed to try to get the kinds of resources that you need to repair your home, particularly given that many of these neighborhoods where people are seeking to access a home repair program or whatever are people who are low- to no-income as well. And so this initiative really has to have and has to take into account to avoid wholesale displacement of people who virtually have few other options in terms of where to go. It really has to take into account what kinds of programs you will 189 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 offer to help people stay where they are, but also to strengthen where they live as well. It is wonderful that new housing is finally coming to our community, but it is a stark contrast between the condition of the old homes that are there and the people's individual financial ability to keep pace with the improvements and the new housing that is there.
We are not just concerned about people who will become our future neighbors; we are incredibly concerned about the people who are our existing neighbors. And as new days are on the horizon for our community, we want to enjoy them too. Now that better days are coming, we don't want to be displaced in our communities. , in our communities, that these people's contribution to the stability that exists -- in many terms the only stability that exists -- within these neighborhoods not be disrespected. And so I would like to see and would truly like to see and hear what are the specific ways in 190 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 which this Council and through this bill and the NTI initiative will elicit the input from individual citizens -- and be they block organizations or whatever -- regarding the planning for our areas.
Miss Smith, would you approach the witness table and answer the question, please. (Miss Smith returns to the witness table.)
With me is Maxine Griffith, Secretary of Strategic Planning, also Executive Director of the City Planning Commission. Maxine will talk a little bit about the planning strategy.
The concerns that the speaker addressed are concerned that we have heard before and we understand them. I would refer you to my earlier written testimony, where we have included as part of the NTI planning process a community hearing and review. Every plan that's promulgated out of NTI will be presented at the community level in a venue chosen jointly by the Councilperson and the Administration. The plans will be presented and we 191 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 will provide an opportunity for public testimony and to record that testimony. Plus I would mention that of the 40 -- I think we're up to 40 plans that we have presently reviewed, not developed but reviewed. All of these plans are plans that have been generated by community-based organizations, either community development organizations, block organizations, or other community-based entities. Many of them have been developed in concert with Councilmembers. So we are very cognizant of the need to work very closely with community members and not to promulgate plans without their input. As a matter of fact, one of the questions that's been often asked is, where is the plan? And in part, our answer is, although there is a planning process in place, we would not even think about generating a plan without community involvement and, of course, we really can't do that until this legislative process has been completed.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you both for coming in to testify. We appreciate it. 192 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 Our next witnesses are...
Sharmain Matlock-Turner, Tully Speaker, and Galon Tyler. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yes. My name is Tully Speaker, and I'm here on behalf of the Logan Square Neighborhood Association, and I bring you greetings Council President Verna and other members of City Council from the Logan Square Neighborhood Association and admire the tangle of work you have here. It is clear that this legislation's a work in progress and that there is a lot of work that needs to be done with it. I'm impressed with the variety of requests. I'm here to speak in favor of the broad concept of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, even though the Logan Square neighborhood is already a quite vital and vibrant and economically viable area. This is the area from Broad Street to the Schuylkill River, north of 193 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 Market Street, up to Callowhill. It is largely residential. There are a large number of large corporations, many small businesses in this area. The area has been developed over the last 30 to 40 years by individual initiative, single properties at a time -- in some instances two or three properties by a commercial developer, but always, almost entirely, by individual initiatives. I come to speak now with regard to a specific transformation which we would like to see; that's the transformation of one block, the between 22nd and 23rd Streets between Arch and Walden Streets. This block is occupied by an open-air parking lot which works -- it isn't beautiful, but it works, and also shared -- that block is also shared by an eight-story cast-concrete industrial building. This is best known perhaps as "the old Daily News building." This building is in a state of serious disrepair. There are many broken windows, and glass falls from those windows when the wind blows. There is falling concrete, pieces the size of man's fist, the size of a person's head, pieces the size of cinder blocks. They fall from heights of six to 194 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 eight stories, and they represent a danger, a safety hazard to both pedestrians and vehicles. We would like to see some correction of that as a part of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. There is also -- and again, we're interested in the Transformation Initiative. There is also a very severe loss of tax revenue because the owner of that property has not paid taxes for as long as we've been able to rifle back through the tax records, and has not made mortgage payments to the City, which is the mortgage holder. We think the City is frankly being gypped. We think that the City ought to get its taxes. We pay our taxes, and the City ought to get its mortgage payments. I would like to find a way in which I could avoid mortgage payments for upwards of eight years and not have anybody complain. We would like to see if situation reversed as part of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative because that would allow this, our neighborhood, to undertake the transformation of that building, that property by individual investors. We're not asking for a lot of money, 195 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 but we're asking for the resolution of a problem site. We certainly are happy to be available to help shape this bill, if you want our input. I thank you for your attention and I'm happy to answer any questions if you have some.
Thank you very much. We appreciate you coming in to testify. Are there any questions of this witness? (No response.)
Sharmain, please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you very much. Sharmain Matlock-Turner, President and Executive Director of the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition and I'm here today to testify on behalf of supporting NTI legislation before you. I also want to thank you for the opportunity. I was here during the last hearings to testify on behalf of my community association, 196 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 the Ogontz Avenue Revitalization Corporation, and I had an opportunity to leave my testimony with you about one of the programs that we think is going to be very interesting as a part of NTI. I want to thank the rest of the members of Council for giving me an opportunity to testify today. Also here with me is James Connor, Vice President of Community Development at Beneficial Saving Bank. Jim and his bank are partners with GPUAC in many ways, including through a GPUAC committee which Jim is an active member, our Community and Economic Development Committee. For the past 33 years, GPUAC has been working in Philadelphia to fulfill its mission of bringing together business and community leaders to solve urban problems. GPUAC's programs provide a wide range of services, from community development, workforce development, health, neighborhood and community services, and education. We are here today to talk about NTI and work we can do together in the area of community economic and business development. I hope to impress upon you the tremendous impact that we can make if City Council will support us in our efforts 197 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 to work with the City towards seeing that NTI is a successful program. Each of these issues fits within in Mayor Street's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative and in particular within the neighborhood preservation activities. Jim Connor, whose bank will celebrate 150 years of service to the Philadelphia community next year, will speak at the end of my comments about a part of the initiative with the Reinvestment Fund, the Community Legal Services. And housing counseling agencies. GPUAC's Economic Development Projects Unit will also be working with the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative to make sure that there are opportunities for minorities and women as a part of the Mayor's initiative. I also want to talk a little bit more about the Community and Economic Development Committee, which I'll called "CED" for short while we come here to talk to you today. We want to make sure that as a part of your deliberations that the issues of predatory lending, financial literacy, and home-improvement lending are a key part of neighborhood preservation. Our CED Committee is 198 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 comprised of banks and other area corporations, CDCs which Rick Sauer co-chairs, and other community organizations, community development intermediaries, and local government officials. Led by the banks and CDCs, the committee members have recently charged themselves and GPUAC with bringing all necessary parties together to address these three critical issues. I know that everyone in this room 11 understands the devastation caused by predatory lending. It wipes out years of hard work by elderly homeowners, undermines stable neighborhoods, and hastens the decline of struggling ones. We all know that we need stronger protections to prevent fraud again City homeowners, but we also need bail-out funds to help victims of predatory lending, and we need to get better information in homeowners' hands and to offer them better alternative loan products so that they don't become victims in the first place. Our focus on financial literacy stems from the fact that suseptibility to predatory lending does not occur in a vacuum. Too few residents of low-and moderate-income communities understand our 199 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 financial system, too few understand budgeting and debt management, too few are economically empowered.
They go to the check cashers, they go to rent-to-own centers, and they open their doors to predatory lenders, and all of their hard-earned wages too often get sucked out of their pockets and out of the neighborhood. In the future, all Philadelphians will receive a good financial education in our schools, but for now, we hopefully have to play catchup. We need to reach people in classrooms and community centers and churches, on the job, by computer and newspapers that financial literacy cannot be achieved by classroom instruction alone. We also need a marketing and public- relations campaign that hits home. We need to motivate our citizens to learn how to take control of their financial futures. Of course, nothing motivates as well as opportunity. So if you want to stop predatory lending and have better-educated homeowners, we need to develop and market alternative home- improvement loans. The Redevelopment Authority has the Phil Loan Program, and every bank has at least 200 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 one home-improvement loan product. But without casting any blame, it's fair to say that many of these are 20th-century products chasing after a 21st-century problem. The predators capture the market that these loans were missing, and now we need to recapture that market. We need to develop user-friendly, flexible home- improvement loans that are more affordable than predatory loans, and then we need to market them all over the City, especially where people need them the most. We also need to address the improvement part of home improvement. Too many homeowners suffer from shoddy repair work by incompetent or unscrupulous contractors. We need to build work inspections and project oversight into more home- repair loans so that homeowners can assure themselves that they are getting the quality work they expect. Let's remember that many predatory loans are initiated by home-improvement companies. Predatory lending, financial literacy, home-improvement lending. These are three big neighborhood-preservation issues that require significant resources, including public funds, but 201 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 unlike demolition or some of the other parts of NTI, they do not depend on City government alone. Groups like ACORN and the Housing Counseling Association have begun to take back many neighborhoods from predatory lenders. GPUAC is developing innovative approaches to financial literacy. The Ogontz Avenue Revitalization Corporation enlists, among others, have developed neighborhood-based home-improvement loan programs that include contractor quality controls and that are helping to stabilize neighborhoods. All of these groups are working closely with banks and other lenders, and they are securing commitments from financial institutions to increase their lending and marketing efforts. With these grassroots initiatives sprouting up all over the City, there have been two missing elements that have prevented large-scale impact: The first missing element has been the coordination of these efforts. Groups have sometimes been working in isolation, sometimes at cross periods. And often, we have failed to leverage each other's strengths. GPUAC's Community Economic Development Committee has resolved that it 202 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 will be a part of changing that and has agreed that it will assist in a coordinating role. We want to work with all of those involved: ACORN housing agencies, CDCs, and of course banks, City Council and the Mayor to develop bigger and better initiatives to address predatory lending financial literacy, and home-improvement needs. The second missing element has been a commitment from City government that will devote the necessary funds to allow grassroots initiatives to succeed. The Office of Housing and Community Development has been supportive, and it can within its budget constraints move forward.
We are hopeful that through NTI, City government will invest significant public dollars towards these efforts. The inclusion of neighborhood preservation within NTI offers a renewed commitment by the City to invest its money in fighting predatory funding and expanding home ownership education and financial literacy and opportunities for homeowners to maintain their homes. Each of these activities will help homeowners have a safe and decent home and will help preserve neighborhoods. 203 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 In closing, I would like to remind us that the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative is not just a six-year plan for spending public dollars; the ultimate success of NTI will depend on our actions today, next year, and ten years from now. It will require an ongoing commitment by all levels of government and a long-term partnership between government, our residents, community groups, and the private sector. GPUAC has been building such partnership successfully for the past 33 years. We stand ready to do so again. We invite all members of Council and the City and we to join together to make sure that this initiative is a renewal for our community. Thank you very much. And I'd like Jim Connor just to say a few words about an initiative that has already been started as a pilot program with the Reinvestment Fund and Beneficial Savings Bank.
Thank you. Madam Chairperson, honorable members of Council, good afternoon. I am James Connor and I am with Beneficial Savings Bank. Miss Matlack-Turner has asked me to 204 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 describe a pilot cooperative effort to address the predatory-lending situation in the City. It is a joint effort, including Community Legal Services, Housing Counseling Association, Beneficial Savings Bank, and the Reinvestment Fund. The Reinvestment Fund initiated the program and has asked Beneficial to join them in this pilot program designed to refinance consumers out of high-cost predatory-loan situations. Community Legal Services, the Housing Counseling Association, or with the consumers on the issues necessary to extricate them from their current loan situation [sic]. Beneficial Savings Bank will process a new loan, get to it a closing, and assign it to the Reinvestment Fund, who will be the ultimate investor, with our bank servicing the loan for its duration. Rates, fees, underwriting criteria are essentially determined by the Reinvestment Fund, but they are consistent with the market terms currently available today. It is still a very new initiative; however we think it is a very important one and one that we can use as a model for a larger initiative going forward. 205 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 We are currently working with GPUAC, City Council and the Mayor's Office, as well as other various community leaders that Sharmain has alluded to to develop a program going forward to address this very necessary issue. I thank you for your time, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam President. Do you think a city bank could play a role in helping assist private-banking industries?
I'm thinking there may be certain households that can't meet any kind of banking requirements with respect to the amount of risk involved.
That basically is true, Councilman, and I think it can be documented that there are certain people basically who cannot afford certain loans and basically should not get 206 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 them, and they should go through counseling to determine that and determine what their limits are, as well as part of the financial literacy that was alluded to by Sharmain that they should be education to who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.
Well, all the education in the world will not may not be able to raise their funding (inaudible).
That, unfortunately, is a fact of life; however, those who can, we want to make sure that they know who they can go to and know what their limits are and whether they can afford that.
Are there any 207 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 other questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Thank you. Sir, would you identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yes. My name is Galon Tyler from Kensington Welfare Rights Union. Good morning -- I mean, good evening -- good afternoon.
I've been here since 9, but I'm here to speak on behalf of our director, who's in Washington D.C. on some other matters. My name is Galon Tyler and I'd the lead organizer for the Kensington Welfare Rights Union. And or organization works with, like, hundreds of family every day who comes in that needs problems with, like, food, clothing, and housing problems. You know, if you having problems with utilities and other such and -- but we usually be the last stop when they are unable to obtain any other types of services from the City. We mostly work with people around the housing issue here. Right now we have, like, 208 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 currently two families that are a victim of -- they're fire victims that are currently waiting for some type of transitional housing from the City that we have living in some abandoned housing, waiting for some affordable housing from the City. Also, we have, like, a couple of domestic-violence families that are living in abandoned HUD houses, waiting for some affordable housing from the City. We have, like, a number of other stories that could I talk about all day that are people that are coming into our office that are in desperate need of, like, affordable housing. But my real reason -- what my real fear is that soon, there are going to be, like, new families that are going to be cut off when they reach their five-year time limit with TANF, and this summer, we're assuming that there's going to be tons and tons more people displaced, not being able to afford their housing, and we wonder where in the NTI plan is there a plan for these families that are not going to be able to afford housing. And we know that a great deal of money has been allocated for cleaning up the City of Philadelphia, but what plans has been made for the 209 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 soon-to be-crisis? This is why our organization is set up to protect the needs of the Philadelphia working-poor and would like to see a program and development consultant hired by the City Council to regulate the report -- to regularly report to the City Council and to the community on how the NTI program is going so that it's a problem or something that occurs, we can immediately address them and take some type of action. We think this is extremely important since we have seen firsthand how the City has already struggled to relocate families. By implementing this monitoring process, it might save us from a disaster in the years to come. So thank you for allowing me to speak here today, and also, the Kensington Welfare Rights Union is committed to working with the Philadelphia Affordable Housing Coalition to make sure that families making less than 18,000 a year have an opportunity to be able to live in some type of affordable, accessible housing.
Thank you very much. 210 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 Any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify? Is there anyone else to testify? (No response.)
I believe we're waiting for a couple of members to return to the chambers. Councilman Nutter, did you want to be recognized since we don't have any other witnesses?
No, not really. I did have a couple questions. I wasn't in the first round, and I did have a couple questions on two items that were in the bill, and I just wanted to ask the Administration about it.
Would the 211 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 Administration please come forward. (Miss Wilkerson and Miss Smith return to witness table.)
Thank you. Good afternoon. On of the program framework in the bill -- and I meant to ask this question actually back in December -- there's, I guess, a bullet point or a diamond that talks about repair of streets, driveways, curbs and sidewalks and retaining walls, and provision of utility infrastructure and public facilities. The question was based on many, many conversations we'd over the years; obviously that's something that I'm certainly in support of and looking forward to. My question was, that's the only place either in the program statement, now program framework, or anywhere else that there is any reference to those particular items, and I didn't see it in, I think it's Roman numeral V under "Neighborhood Preservation Activities," which is -- I mean, that sounds like it's kind of a part of it, and so what I didn't understand was just, what was that going to be and how would that work? 212 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036
Yeah. I think what we tried to do in structuring the financing is to preserve maximum flexibility so that, you know, as you go into a neighborhood and begin assessing what it is that's critical to stabilizing that neighborhood, we wouldn't find that, you know, that we don't have a strategy, and I think we meant to include that in the framework and in the bond financing structure, so that, you know, in the event that's an activity that is appropriate to undertake, there would be a vehicle for it. I think that the City's ability to do that is going to be extraordinarily constrained. It's not meant to supplant the City's Capital Program and Budget, but I think there are situations where you go into a neighborhood and, you know, it may be that the most appropriate thing to preserve the investment and the stability of a neighborhood is by addressing some of those issues, and that's why it was put there.
Right. No -- and, again, I'm glad that it was in there; the three of us have had a lot of conversation about that. From a programmatic standpoint, is it 213 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 something that would fit under that general category of "Neighborhood Preservation Activities," Roman numeral V on ?
Yeah. We're convinced that as the ordinance is currently constructed, you know, integrating both the service agreement and the program framework, you know, it will be a activity that is permissible and fundable.
It would also be a part of the development, you know, where you do land assembly for redevelopment activities so -- from a programmatic standpoint.
This list was intended to show the examples of types of things you can finance with tax-exempt financing.
Okay. Is it also possible, though, to use those funds -- I understand the redevelopment concept where you may have full-scale demolition and you're literally 214 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 rebuilding a block. Some of our conversations, though, has been more in the realm of pretty much fully stabilized neighborhoods where there is no 5 demolition activity, and this may be the activity. Are you saying even with the constraints, that you would be able to use these funds to do on a block that has full occupancy but is showing that type of distress or wear and tear, that you would be able to use the funds for that as well?
I think that it would be a permitted activity. You know, I think then there's the whole -- you know, I mean, it would be permitted. I think there's, you know, that you can use the whole budget trying to do that kind of activity.
So I think we have to refine it, but it would be a permitted activity, yes.
Okay. And, Miss Wilkerson, in your initial answer, you did make reference back to -- I think you said, paraphrasing, that you didn't want these plans to supplant or substitute for Capital Budget dollars. 215 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 I think you were not here on Wednesday, but I am sure that you got an update --
Yeah. There was a little bit of discussion with the City Planning Commission Director -- I know she has an additional title -- and a person from the Law Department about that particular issue, and I don't know that we've gotten to a complete resolution of that but, I mean, are you -- I don't want to stretch it any further than you're willing to go but, I mean, are you saying that there are these opportunities with capital dollars, or do you not want for the moment want to --
Oh, no. On that issue, I'd have to defer to the City Solicitor. I don't think that was the...
I mean, I figure with the two lawyers at the table, I might be able to get something by you but -- (Laughter.) 216 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036
So while you were fully updated, you wish not to be a part of the discussion, right.
No. We're seeking clarification and guidance from the City Solicitor so that everybody will be on the same page on that issue.
Okay. A couple of last things. In, again, a slightly less distressed but still neighborhoods that are in need of various activities, what's your best idea at the moment of the blocks that have the one to three vacant, all others occupied, which the unfortunate universe of that is, usually in those neighborhoods, there are virtually no active CDCs because generally, people don't start a CDC to fix two houses on a block. And, again, in a lot of those neighborhoods, you have the storefront property phenomenon; it used to be a cleaners, it used to be a butcher shop, it used to be a store, it's usually got retail on the ground floor -- or formerly had 217 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 retail on the ground floor, often with a residential up top. Sometimes that's the only thing that's really a mess, but it's big and it's a big mess. Is anything targeted to deal with those kinds of situations as well as the one to three vacants with no CDCs in sight?
Yes. It would be the encapsulation strategy that would be targeted for that very kind of situation. We have identified the Housing Authority as a development resource for stabilizing properties. We are also working with and trying to identify home-builder/private- developer capacity to help us tackle that issue. I think that one of the good things that has been added to the process is the step that requires the Administration to really sit down and develop plans in reaction to a Councilmember's interest in tackling specific projects like that. And what we've committed is to come up with a strategy and also come up with the development resources so that we will be out there trying to identify the home builder, figure out, you know, can the developer really do it, is there a small 218 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 contractor active in that neighborhood that could be enlisted into the initiative. We've got to really cast the net much broader and bring additional development resources to the table, and I think that step in the development process will, you know, in the back-and-forth with City Council will really force us all to, you know, sit down and be much more creative and put real things in place.
In that same regard, tell me a little bit about -- just a little -- both on the encapsulation side as well as -- and I'm pleased to hear about the -- whether it's the home builder model or some other local neighborhood person that's kind of in the house renovation business or building renovation business. What I've not really been clear on, at least to date, having nothing to do with NTI -- we've been doing encapsulation for a couple of years. It was never crystal-clear what actually happened after encapsulation, which is a good thing in and of itself but, I mean, obviously, we do encapsulation, we still don't own the property, and what's the second step of the marketing of that 219 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 property? 'cause our goal, naturally, is not just the encapsulation; our real goal is putting a body in that house and having somebody live there.
And the framework speaks to that, that we can't just encapsulate for encapsulation's sake, that as part of that and running concurrently with that is the acquisition planning, and we see two types. For example, the properties that the City, on a test basis, encapsulated last year, we shared those addresses with members of the Board of Realtors, who sit on one of our stakeholder groups, because they may be able, you know, within their group, identify Realtors who could track down the owner and get it under agreement of sale and get it into the private market. Worst-case scenario is sometimes there is not a way we can avoid, let's say, a public process, in which case we've also simultaneously -- not sequentially, have scheduled or slated those properties for an Act 94 taking, and then once we have control, then we can bundle them, issue an 220 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 RFP, using a program like the Home Ownership Rehab Program and say, These properties are available under the HRP Program, we can provided up to $25,000 in subsidy. With the addition of the bond proceeds, we can expand that. We are talking about -- because we have more flexible income requirements with bond proceeds, the homeowner need not be, you know, just simply meeting the CDBG criteria. And that's some of the work that we're beginning to (indiscernible) out in some terms of the policy and programs with the Redevelopment Authority.
So that we can be responsive to communities where there isn't a CDC in line.
I think you touched on this earlier, and I apologize, and I'll take the very shortened response to it. There's been a lot of discussion either State or City or regulatory relief on either, I think, the Act 94 process, possibly even a sheriff's sale, everything in the realm of acquisition disposition. At the moment, without 221 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 locking yourselves into anything, if we got all the relief that we wanted in whatever the proposals may be, do you have a sense of how long it would take from identification, taking it in, and getting it out? I mean, do we have a particular goal in mind if we got every relief that we wanted in an ideal system?
We're starting the benchmarking process. We want to work with what we want as opposed to --
What we want to do is establish a very specific goal. In six months or nine months -- no more than nine months, we'd like six months -- we want that to be the goal. And what gets us there is the legislative reform, the application of appropriate technology, and that's -- and obviously, the one thing that has slowed it down a lot that no one talks about is a lot of times, when the request is made to acquire 222 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 the property, there isn't the cash to proceed with the condemnation. And so you wait for the cash to be made available before you can even proceed with the condemnation. So with the proposed $50 million for land assembly and relocation in NTI, that money is available for that -- for acquisition purposes so we're not waiting for cash to come on line in the future CDBG year to carry out an acquisition activity. So, Councilman, I think we would get back to you when we establish our benchmark goal, and by establishing those goals, then that forces us to look deep into the system on how to make improvements to it.
Okay. Lastly, I know there had been a little bit of discussion of this earlier, and I apologize for a bit of a procedural snafu. I did want to ask, though, at least on the record, your perspective on -- this is obviously unique, and the development of these various ideas, I think, deserve recognition. As we go through this process, I think we're anticipating NTI, or its framework or its 223 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 activities, to going on for somewhere in the neighborhood of three, five, seven years. (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
I'm just going to move on from there, okay. (Laughter.)
In that context, in large programs that are multi-year and have various funding resources, in other situations, more grant-funded, foundation-funded kinds of activities, often there is kind of an ongoing or realtime, as well as a longitudinal study is often done. Is that something that the Administration would look upon favorably in terms of not only seeing what's going on and getting in essence a third-party evaluation, but also -- I mean, at some point in time, somebody has to tell the story of NTI and what it's done, the impact that it's had and things that we can learn from. Do you have any reaction to that? 224 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036
We are talking about that. I mean, I think it's something we've talked about from the beginning that, you know, we set out goals when we first proposed NTI back in April, you know, we have goals for the different segments of the housing market. You know, we did stretch and have always talked from the beginning about monitoring and assessing how well we did do. And Pat, who has a history of coming out of the foundation world, has begun thinking about possible, you know, sources for funding that kind of assessment of the project, and I think that is fair, and are taking a look at that now.
And from just very, sort of like preliminary sort of, like, background conversations, when we first launched NTI, there is, I believe, interest in looking at an evaluative component to the initiative that we might be able to get private support for.
Right, and whether that might be local or even on a national level like Urban Land Institute or an entity like that?
I mean, I think it's important. I think these are -- and I think 225 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 that's -- you know, I think that is important. I think that, you know, I think it will help all of us, you know, as in the coming months, we start trying to propose programs and budget and, you know, we wrestle with what it is that gets funded and what doesn't get funded, I think it will be important, you know, to try to stick to the model and not just sprinkle dollars around, but always ask ourselves, you know, what's going to be the impact of this. You know, are we going to really stabilize neighborhoods, is this going to, you know, turn around an area and take something that is now a wasteland and make it, you know, a vibrant and redeveloped area. And I think that by, you know, asking the questions, by having an assessment, you know, a structured assessment done, you know, it's a way of keeping all of our feet to the fire.
Did I say that? I'm sorry. 226 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 (Laughter.)
On of the bill, it talks about working with the Councilperson in the district about bid packages related to demolition and encapsulation. Obviously, there are other programmatic activities, preservation activities and the like. Will that same protocol, I guess, if you will, or process and procedure extend to the other components of NTI, I guess, at least with regard to bond funds?
Yes, it does. And we outline that role and how that plays out under the -- for all activities: Blight elimination, land assembly, housing investment, and neighborhood preservation in the framework.
As we've said, I think one of -- as Joyce talked about in her open testimony, the conversations that we've had over the last months, I mean, one of things that really became clear to the Administration is putting in place the appropriate process. Sometimes we make assumptions that project advance when they really don't advance, and 227 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 sometimes it really is sitting up front and talking through what is that's needed to advance this; or if you run into a difficulty, why is that the case, how do you resolve that. Some things are totally unforeseen, you know. If a funding commitment from the housing-finance agency falls through. And so I believe that the process we outline in that conversation and in that dialogue is critical to the success.
Finished? Okay, are there any other questions or comments by members of the committee? (No further questions.)
This will conclude our public hearing. - - - 228 2/15/02 WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING - BILL 020036
We will now go into our public meeting, and the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. A technical amendment is being submitted, and it has already been circulated, with regard to the Economic Opportunity Plan, so we submit that. Madam President, I move for the adoption of the amendment. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be approved. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. And the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 020036, as amended, be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a recommendation for a suspension of the rules so as to be considered at 229 2/15/02 WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING - BILL 020036 our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 020036 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended, and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit consideration at our next Council meeting. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed, nay? The ayes have it. I thank you all very much for your patience. Have a good weekend. (Proceedings end at 2:53 p.m.) - - - 230 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia's meeting of the Committee of the Whole of Friday, February 15, 2002, are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. RE: Bill No. 020036 _______________________________, Josephine Cardillo Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)