Committee Hearing, February 15, 2002

Gordon Whitman and EPOP. (Witnesses come forward.)

Good afternoon.

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?

Nora Lichtash.

And after Miss Lichtash is Judith Robinson, so maybe she could come up to the witness table at this time also. (Witnesses come forward.)

The Chair recognizes Councilman Longstreth.

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.

Thank you very much. Our next witness?

Rick Sauer, Joe Wingert, Gerald Sultan-Ashley. (Witnesses come forward.)

Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself for the record.

Good afternoon, Madam President and members of City Council.

Good afternoon.

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.

Thank you.

Our next witnesses?

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.

We live there.

That's wonderful. Thank you so much for coming in.

Sure. 118 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036

And it's quite apparent, as I said, that you have done a lot of work. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Mr. Schwartz.

Thank you, Madam President. Nice to see you.

Thank you. Same here.

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.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson.

Good afternoon.

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?

Linda Berkowitz, yes

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.

Yes. 141 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036

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.

Point of information, Madam Chair.

I didn't hear a single word about the --

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.

But when you --

I'm not as concerned about whether or not that's one of the major purposes of this program.

But --

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.

I'll say what I would like to say, Councilman Goode.

Point of information

You have not been appointed to censor of what people say.

That's why I'm asking the Chair for the record --

I am concerned about the fact that --

Point of order, Madam Chair.

-- this may be a union-busting program --

Yes.

-- period, loudly with 145 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 an exclamation point --

Point of order, Madam Chair.

Yes, Councilman Goode.

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.

You draw your own conclusions.

Councilman Cohen, would you like to respond?

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.

Oh, you weren't serious, okay.

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.

But you weren't serious --

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

Let me state that -- let me state that --

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?

That's correct.

Thank you. Miss Smith --

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?

I'll ask Pat to comment on it.

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.

And that is -- (Applause.)

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.

Is that a satisfactory answer, 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?

No. 12

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.)

Thank you very much.

Thank you. (Applause.)

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, Brother Kentu.

Thank you. 166 2/15/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020036 (Witnesses come forward.)

Good afternoon and welcome.

Good afternoon, Madam Councilwoman.

Please proceed.

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.

Thank you, Reverend. (Applause.).

Thank you.

You're welcome. Our next witness?

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.

Thank you. (Applause.)

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?

With disabled organizations?

Yeah.

No. 19

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.

Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

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

I agree.

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.

Sir, yes? Your response?

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.

Miss Smith? (Herb Wetzel comes forward.)

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.

Is there machinery in motion to do that?

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?

Nothing.

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.

I think they might settle for that half of that.

Yeah, we would settle for half.

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?

Yes, we can --

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?

That would be fine. Miss Smith?

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.