Committee Hearing, May 25, 1999

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, May 25, 1999 11:15 a.m. - - - BILL 990254 - Redevelopment of South Central Urban Renewal Area. BILL 990255 - Redevelopment of Pennsport Urban Renewal Area. (Full text of both amendments attached hereto.) PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA. Chair COUNCILWOMAN AUGUSTA A. CLARK COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 I N D E X Page Bill 990254 Noel Eisenstat, Executive Director . . . . . . 4 Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority Anthony Brown, General Manager, Hope VI. . . . 47 Philadelphia Housing Authority Raheem Islam, Executive Director . . . . . . . 50 Universal Community Homes Robert Totarro, Vice President . . . . . . . . 51 Penrose Properties Olivia Adams, Esquire. . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Jeffrey Brown, Project Manager . . . . . . . . 80 Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority Tyrone Toliaferro, Webster Street Resident . . 103 Shelly Hunter, Christian Street Resident . . . 105 Reverend John Coger, Pastor. . . . . . . . . . 106 New Hope Temple Baptist Church Anna Biggs, Webster Street Resident. . . . . . 119 Deacon Clarence Everett. . . . . . . . . . . . 133 New Mt. Zion Baptist Church Joseph Anderson, Christian Street Resident . . 136 Lisa Gregory, 12th Street Resident . . . . . . 144 Claudia Gordon, Webster Street Resident. . . . 146 Ronald Watson, Webster Street Resident . . . . 147 Bill 990255 Noel Eisenstat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 David Knapton, City Planning Commission. . . . 166 Richard Lombardo, City Planning Commission . . 170 Glenn Bryan, U of P Director . . . . . . . . . 174 City Community Relations Charles Newman, U of P Facilities Director . . 175 3 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 P R O C E E D I N G S

Thank you. Good morning. This is the public hearing on the Rules Committee. I would ask the clerk to please read Bill No. 990254.

An ordinance amending an ordinance approved December 14, 1971, as amended, which approved the Redevelopment Proposal, the Urban Renewal Plan, and the Relocation Plan of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of South Central Urban Renewal Area by approving the Tenth Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal, the Tenth Amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan, and an amendment to the Relocation Plan, which provide inter alia for certain additional land acquisition of approximately 231 properties, provision of certain relocation services as required by law for the individuals, families, and business concerns which will be displaced and certain land use changes and updating the property rehabilitation standards, all as contained in the Tenth Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal and the Tenth Amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan. 4 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254

I believe I saw Mr. Eisenstat walk in. Is he here? Please approach the witness table. (Noel Eisenstat comes forward.)

Good morning, Mr. Eisenstat. Maybe you could explain to us and to people who are here about blight certification and what it's all about, please.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Noel Eisenstat. I'm the Executive Director of the City's --

I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

Good morning.

His mike's not on.

Good morning. My name is Noel Eisenstat.

It's still not on.

Try the other one, please. (Technical difficulties with sound 5 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 system.

Good morning again. My name is Noel Eisenstat. I'm the Executive Director of the City's Redevelopment Authority. This public hearing concerns an amendment to the South Central Urban Renewal Area and a specific redevelopment renewal plan that is being contemplated today. Council President, you've asked me in my capacity as the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority to explain the context of today's hearings. And if you would afford me a moment or two, let me give you a slightly broader context. This blight certification, this action, which would permit the Redevelopment Authority to acquire approximately 231 parcels and contemplates the acquisition of up to 150 buildings, including 51 occupied residents and three occupied commercial buildings, is being undertaken by the Redevelopment Authority on behalf of the development known as the Martin Luther King Hope VI Development. The Martin Luther King Hope VI 6 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 Development is a planned transformation of the Martin Luther King housing development. Part of the mission of Hope VI can be later explained by representatives of the Housing Authority, and I would explain that the Housing Authority has selected a joint venture known as "Uni-Penn" to serve as the developer of this plan. Representatives of the Housing Authority as well as both members of the joint venture team are here to address specific questions about the development, and I'm happy to answer questions about the mechanics of the blight certification. This is an area that has been deemed blighted by the City Planning Commission. This area has gone through extensive study by the Planning Commission as well as the Housing Authority. The Redevelopment Authority was asked to undertake this redevelopment plan as a result of the Hope VI planning and has done so. A series of community meetings have been held over the years. While I am sure there are individuals today in Council chambers who may have not attended any of those meetings, it is my understanding as well as that of Councilman 7 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 DiCicco from the district that the developers and PHA will be happy to continue to meet with residents both in the immediate area and in the impacted -- in the surrounding area concerning this. Today's action is a public hearing required by ordinance that would permit the Authority to proceed with the acquisition of the property that I have previously mentioned.

Do you have specific addresses of the 51 occupied properties?

I believe all the addresses -- yes, the specific addresses that are to be contemplated to be taken, which are a total of 231, are within the ordinance as introduced in City Council. And I believe that the ordinance 18 itself delineates those properties that are occupied, vacant, vacant structures, as well as residential or commercial.

I don't believe it does.

I'm going to check with the material that was delivered as an attach -- it may not have been included within the bill. 8 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 I'm happy to review the file with the transmission that was submitted from the Redevelopment Authority to the Planning Commission and then to the Mayor's Office for submission. And if you do not have a copy of that attachment as part of the bill, I would be happy to circulate it today. Generally -- and I have not reviewed a copy of the bill as presented to you from the clerk's office -- the actual addresses should be attached for reference to the bill itself because those addresses have specifically been referenced by actions of the Redevelopment Authority and the Planning Commission in contemplation of this action.

Councilman DiCicco, do you have a list of the properties?

Would the developer happen to have those with him today? If you can make those available to -- or come to the witness table. And if maybe -- if you could at least give us the number of occupied properties that are part of the 231 properties that Mr. Eisenstat 9 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 spoke to.

Could you provide the committee with a list of information that you have, please.

Yes, I'd be happy to. What I have here is --

We can have somebody photostat them now, if you will. Mr. Eisenstat, would you proceed with your testimony, please, while we're waiting for the information to be photostated.

Sure. Let me clarify one point I may have been confusing. The list of properties are specific in the ordinance; they do not delineate within the ordinance what is occupied or vacant. That is the document that is being photocopied at this time.

Mr. Eisenstat, I'm sorry, do you have copies of the two bills?

No, I do not; I have copies of what was submitted for --

Because you continue to say for the record that the properties are delineated in the bills, and now your most 10 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 recent statement is that it just doesn't say which are occupied or which are not. You need to have copies of the bills. The bills make no reference to any particular properties. It talks about 231 properties, and short of -- and other than that, there is no 8 mention made of any properties, any addresses or anything else; nor do I see for the moment anything that makes any reference to any attachments or, for instance, an Exhibit A or something like that. This is all fairly boilerplate language regarding amending an urban renewal plan for both of these bills. There's no mention made of any specific properties addresses here.

I can't speak to the publication of the particular bill but I can assure you that the public notice that was published by the clerk's office and was in the newspaper did, in fact, include the addresses.

Well, I understand that and I'm very pleased to hear that, but we're now in the public hearing, and I don't have a list. 11 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 So it's very difficult to engage in this discussion, and for the moment at least, I have to ask you to stop saying that the bill 5 delineates what the properties are because I have the bills in pink, you now have them, and it makes no mention of properties.

I understand that, Councilman.

Thank you.

Please proceed with your testimony, Mr. Eisenstat.

Thank you. The South Central Urban Renewal Area is generally bounded by Lombard Street on the north, Washington Avenue on the south, the Delaware River to the east, and the Schuylkill River on the west. This bill will authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 231 predominantly vacant and vandalized buildings and lots to eliminate blight in the area from South 11th Street to South Broad Street, Kater to Kimball, as part of the Philadelphia Housing Authority's Martin Luther King Revitalization Project. The properties to be acquired will be developed through a combination 12 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 of new construction rehabilitation into affordable housing for low-, moderate-, and middle-income housing families. The Martin Luther King Plaza Revitalization Project is a major development being undertaken by the Philadelphia Housing Authority. PHA intends to demolish four current MLK Towers to eliminate blight and decrease the density on the public housing site. PHA and its partners plan to build new housing on the existing site and have the Redevelopment Authority acquire for rehabilitation and clearance most of the vacant and blighted properties in the surrounding community. The reuse will be for public housing with some market rate housing and supported commercial development. This project will be funded mainly from HUD Hope VI funds for the comprehensive revitalization of the Martin Luther King Plaza site, the surrounding community, as well as Community Development Block Grant funding. The acquisition consists of 150 buildings, 81 vacant lots. The 150 buildings include 51 occupied residences and 3 occupied 13 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 commercial buildings. The Redevelopment Authority's commercial relocation program provides resources, services, and payments to occupants who will be displaced as a result of the public taking. No families or individuals will be relocated until rehousing can be accomplished according to federal regulations and the Authority's policies and procedures. I don't know if you have any other questions about my testimony, but. . .

I don't know how many of the 51 homeowners are here, but for the record, can you please describe what the process would be as far as they're concerned.

Yes. Previously, the developers and PHA have held a number of public hearings on an informational basis, and some of these -- some of these discussions go back a number of years before the level of specificity which we are addressing today. This level of specificity has been developed over the last five or six months. But as it relates to this process preceding, the Redevelopment Authority would act 14 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 to acquire land in this case in a similar fashion as it has in other projects such as the Poplar Nehemiah and the Cecil B. Moore Nehemiah in North Philadelphia. That would require, after the appropriate passage and signage of this ordinance, that all property owners would be contacted by the Authority, to be noticed that an appraiser will be contacting them directly to review and inspect their homes and properties. Property owners will be given an opportunity to be present with the appraiser at the time of the inspection of the property. As it relates to relocation issues of occupied businesses and residents, the Authority's relocation staff would begin to contact individuals on a case-by-case specific basis after the ordinance is passed specifically to evaluate individuals' incomes, their current housing conditions, and their desires as it relates to relocating either within the area or other areas -- other places they may choose. Specifically, the Authority's staff must provide residents of the area -- the Authority and its relocation staff must provide 15 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 basically two things. Like any other property owner, that owner is entitled to the value of their home, the appraised value. And without going on much too long about that, there are a series of safeguards that will allow owners the rights of appeal, through the Common Pleas Court process, the value of their homes. In addition, homeowners as well as tenants will be provided the opportunity to receive relocation benefits, the relocation benefit process is a somewhat elaborate formula. But in general, I would indicate that at a bare min -- basically, relocate these who are homeowners will be provided an approximately $22,000 to $23,000 of additional support to make the available relocation as a way to assist in relocation, both to pay for the cost of a move and to pay for what might be the appropriate additional cost of finding a decent, sanitary and replacement housing unit. In this situation, I believe the Housing Authority and the developers will also work closely with the residents and the Redevelopment Authority staff to provide where -- 16 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 at all possible costs the ability for homeowners to be relocated into other home ownership developments within this project. In addition, renters will be provided a series of benefits. Tenants wishing to be located may receive first priority on waiting lists for government-supported developments as well as they may receive relocation benefits for a period of approximately 36 months of additional rent supplements as a part of the relocation benefits package.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate the accommodation only because I have to leave in a few moments, although I expect to be back. Mr. Eisenstat, a couple quick questions. The magnitude of this project seems to encompass an area, from your testimony, Lombard on the north, South Street between Seventh and 13th. Washington Avenue on the south, the Delaware River on the east, and the Schuykill on the west. That's what's comprised in the South Central Urban 17 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 Renewal Area; is that correct?

That is the broadest scope of the urban renewal area, but I would define the scope of the development to the map in front of you, which is substantially --

It says South 11th to South Broad, from Kater to Kimball?

That would be a more appropriate description, yes. Mr. Brown will --

Okay.

Could you move the easel so that everybody can see it.

All right, thank you. Now, why is it that as a result of the Hope VI opportunity to fully rehabilitate Martin Luther King is there this resulting impact on non-PHA residents in the broader community?

A cooperative effort was developed by the Housing Authority and the developers being Uni-Penn, a joint venture of Penrose properties and Universal Community Homes to develop a broader strategy that encompassed the area surrounding Martin Luther King. 18 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254

Well, I understand that, but how many people are or were living in MLK?

I would have to refer those specific statistics to representatives of the Housing Authority who are here today.

The people who are being relocated out of Martin Luther King as a result of -- towers are coming down, is that the bottom line of that particular phase of this?

Yes, that's correct.

Towers are coming down, people need to be relocated. Now, are the PHA residents being relocated into some of the housing that's being -- either new construction or the rehab as a result of this particular project that you're talking about?

I believe that's the case. But, again, because of the phasing of that development, I would suggest that for specific relocation activities concerning the Housing Authority that you discuss that -- that you may want to question representatives of the Housing 19 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 Authority about their current status of the occupancy of the towers as they exist. Because my understanding is, some of the demolition of that is proceeding in the near future.

All right. So your primary role and function today is to talk about issues that are peripheral to the PHA, MLK Hope VI project, and you're dealing with housing rehabilitation or new construction in the area around MLK?

I would slightly recast the reason the Authority is here today, is to say that the developers and the Housing Authority as well as the Planning Commission have developed a plan utilizing the Hope VI grant and other public resources that require the acquisition of adjacent parcels in the surrounding area of Martin Luther King. And that for that, the Authority's powers of eminent domain might be exercised, and this is an ordinance that is permissive to allow that to proceed.

Okay. A couple last questions. You made reference either in your 20 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 testimony or in off-the-cuff remarks that there have been a number of meetings about this, although you indicated that there was a lack of specificity at that time; is that right?

The process of developing a cohesive plan for Martin Luther King has been going on for a number of years. There was a planning grant awarded to the Housing Authority, and a broad-based task force was set up. And it was only about a little more than a year ago that the Housing Authority, utilizing a request for proposal process, ultimately selected Uni-Penn. From there, the details of developing specific properties with specific addresses off-site to the ownership of PHA has been pursued by the developer and the Housing Authority.

Okay. How many meetings have taken place, where were they, and when did they happen?

I would specifically -- the Redevelopment Authority's only attended the last few meetings. And I did ask the developers yesterday and today to be available to delineate 21 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 the dates and time of their meetings, and they can recall some of them but do not have a complete list. I would refer you to -- the bulk -- the meetings that occurred were sponsored by the Housing Authority and the developer.

Okay. Madam Chair, thank you. I am going to ask to be excused for a brief period of time. If someone else can answer any of those questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Is the Housing Authority going to be here today?

Yes.

They are here today.

Okay, all right. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And good morning again, Mr. Eisenstat. Could you elaborate a little bit more on the issue of relocation specifically for a homeowner who is in the designated area. Just elaborate a little bit about what you and I spoke 22 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 about on the 1300 block of Webster Street this morning when we met with some of the neighbors. We all understand the emotionally sensitivity of someone's house who may be taken, and there were a lot of questions this morning. A little bit to my surprise that more people didn't know about what was going on. And I apologized to the folks that I met with this morning and I assured them that going forward in this very long process, that at least through my office, that the community would be made aware of everything, and they will be a part of that process. But if you can explain that process a little bit about if I own home, whatever street it's on, and that house is one that will eventually be taken for the purpose of the revitalization and am given a fair market value for the house and am given the $22,500 or $23,000 in addition to that, we have moving expenses, we have some utility hookup expenses that are incurred by the Redevelopment Authority, explain how that person is not going to be put in a situation where they will begin to incur a debt that they didn't have presently at their present 23 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 address, that we're not going to relocate them in another house, and all of sudden, they're incurring a mortgage if they have a house that they're living in now that is debt-free.

The Redevelopment Authority is governed by the Federal Relocation Act. And from the broadest policy perspective, it is the goal of the Federal Relocation Act to provide sufficient resources -- simply money -- to allow individuals who may need to be relocated to have the ability to move into a comparable home that is decent, safe, and sanitary; meaning it meets the housing quality standards established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The crafters of the federal relocation law in its regulation realized that very often, when a public agency comes and acquires land for redevelopment, that that property that is being acquired may be undervalued, that it may be a three-bedroom housing unit but it may not currently meet all housing codes or it may be very difficult for a person to take the value of that home -- call it $15,000 or $20,000 -- and buy a 24 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 comparable home, a three-bedroom home for a three-bedroom home with $20,000 that is decent, safe, and sanitary and that is code-compliant, that has good working systems. And, therefore, the Federal Relocation Act is established to provide, as you, Councilman, have indicated, paying for the value of the home, all of those necessities to move: telephone hookup, cable hookup, deposits as well, as a formula that is somewhat complex but generally provides homeowners the additional benefits of approximately $22,000 or $23,000 per family. Having said that, there will be situations, and there have been situations in the past, where you may have a family that may need a four-bedroom or a three-bedroom home and that the value of their home may be so little and with the value of their home and the cost of the benefit of the 22,000 may not be sufficient. And in that case, it is determined by the Redevelopment Authority that, in fact, a relocatee cannot find a replacement unit with those resources. An additional payment may be made; that payment is known as a "last-resort payment," and that payment 25 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 will go above that $22,000 in situations where those resources alone are not sufficient to find a replacement house. That's the policy and the goal and the intent. Let me take a little bit about the mechanism. We understand that the mechanism is not one that is easy, pleasant or anyone looks forward to. And the Redevelopment Authority staff over the last few years has relocated approximately 130 or 140 families out through the last three or four years, and the Authority's professionally trained to conduct this type of work. The first thing is that I can tell that you this process is lengthy. While once an ordinance has been enacted, the Authority, under statute, can move in as quickly as 90 days to acquire occupied properties. Let me be very clear that that is not the intention of the Authority today. And by our past practices, at minimum, it should take nine months -- we would not anticipate having a -- just based on the volume of the number of units, the fact that we're now in the middle of summer and some people may not want to relocate in 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 winter, and we wouldn't think about relocating folks in the holiday season, I would assure you today that at minimum, this process of relocating the entire site would take at least a year.

And could you also explain, as you did this morning on Webster Street, if an individual or a family decided to locate and they wanted to stay within the community, in the one-, two-, three-square-block area from the present location, that those individuals would have a certain option to move within the neighborhood. And the result of that would be that they're always made whole; I mean, that's what I'm trying to get out of you. And I think you explained it. But I just want to reassure that no one will be put in a situation where the market value of their house, in addition to the financial incentives that are given for the relocation, if you don't have a mortgage today, you will not be put in a situation where you will have to incur a mortgage, unless you decide to do move up.

Correct. But that we'll also -- that the Housing Authority and the 27 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 developers are developing a mix of housing in this area, which includes new construction and rehabilitation. And those units should be produced in a way that should allow individuals who wish to occupy those units to move to those units. Some people may choose -- and it has been the case in Poplar and Cecil B. Moore that some individuals may take their benefits and move -- hopefully stay in the City and will sometimes move to other areas. There was a unique problem in the Poplar Nehemiah that those were first-time home buyers dollars, and we had a very difficult time rearranging the program to allow relocatees to live in the area around that area. But that restriction of the Poplar grant is not the case here, and that these individuals actually who may have to be relocated as part of this would actually receive first priority as being displaced by public action to be given an option to move in these houses by the fact that the Authority will be acquiring the property as a public taking.

And one more 28 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 question. The issue came up this morning also with a couple of individuals who have recently bought homes recently in the area in the last year or two, and they've been making some improvements to those properties, and although the property may have not been completely rehabbed, they are in that process and having spent money on those properties, and there goes a mechanism to, in addition to what the fair market value is, is to look at what the investment was and do what is necessary to allow those people to recoup that investment.

Let me explain that. Thank you for raising that. The purpose of the process here is to give homeowners and other property owners the opportunity to meet with the appraiser. Based on that meeting, property owners should feel comfortable showing their homes to the appraiser. Based on that, an appraisal will be forwarded to the Authority, and that will be the basis of an offer. Upon receiving that offer, homeowners or other property owners can request to see a copy 29 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 of that appraisal and may question it. They may, as part of the relocation benefit, obtain their own appraisal and negotiate with the Authority on that. Let me say that that can happen, but the bulk of the benefits will accrue to individuals being relocated through the relocation benefits, as I've discussed earlier. Individuals sometimes go out and make major improvements to their homes. Those improvements should have some impact on the value of their house. That does not mean that a dollar-per-dollar improvement will reflect an appraisal because the appraisal also considers the market value of the houses. So if someone puts, let's say, a $50,000 kitchen on a house, that doesn't mean the house is worth $50,000 more the day the kitchen is fixed, but the Authority will work with individuals and the appraisers concerning improvements made to their homes.

And one final question. And when the process begins on the relocation, and your department has a staff that will go out to meet with the individual folks and do a needs assessment, how does that occur? I 30 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 mean, is it by public notice, do you send a letter out first? And whatever it is, I would like for the record -- it's not the procedure, 'cause this is all new to me -- to be -- to have my office to be notified in advance of the meetings with the individual property owners.

The process is a two-pronged process. Generally, the Authority will conduct community meetings -- will participate in community meetings to answer general questions. But more importantly, the specific work about a specific individual is really a process where an individual staff person will work with an individual family in a case matter situation. You know, confidential information might be shared and that the process is really one that we contact in writing and by telephone and make numerous attempts to contact families and homeowners. Some individuals may opt to have minimal contact and take -- and decide to find their own homes on their own. Other individuals may feel -- may wish to rely more heavily on the 31 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 Authority in terms of actually arranging them to inspect other units and to be put in contact with other rental or home ownership properties.

Thank you. No 6 further questions.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Eisenstat, the list that was given to us today, which says "Proposed Acquisition List Martin Luther King Plaza," includes -- do you have that?

I gave a copy to the clerk and I would appreciate a copy back, if I could refer to it.

Are you familiar with the list?

I have reviewed the list from time to time, yes, I have.

Do you know how many properties are listed on this particular list at this time?

It is my understanding, 32 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 without counting the list today, last time it was counted, it was 231.

Okay. I did a quick perusal of the list and identified properties that are either -- for the most part I think 50 properties that are currently residential and owner-occupied -- occupied or owner-occupied.

We estimate that at 51, that is correct.

51. Okay, I was a little off. And approximately or commercial properties that are either a bar or restaurant kind of thing, which are in use by individuals?

We estimate three.

All right. So the bulk of the properties that are listed for taking are either vacant properties or vacant lots.

That is correct.

Okay. Will this list -- is this the final list?

This is the final list that appeared in public notice as it related to the passage -- to the introduction of this ordinance. 33 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254

Will this list change?

This list could change either by a new ordinance adding new properties or by deletion of properties from the list.

So in order to do either a deletion or an addition to the list, there needs to be additional legislation?

It would not need additional to delete properties from the list.

Just to add.

That's correct.

So the universe of properties that all the people in this room, including us, are interested in at this point is on this list.

That is correct.

Okay. Has this list been available to anyone in the community?

Yes. The Authority received a series of inquiries from a series of attorneys as well as local residents, and the Authority's staff circulated this list once it was available, around the same time the bill -- before 34 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 or around the same time the bill -- the plan had proceeded to the Planning Commission.

Has there been any direct contact either from RDA -- I guess it would just be RDA, not PHA -- with any of the 51 residential property owners to discuss or to gauge their interest in relocation, staying or relocating within the community?

I would -- I would -- I would tell you -- I would advise you that a series of --

To your knowledge.

To my knowledge, there have been some contacts with property owners. We did not gauge their interest in having the Authority take their homes, if this was a good thing or bad thing. This was not a -- we didn't pose the question in terms of, "Do you want us to do this?" There was a series of meetings where the developer outlined their specific plans for clearance, new construction, rehabilitation, and elimination of these units before this matter was considered by the Planning Commission as well as 35 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 the Redevelopment Authority. The discussion that occurred, undertaken by the developer and the Housing Authority with some of the Redevelopment Authority staff was to discuss the plans for the development, and as part of those plans, the impact of the need to acquire these properties and, therefore, the resulting possible relocation of 51 families.

All right. But we don't have an idea as of those 51 families in this universe of potential relocatees who of those 51 are either adamantly totally opposed, somewhat interested or interested. I mean, in order to -- here's my issue. You have 270 properties. A bulk of the properties are either empty houses or vacant lots. I want to put them aside at this point because I don't know whether or not there's a lot of -- maybe perhaps there is some civil legal concerns relative to owners of the properties, the owners of the vacant lots and that's something I'm sure that either could be negotiated or litigated at some point in time. But of the 51 families, we -- could 36 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 that list be reduced by having conversation with them as to who is interested or not? Not to give them a sign-off or, you know, to -- do you understand what I'm asking?

I understand that. The plan, as proposed by the Housing Authority and the developers, calls for the clearance of all the properties on this list. The reason they propose that is, they believe, as does the Planning Commission, that the level of decay within the neighborhood, the lack of quality of public improvement, the narrowness of the streets, the desire to establish a new redevelopment plan that provides long-term viability for this substantial investment in the -- it is the position of those who have adopted this plan to date that the public may be best served by acquiring all of these properties rather than leaving two or three occupied properties.

That's not my question. My question is: of the 51 families, is it conceivable that a portion of them, albeit a small portion of them, may in fact be interested in either relocation or a new house? 37 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254

I believe that's the case.

Well, I guess my question is, how do we find that out?

From a -- the Authority does not begin to undertake specific family-by- family analysis until after an ordinance occurs.

Okay, I understand that. Thank you.

Are there any other questions from members of the committee? Mr. Eisenstat, how much money has been appropriated for the acquisition of these properties?

I believe that the acquisition cost of this property -- these properties estimates, if you can give me just a moment to refer to my notes. . . hold on just one second. I wanted to give you the breakdown of the figures. The general cost of acquisition of these properties located on the east side of Broad Street approximates $4.9 million. I would describe to you that the acquisition value of 38 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 these properties are generalized. These are before formal independent appraisals are conducted. So with that caveat, the acquisition costs are approximately $1.6 million, and we've also budgeted approximately $1.7 million in relocation benefits.

I'm sorry. Would you mind repeating those figures? The general cost of acquisition is 4.9.

4.9 million. The estimated budget for acquiring the land -- the properties themselves is about $1.6 million. Costs for relocation approximate 1.7 million. Other costs go to the areas of appraisals, title fees, and estimated reserve for delay compensations and Board of U. awards.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm just thinking about our conversation this morning. We talked about those situations where people would be relocated, and we 39 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 talked about the mechanics of that. And I believe you mentioned that when a person is going to be relocated, it will be a one-time move; we are not going to move people around like a checker board from one location to the next when the move takes place. Would you --

Yeah.

Would you just explain that a little.

Our intention in all the relocations that we undertake is to attempt to relocate individuals on a one-time basis. There have been a few instances where actual individuals, for very particular reasons, have asked to move twice. They are really where it's been in the interest of the homeowner or the tenant. In this situation, I believe the layout of this development, as contemplated and proposed and to be implemented by the developer and the Housing Authority, should allow individuals who might choose to stay here the opportunity to have -- that we'll be able to do some phasing here so that priority can be given to local residents and 40 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 that they would only have to move once.

And I think, Madam Chair, we'll probably get into a little bit about the mechanics of that when the developer gets up to testify as to the phase of the project and how people who may have to be relocated will --

I don't think that a specific phasing plan is in place, but the nature of the -- the scope and the size of the project and that all of the units will not be rehabilitated at once should allow -- will allow all of that to occur.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.

Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Eisenstat, the issue of rehab versus clearance, does it become an economic issue? Are the conditions of the property itself whether it's worth rehab or whether it makes more economic sense to build new a home? How are those decisions made? 41 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254

Well, I think that it is not an exact science. In some situations, the overall condition of the housing unit is such that it needs to be demolished, and that goes for all of the vacant -- the majority of the vacants. I don't know if there are any vacants that are actually worth rehabilitating. There are a few vacants that are worth rehabilitating here, and that could be a relocation resource in this development. In other situations, it is the professional -- it is the belief of those developing the plan, along with the Planning Commission and the Redevelopment Authority, that the existing street grids in the high-density narrow houses, short alleys for long-term viability of this overall development, where you have so few houses left on a block that in fact, while the individual structure may have economic vitality in its own condition, that from a long-term perspective -- not unlike what has occurred in Poplar or Cecil B. Moore and anticipated in Jefferson Square -- that ultimately, the desire -- it is believed that the 42 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 best overall long-term plan for that area is the reconfiguration of streets, public improvements, and the actual density and configuration of housing units.

So it's not just the condition of the property; there are other factors that are taken into account.

That is correct.

Thank you.

The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Eisenstat, if I am a homeowner in the designated area today, what are my options or what are the chances of me being able to relocate into one of the new homes that are being built? And what determines my ability to move into that?

I think I'd like to have some of that discussion with the developer as well. But following the activities that have occurred in other relocation -- in other developments within Philadelphia, as I said earlier, priority has to be given by law to 43 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 individuals who are being relocated, or the word is -- properties are being acquired. Therefore, those individuals will be given priority to be relocated into units that might be new reconstruction or rental. You may also find individuals who aren't currently homeowners who may opt to become renters, maybe due to change in life cycle status. They may be elderly now, you know, older. People may decide they want to sell a home, and that happens all the time, or they may wish to become renters. There's a series of rental developments that are occurring in the area beyond the Martin Luther King development that individuals may be interested in.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.

I just want to make a comment on that because it created a -- it did get a bit of a stir in the crowd. I mean, my own parents, for example, owned a home, which was a larger home, four bedrooms, and sold it, used the equity, and now rent, and are very happy renting. They don't have 44 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 the responsibility of paying real estate taxes, maintaining the property. They're not extremely old; they're in their middle sixties, but they're much happier renting with the equity they received from the home that they sold. So I don't think that that's an extraordinary situation, especially when you get up in age and your kids are gone and you're kind of empty nesters, that perhaps renting in an appropriate circumstance makes more sense for you than owning a home again but that's a --

That's a personal preference.

Yeah. I know it stirred the crowd, but in my own personal experience, my parents are much happier renting than they were owning so. . .

And I'd just like to comment because I'm having similar conversations with people at another site, Jefferson Square. Just as an example, we can cite a lot of examples today. You may have an individual, a single person or an elderly couple who are living in a 45 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 three-story, five-bedroom house, and they really don't have a need for that. And that may be one of the houses that may be under consideration for taking. But within a block or two from where you're presently living, there may be a two-story house that will be rehabbed as part of the overall rehabilitation of that area, and that may be a much more attractive environment for those two folks to be into. They would still be a part of the community, live within a reasonable proximity of where they've been living for the last 30, 40, 50 years, but will have less expenses -- a smaller home, less maintenance, less heating bills. Overall, it may actually be a better situation than they're presently in. And I think that we get to that when we have those individual discussions with individual property owners based on what their needs are. And on the flip side -- and I said this out on Webster Street this morning, and I'm not trying to paint such a rosy picture here because there is an emotional issue that has to be developed -- is that the present market value of homes today is at a certain level. When the 46 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 rehabilitation of the Martin Luther King community occurs, property values will increase. So on the resale five, ten years up the road, if you decide to sell, you would get significantly more for your home than today. So there is some benefit possibly long-term for some people.

I would simply also add the converse, that the requirement of meeting the federal housing quality standards may actually require in some situations, a family living in a two-bedroom unit with possibly three children would by law have to be relocated to a unit of at least three bedrooms. So the process may work both ways.

Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)

All right, Mr. Eisenstat, you are going to stay with us until the conclusion of the hearing or have a representative here?

I believe that's the 47 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 case, Council President.

Thank you. Councilman DiCicco?

I think it would be appropriate at this time, Madam Chair, to have the developers come forward and the Housing Authority together.

The developers and the representatives from PHA should approach the witness table, please. Is someone here from the Housing Authority? (Developer and PHA representatives come forward.)

Who's representing PHA?

Good afternoon. My name is Anthony Brown. I'm the General Manager for the Philadelphia Housing Authority responsible for the Hope VI Program.

My name is Donna Saftollo (ph.). I'm the project director for the Martin Luther King Project for the Philadelphia Housing Authority. 48 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254

Mr. Brown?

Yes?

I believe a question was asked earlier, how many people were living in Martin Luther King project, and how many are still there, how many have been relocated?

There was a total of 538 units, of which not all were occupied. But I can say to you that there are approximately 40 families remaining today. And the goal is to have the remaining families relocated by the end of the week.

Sorry, I can't hear you.

Start all over again, please.

Okay. The Martin Luther King development consists of total of 538 units. Although I can't say to you how many was there at the time we began the development, because not all were occupied, currently there are about 40 families remaining today, all of which we expect to have relocated by the end of the week.

By the end of 49 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 this week?

Yes. That's the schedule.

Can you tell us where they've been relocated to or where they will be relocated to?

The specifics of where they will be going, I'm unable to say. I just know that they've been relocated to other PHA properties throughout the city, Section 8 properties throughout City. Some have moved with family. But they're in various parts of the city, and arrangements have been made, assignments have been made with the families. Some are just waiting for units to be rehabbed now so that they can move into them.

And they have all received a Section 8 certificate?

Not all. Those that did not receive a public housing units, i.e., a scattered site or available public housing unit, yes, they've received the Section 8. Some were transferred in other PHA units throughout the city.

Such 50 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 as. . . ?

It could be Raymond Rosen, Richard Allen, scattered sites, many developments throughout the city. Any one of the PHA development throughout the city where we have vacancies and units are available, we've transferred.

All right thank you. Any other questions for PHA?

No. 13

No. 14

Okay. Thank you. Why don't you remain there just in the event that we have other questions. At this time, we would like to hear from the developers, please. Kindly identify yourself for the record.

Yes, good morning, Council. My name is Raheem Islam. I'm the Executive Director of Universal Community Homes. We are a copartner in the Uni-Penn development of this project.

Good morning. 51 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254

Good morning.

My name is Robert Totarro (ph.), and I'm Vice President of Penrose Properties, a copartner with Universal Community Homes in this development.

All right. Mr. Totarro, or Raheem, would you please explain to us exactly what is being proposed with this development.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. We are proposing to revitalize the Martin Luther King Plaza Public Housing Project. And as Mr. Eisenstat noted earlier in his testimony, the revitalization is not just the redevelopment of a public housing site. Under the program through which the effort will be funded, the Hope VI Program, HUD, the administrator of the program, requires that the Housing Authority and its private-sector partners redevelop the neighborhood in which the property is located as swell as the site itself. So we are jointly proposing, in partnership with the Housing Authority, to 52 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 redevelopment the MLK Plaza site and the surrounding neighborhood with approximately 250 housing units. Those housing units will be developed both through new construction and through rehabilitation. Approximately one half the housing units will be rental housing units, and the other half, obviously, will be for-sale housing units. That's the overall plan for the revitalization of Martin Luther King Plaza, which obviously, of course, includes the demolition of the existing -- of the four existing high-rise towers. And after that, Madam President, that at the time the grant application was submitted to HUD for the Hope VI funding, there were 272 families living at MLK Plaza.

Now, let's get back to the 51 occupied properties. If they are property owners, would they be given first preference to the homes that are rehabbed, whether they be for sale or for rent?

This development is, in the end, a public housing revitalization effort. 53 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 It is being financed by public housing funding. And though it encourages the revitalization of the community, there are still federal statutory limits on those who can benefit from the investment of public housing monies. So for example, the rental units that will be developed will have a maximum income limit for eligibility for occupancy at 60 -- 6-0 -- percent of the median income for the area. The home ownership units will have an income limit of 100 percent of the median income for the area for eligibility. So anyone, whether a MLK Plaza resident, whether a resident of the Hawthorne community, or anyone else who is interested in purchasing or renting a redeveloped unit in this redevelopment effort, must comply -- must meet those income eligibility standards. That having been said, current or former residents of the MLK Plaza public housing property must be given first-priority access to the redeveloped units. They are, after all --

But I thought they were all relocated. 54 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254

They are, but they have the right to return to the site if they choose to return and if they qualify to rent or to purchase one of the units redeveloped. The second priority -- Mr. Eisenstat is certainly correct in stating that the Relocation Act gives anyone affected by a public taking preference or priority access to housing developed with federal funds, and certainly these units we're proposing to develop are such. They too, then, would have priority -- a second priority over anyone else who might be interested in these units, provided of course that they qualify.

Just to elaborate on the question. The people who potentially will lose their home, the owners who live in the property now and own it off site, off the King site in the neighborhood, they get a second priority to the redeveloped house or to the new structure. You said that as long as they qualify -- do they still have to qualify under those income guidelines?

That is correct. Because the units are developed through financing provided 55 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 under programs that have income limitations.

Well, is that then really a priority?

It's the same priority as the public housing residents have. They don't have an absolute guaranteed right to return; they too must qualify.

It is more likely that the current and soon-to-be relocated public housing tenant would more likely qualify than not, and the home owner would be in a different situation potentially financially.

That's a judgment that I don't think we can make today. I mean, there are going to be minimum standards for admission to these units that may be a lot easier for non-public housing residents to meet than for --

What's the standards? I think we have to understand what the standards are because I'm not very clear on what the standards are, as you're explaining them.

Okay. The standards for income, I've already explained.

No. Can you 56 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 explain them again, because that percentage issue -- I mean we like to really talk in real numbers.

Right.

I mean, if you want to give us an idea in general terms -- (Applause.)

I just want to get an idea in general terms of how much you have to make a year in order to qualify in this particular neighborhood.

I believe that the current median income for the Philadelphia metropolitan statistical area for a family --

No, that's not the area. Isn't this the Hawthorne area or SMSA?

Sir, we're taking about a federal program that has income limits that are mandated to use the census data.

I understand.

And the current median income for the MSA for a family of 4 is approximately $48,000.

That was all I --

So that -- so that if a 57 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 family has income not greater than $48,000 and is interested in purchasing one of these homes, they can obtain the financing to do so -- and has been adversely impacted by this taking, then they certainly have the opportunity to purchase one of those homes.

Then that was the answer to the question. I don't know why we had to go around the route we went in order to find out that it was $48,000, sir. I mean, you know, there's an attitude. I asked you a question and it's a very simple question, what is the amount of money per year? And the attitude from the answer is not something that's conducive to moving forward in --

Sir, the first question that --

My name is Jim, Mr. Kenney, Councilman, I don't care what you call me. But when I ask a question, I just expect an answer. And because of the way in which you presented the first answer, it was very difficult for any of us to understand just how much money a year you would be able to make in order to qualify 58 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 for this program, that's all. It wasn't that complicated a question. Thank you for the answer.

There were two qualifications income qualifications that Bob mentioned. The first income qualification was for home ownership, and he mentioned 100 percent of median income. That basically represents -- he said 48,000; I believe it's 48,000 and 52,000 for a family -- AUDIENCE MEMBERS: We can't hear you.

Excuse me one minute. We're still having trouble with the microphone.

I will try to speak up. Can you hear me now? There were two income qualifications. The point that's being made here is, based on the qualifications of returning to those either for-sale units or rental units. For the for-sale units, there's one income qualification. That income qualification is 100 percent of the median income, which is roughly about 48,000 to 52,000 for a family of 4. So anybody who had that type of income would have qualified for the income -- 59 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254

Or less.

Or less.

Not greater than.

Yes.

Up to 48,000.

Up to 48 to 52,000 for a family of 4, yes. On the rental, which is very important to note, that half of the units will be rental and half will be home ownership. Of the rental, the maximum income is 60 percent of median. And I'm not sure exactly, but I think it's between and 14 30,000 annually for family of 4. 15

Maximum. 16

So back to your original 17 question for -- there are two requirements, income 18 requirements -- one for home ownership and one for 19 rental. 20 Now, there are other requirements as it 21 relates to relocating back to the rental units. 22 And I think, Councilman Kenney, you said that the 23 public housing residents would have more of an 24 opportunity to do that. And utilizing the first 25 income requirement, yes, they would because 60 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 primarily, many of them are low-income. But utilizing the other requirements which you indicated you wanted to know, what were the other requirements? The other requirements are income -- well, we mentioned that, but employment, employment. Individuals have to be employed. So that's an issue for many public housing residents now that are being relocated; they are not employed. Two, credit history. We do credit checks, and we ensure that the people are credit-worthy to be able to afford and also pay the rents. Four (sic), we do home inspections to determine whether individuals are meeting adequate living standards that we believe should be reflected in the living environment we're trying to create. That's for rental. On the home ownership side, as Bob indicated, the income requirement is the number-one requirement because then you have to go and get a finance; you have to go to a bank and you have to get a mortgage. The mortgage will be in turn then take the position of protecting their 61 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 interest, which is that mortgage, the amount they are lending, and they will give you the due diligence as it relates to that mortgage.

It sounds like -- you know, maybe I'm not too clear on what I'm hearing, but it seems that we're going in a round robin. It was said previously that the residents of PHA who have relocated would certainly have the option of coming back to rent one of the rehabbed properties. You also indicated in your testimony that the maximum income for rental would be between $25,000 and $30,000 a year. My question, I guess, of Mr. Brown is: how many people that live in public housing at the MLK -- (Applause.)

I'm sorry, would you repeat the question. I didn't -- it sounds like your question was, how many people --

I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

And I had the same 62 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 problem. I couldn't quite hear and that's why I asked if you could repeat the question. How many residents at MLK, but then there was applause.

You have indicated that many of the people from MLK that have been relocated would certainly have the opposite to come back and live in one of the rehabbed properties.

Mm-hmm.

And they could certainly rent one of the rehabbed property. It was also indicated that the requirement was for a rental property, the maximum income would be between $25,000 and $30,000.

Right.

My question to you, Mr. Brown, is, I don't know what "low-income" means, but I'm wondering how many people that were relocated presently make an income between $25,000 and $30,000.

Well, we have clearly hired Universal Homes 'cause I don't have the answer to make that assessment to determine how many it is.

Well, 63 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 somebody, I'm sure, can answer that.

Yes, yes.

When we did the application to HUD for the Hope VI funding, we did the demographics of the current -- at that time, 272, 275 families at MLK. Now, 32 families qualified to be able to -- they were employed, they had a substantial salary, and they basically qualified for a home ownership unit. So when you asked the question, the only answer I can give to that question is basically that there were, out of the 272 families, 32 of those families were eligible for home ownership from an income standard.

Could I please add that the figure that was cited for rental housing, between $25,000 and $30,000, was an attempt to establish the maximum income for eligibility.

I understand.

And the range relates in part to family size, and it does vary. So anyone would be eligible to occupy the rental units provided that their income did not exceed that amount, and provided further that 64 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 they can pay the rent. So that establishes the range of those who are eligible. Just if I may to clarify, this is public housing but it is not, as they say, public housing as we've known it. This is privately owned, privately-operated, privately-financed, privately-managed rental housing which is public housing occupancy. As a result, there are rents, contract rents that must be paid, and it differs somewhat from conventional public housing in that regard.

We're just up here talking about the process as we're doing it. I think it would have been wonderful if the 51 families who presently own property had been contacted and at least had been told about the guidelines so that they could have made some type of determination. But that didn't happen. (Applause.)

Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)

Gentlemen and, of course, Miss, you will all stay just in 65 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 the event that we have other questions? (Panel members respond in the affirmative.)

Thank you. Our next witness is Olivia Adams, Esquire. (Applause.) (Olivia Adams comes forward.)

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. I'm going to have to rely on the mike because my voice is so little. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of City Council. It's very difficult for me to start off so I'm going to try to be calm because, as was mentioned earlier, this is an emotionally-charged event. First, I'm going to start by letting the members of City Council know that we down at the Hawthorne community, which is the area between 11th and Broad, Washington Avenue and South Streets, are very excited about the direction of the city. We were so busy being excited about the 66 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 progress, we forgot to ask, would we be allowed to participate? The presentations that came before you today are just an example of what we have gone through, trying to get the truth of the matter. Four months ago, I contacted Councilman DiCicco's office. I wrote him a letter that I have here and I asked him about a property. I asked him if the property at 827 South 13th Street was on the list because, clearly, it was my property, and we've had meetings. Never before was it divulged that it would be taken. So the first time I asked, it was pretty much out of self-interest, just curious, wondering what was going on. When I spoke to Councilman DiCicco's representative, Nick Schmenak, he pointed me to the gentleman at Universal Community Homes, Raheem Abdul Islam. When I spoke to Mr. " This was four months ago in January. At that time, prior to asking Mr. Islam, however, I contacted PHA because I know any taking must involve a governmental agency using 67 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 eminent domain in the RDA. Miss Wilson told me no 3 list existed, that I was just, you know -- they had no list. That's when I went to Mr. Islam, and he informed me that there was a list. Four months later, which was April the 29th -- let me just go back a minute. On or about March 21, 1999, we had a meeting, one of the meetings that they spoke of, which was sponsored by PHA and the developers. At this meeting, we had Mr. Jeff Brown, the Honorable Councilman DiCicco was there, and this was the first time in two years that we learned that many of our private homes were slighted (sic) for eminent domain, that they would be taken. At that meeting -- this was the first time, mind you, that we were told that the very homes that we lived in and the very businesses that we ran were in jeopardy of being taken. Prior to this, we had worked with these developers, as they said, for two years, working on plans and working on the revitalization of the community. The first plan that was mentioned was the demolition of the towers. Never, never before March the 21st did they let anybody know directly 68 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 that this many properties would be impacted. Even on that date, they did not provide us the list. I had to call different agencies, and I wrote every City Councilperson a letter. And it's unfortunate if you didn't get it because we didn't have much time to respond. I wrote everyone a letter requesting -- when I say "everyone," PHA, the RDA. Mr. " At that time, I turned to Mr. Jeff Brown of the RDA. He forwarded me the list, he told me he couldn't give me the list yet because he wanted to do the publication and he would give it to me once they had it ready to go in the newspaper. At that point, April the 29th, I met with him 11 and Catharine Streets, and he gave me the list. May the 3rd, we had a meeting with the community to let the people what was going on, the contents of the list. That was the first time we had knowledge that our properties were going to be 69 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 taken. I have a -- I want to stop right here for a minute just to say I've heard a lot of things. We are concerned about the 51 residents, but there are not 51 whose properties are in danger; it's probably twice to three times that many.

And the reason why they have made such an erroneous mistake was because their manner in determining whether the houses were vacant or occupied, they just looked at them. And if the house looked nice or like something that should be lived in, they said the person lived there. If the property looked like it should be vacant, then said it was vacant. I asked them, Did you ask the people in the street, did you try to knock on the doors? No, that's not our procedure; we just look at the properties and we determine whether they are vacant or occupied from looking at the properties. Out of the ten that -- you should know I have attended every meeting that they've held. At these meetings, we were told that this is not just about bricks and mortar; it's about building 70 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 the community. The people that you see in here today are not afraid of building the community, we are not afraid of progress. We have lived in this area when pistols and prostitutes ruled the street and nobody thought it popular to come down. But we stuck with it, we stuck with it. )

We stuck with it. I am an attorney but I don't come to you just as an attorney. I grew up at 1332 Alter Street, I went to St. Maria Goretti High School and St. Rita's parish and Andrew Jackson Elementary School. We have stayed in the community. When I went away -- and I want to say this before I go on any further. When I went away to school. . . When I went away to school, excuse me. When I went away to school -- and this is germane and you will see -- I would not tell anyone where I lived. They knew I was from Philadelphia but they assumed I was rich because of the way I dressed and how well I did in school. But there were times when I would get off at the subway station. I said, Mom, I can't 71 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 take it anymore, I can't go on. I would get off at the subway station, which was at Broad and Lombard, and I would walk down 13th Street. And what I got out of walking down 13th Street, I said I don't know if I could go on. But by the time I finished walking down that street, I knew I had to go on because my community always encouraged me, they supported me. And while many of the developers -- and I'm sure they're fine people. They look at that area and see blight, and there is some blight. They see properties that need be taken and some properties should be taken. But the end does not justify the means. The means by which -- (Applause.)

The means by which they went behind the community's back. And these are not allegations. I'm an attorney and I know about the risk of slander and libel. But on my bar oath, they went behind our backs. They worked with three members of the community who you will hear from today, and they submitted a different plan to HUD a year ago than 72 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 they submitted to the people for review. They knew about this taking over a year ago. They knew about the taking when I asked them for a list and they told me they did not have a list. The evasiveness that I can tell that you have sensed, this has been our plague for the past year. When I walked down that street, I told them -- they said, Well, nothing good -- I was told by Mr. Raheem, "Oh, they're not like you. Those people don't care about their properties. Nothing good is over there." It's a lot of good out of there. The ghetto may be a rough place to live, but good things can come out of the ghetto. I came out of the ghetto, these people came out of the ghetto. We're not asking to halt the progress, we're not asking them not to take the properties that the people have no interest in. But they came through and they told us they would give us money. Okay, we will compensate you. And I suggest that every member of City Council should be made privy to the actual facts. The only facts that you're going to get that are actual are found in the document that was 73 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 submitted to HUD a year ago. These documents were hard to get, and they contain every inch, every plan. For example, they tell you that they've allotted $4.9 million for relocation and acquisition, when in actuality, they've told HUD they've allotted $2.8 million. And I will gladly supply documents for acquisition. Also, what the people of this community -- and you'll hear from them -- want you to understand is for us, like you heard them, it's about, How much money are you going to make? They told you they didn't know the demographics about who made. Well, I have it here. It says that the people in those housing projects, 48 percent of them made 10,000 or less, and that was the top of the spectrum. I have it here, and you're welcome to see it. They tell you, It's about -- not PHA as we knew; it's as we never knew it before. Yes, it's as we never knew it before 'cause it doesn't exist as PHA property. They are asking you, these developers and PHA are seeking to enlist your help to make -- 74 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 get them a windfall. What do I mean by a windfall? They're telling you, We'll give you $20,000 over the value of the property. I am not impressed, for two reasons. Number one, God is not making any more real estate; whether you believe in the transcontinental theory, whether you've studied history in the one-land mass, it's 30 percent land, 70 percent water. No more real estate is being made but Uncle Sam makes money every day. And we know how to make a dollar, so it's not about money; it's about the fact that real estate is unique. We want an opportunity. We know that some of these properties are not in conformity with what they would want, but they didn't even give us a chance to have an opportunity to bring our properties into conformity with their standards. Many people are willing to fix their properties. Many people -- (Applause.)

Many people. And this is not new. I did not seek to come to Council, and I'm not on a crusade, I'm not in a popularity contest. 75 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 As you can tell from my voice, I'm tired. And I said I wasn't going to get involved because although the property at stake is one -- I have one property at stake -- 827 South 13th Street. To be honest with you, it's a corner. I have some of the prettiest properties down in South Philly. But I will tell you this. If I were to lose that corner, it would not be the worst thing that has ever happened to me. I've never lost anything before, and it's a first time for everything. But you're looking at people today that if they lose their homes, that's all they have. This corner's not all I have. Yes, I do own it. I sold four properties at the 1800 block of Christian Street to buy that property because when I need $9,000 more, nobody in my family had the money to lend me. So I looked at the four properties that I had at the 1800 block of Christian Street, then I walked down to the corner where I had seen so many murders occur, so many crimes take place. And I asked myself, How bad do you want that 76 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 corner? So I sold four properties to give it up.

We're looking at the list that's been provided to us. And you said your address was 827 South --

South 13th Street.

It's not on the list.

I don't see it on the list.

It's right -- they must have just taken it off but it -- (Applause.)

Ma'am, ma'am, just so you'll know, you keep referring to what they just did. This is a matter of record, this hearing.

Okay.

The list of the properties that have been provided to us today are part of the record. People aren't just going to be able to move things off and add to it at whim, contrary to what you're saying. And I appreciate your --

Okay, but I have the facts, 77 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 Councilman DiCicco, and I'm sorry but I must respectfully disagree and I must interrupt you because I have the paper given to me by Jeff Brown on April the 29th that is just a copy of the advertisement. And it has on the list 231 properties.

Ma'am, can I -- I need to interrupt you for a minute. I think what you have there, and Mr. Brown is in the audience today, he can correct me. The properties that you have in front of you are all of the properties that are in the designated area.

No, that's not, that's not. You're not correct, and I'm sorry, but I know we are saved for time. If you would take a minute, Mr. Brown could stand and verify what this list is. This is the advertisement that was in the paper. May he approach so you can see the --

Is Mr. Brown still here, Madam Chair? Maybe we can get Mr. Brown to clarify this.

Is Mr. Brown here?

Mr. Brown, I suggest you take your list up with you if you 78 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 don't have it.

He will know if this is what he sent me.

Ms. Adams, just before Mr. Brown gets up here, I just -- and I'm going to ask this of everybody who testifies. 827 South 13th is your property?

Yes.

Do you live there?

No. 12

Okay.

I live at 18 South 13th Street.

I'm sorry, where do you live?

At South 13th Street. 18

So that's your residence.

That's my residence. I'm -- it's currently being redone.

Okay.

It has a new front on it, a Jacuzzi, so I'm not planning to move.

No, no, no, no, 79 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 no. I'm -- please, take no offense because I want to make sure anyone who testifies here today, that we understand who actually are property owners but don't live there.

Okay.

And who are property owners and do live there, just for my own information.

Okay.

And I meant no 12 offense by it.

That's okay.

Thank you.

But he's going to answer whether this is the --

Before you answer, that, I believe, is a list that was attached to a letter that you sent out to me, Miss Adams?

No. 21

No?

Let him see what it is, if you --

I'm asking you the question. You had sent a letter out a couple of 80 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 weeks ago. And I believe it went out to the general community. I know of a couple people who came to see me while I was having dinner one night, and there was a few hundred properties on that list. Is that the list we're referring to? Is that the list that was attached to your cover letter?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay, Councilman. (Jeff Brown comes forward.)

Would you answer whether this is the list that's in the advertisement.

Miss Adams --

Excuse me, I don't think you're not conducting the hearing, dear.

Okay.

Mr. Brown?

Yes. The list that she has over here, which is the notice of public hearing for the South Central Urban Renewal Area, that is the list that we published in newspapers about the 81 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 hearing, and it does list 827 South 13th Street on the property for a possible acquisition, that's correct.

And, Mr. Brown, you say "possible." Are all of the properties that are on this list that we were supplied today the proposed acquisition list, or are there more on that list that you have in front of you or less?

They should have been the same.

Should have been the same, okay. And, ma'am, you're saying that you're whatever that address was at -- that 812 or 813 17 is on that list that's in front of you? 18

Let me say something.

I'm asking you the question.

I'm saying -- no, I'm saying that 827 South 13th Street is on the list.

The list that you have in front of you?

Yes. And it's on the 82 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 newspaper list as --

But it's not on this list. Why is that so, Mr. Brown? Could you answer that?

No, I can't. I'd have to look at that his again.

Okay, it's not on here. I have it in front of me, it's not on here.

Okay. May I proceed? Councilman Kenney, you said not to -- you wanted to ask me that question. And I think that's a good question because my major concern, as I said, if I were to lose 827 South 13th Street, that wouldn't be the worst thing that's ever happened to me in life, but I'm going to address that just basically. ) At Uni-Penn. And you should know I am not a gadfly. I have been supportive of them from the inception of -- since I knew of everything. So much so that I sold them seven properties, seven contiguous properties over and across Broad for $5600 less than the 18th 83 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 Street Development Corp. was willing to pay me because Kenny Gamble is a homegrown person. He knows my family, he knows my father, and I had respect. And out of that respect, I wanted to do whatever I could to help facilitate them getting a stronghold in area over there, so that they could do some of the development. Let me say that I also drive by 16th and Catharine and Christian where a lot of work is being done. And I must tell you, it is far better than what was there. But it is not the best thing that could be there. What do I mean by that? What you're dealing with when you're dealing with these developers coming in, you're dealing with mass production. And every experience I've ever had with mass production has been that mass production yields an inferior product. What do I mean by that? They are constructing properties with ply boards and bricks that reek of poverty. I had a friend that come from California and asked me, were they redoing the projects? Yes, they're clean, they're much better than what was there. 84 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 But I was suggesting to the gentlemen before this hearing, I said, If it is not your intent to have a windfall and to benefit from the appreciation of the value of these properties, because this is now Center City South, it's been rezoned, and we all know that the properties are going to go up. I explained to them that there are investments in this area that did not come because of the progress. It came in spite of what was going on. So in spite of whether the towers went down, I visited Linda Dottor of the City Planning Commission when I first came home from law school to find out what was going on. I told her that I was going to buy those properties down on that corner. She laughed at me. She said it's a mess down there. What happened was, I sold, as I said, four properties to get the one. No, I don't live in it, but yes, I have plans for it. They tell me they have plans. I have architectural drawings and schemes that cannot be touched by what they plan to put there. They said to me, Well, you're never in the community, the people are absent 85 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 landlords. I'm there so much, I'm in that community every day, that when they snuck to take a picture, my car is on their rendition. I'm always there. I'm always scuffling and seeing how I can improve and do something for the community. And as far as the rest of the community -- and that's all I'm going to say about 827 because, as you said, it can be litigated, and I'm not here today as a litigator. I am here on behalf of many members of the community to ask you not to allow this bill to go to full Council. Why? Because it was conceived in collusion and covert activity. Is it strong words? I don't think so. If you think you've gotten the runaround today, just imagine how we felt. Not until I finally pinned down -- and, no, I wasn't always been pleasant, and unfortunately, there has been some hostility, and I apologize for that. But this has been a hostile situation. We started off with people that we felt were our allies in the war against blight. We felt as though we would make a change in the community. We are very excited and ecstatic about what's going on in the community. It is not our 86 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 argument that none of these 231 properties should be taken.

But it is our argument that Council should send these developers at a minimum back to the table to go through a proper assessment of these properties. They don't know who lives and where and who does what. The way they went to assemble information was trifling. It was not -- what did they do with the 2. -- whatever -- how ever much money they had to canvass the area and to plan what they were going to plan? And as far as those meetings are concerned, no one hardly showed up at the meetings because the publicity was so bad. They did not know about the meetings. And if you would look -- don't take just my word for it. Look at what was submitted to HUD in order for them to get the funds. HUD told these people, In order for you to get these funds, you must have community support. So they had meetings. And at the meetings, the meetings that they gave to HUD in this document, you're going to have 2 sign-up sheets -- one with 13, one with about 11 people who have all been PHA residents. 87 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 And I told them even -- I talked to Mr. Brown, and I said, Why is it that the people didn't know about it? We have been told about this at the last minute. This was their intent. And it's my opinion that their conduct is questionable and is suspect. Because money is the bottom line. They will get a windfall. Not only will they get the property with government funds, the gentleman Mr. Bob Totarro said that this is privately financed. Private, my foot. This is not private financed. Look at the back of their paper. This is government funds, this is taxpayers' dollars. This is not a privately-financed deal. )

And I would just suggest that the people of City Council take a long, hard look at this proposal. I'm not going to go on but I have a couple more things to say. They should take a long, hard look at what was submitted to HUD. And while you're looking at it, look at the date it was submitted. It was submitted on or about June 26, 1998. We have met with these people, taken 88 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 them into our bosoms, sat in meetings with them. I know I have been many of the meetings, and I was knocked off my socks when I found out that these properties were going to be taken this way. Whether they -- they have told City Council we need them to develop these properties because if we don't allow them to develop the sounding areas, it's going to be urban blight. Well, you've lived in this city longer than I have, many of you, and you know that that area is prime property, always has been. What has always stood in the way of that area reaching its full coming into fruition as a masterpiece, which is what it really is and what it will become when those towers come down, because they were blight, doom and gloom looming over the community. When those towers come down, cream will rise. This is cream property. They are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, they are not doing it because they want to beautify Philadelphia; they're doing it 'cause they're going to make money. (Applause.) 89 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254

And I'm going to close with this. And I'm sorry but a lot of people have given up their time to speak because I'm supposed to cover all bases. This is not right. We as people of Philadelphia -- and I'm going to tell you something, even as an attorney, my head has been in the clouds. I don't know many members of City Council, I didn't realize the impact and the power that City Council has, but I understand this one thing -- that City Council are our elected officials, and you're to do what's right for the city, not just one group. And we understand the burden that comes with you. But as I told the people in the community that we also failed to realize that Council are our protectors to a certain extent. Council, we are looking to you to protect us. We have to work every day and we don't have time to sit and contemplate about people's convert intentions toward our properties. They say, Why do you say "covert," why do you use words like "collusion" over there? Choose a different word. I've always been blunt, and I have to 90 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 call a spade a spade. They have been in our company many a times, and this is not the cloak and the dagger. They have they done dropped the cloak, and this is the dagger, and it's going to pierce the heart of our communities. Many people that were in PHA properties we will never see again but we know that there are risks that come when you don't own your own property. We understand that people have a right when they are property owners. It's a legally recognized relationship, and you have the right to do so certain things with that property. Give us an opportunity, give us a chance to develop our property. You may hear from the developers, "They've had their chance." I tell you, if we had one tenth of what they had given to them to develop these properties, you would have Taj Mahals. These people would like to fix their properties. Nobody wants to live in a shack. Nobody wants to live in a shack. (Applause.)

No one wants to live in shack, but these people have not had the funds. I've been to school for seven years. I 91 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 came home and told some of top firms in this city to leave me alone, that I have my own agenda, and I still have my own agenda and I'd like to get back to it, and it does not include fighting battles with developers and everything else. I want to live my life in peace. I stopped practicing law for two years 'cause I'm not very adversarial these days. I would like to develop and move on with my life, and I would suggest to you that these people would like an opportunity to live and breathe in an atmosphere that's not permeated with fear. People have been lied to. They said, Well, we've had to do damage control. That's not damage control; that's just destruction. They have destroyed and annihilated a community, and we want to save what's left of it. And we beseech the honorable members of City Council to help us. Send them back with their bill and tell them to come back to the table and negotiate the way HUD told them to, the way they represented to HUD that we supported it. And this is my last comment. I understand transferred intent. Many of you may be 92 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 attorneys and you may understand the doctrine, but I don't understand the doctrine of transferred support. I understand that if we knew about one thing, we supported it. And as I say in closing, we supported the renovation of the towers. We didn't support how they changed the plan in mid stream and said it wasn't feasible. They said they didn't know it was feasible until they got the money from HUD. But I would remind you that they have already did this in several other areas. Why did you wait this late to tell me you didn't know it was feasible? They want to tell you that they had to change in main stream. We accepted that, but we don't trust 'em. Because every day they tell us one thing and do another. Right now, they're telling you one thing and they've done another. I suggest that you get the information from HUD because that is the only place you will find the truth. Like Prego says, "It's all in there." If you really want to know what's going on, it's in there. And I thank you for your time. God 93 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 bless you. (Standing ovation.)

Any questions of the witness? The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.

Thank you. Thank you, Miss Adams, for your testimony. You indicated during your testimony that you attended a number of meetings relating to the Martin Luther King revitalization. How many meetings and over how long a period of time did you attend those meetings?

You said, How many meetings and over what period of time? I would say there were maybe, in the last month, they had about six meetings in the last month. They haven't met with us in a while. But over the year, to be specific and answer your question, they may have had four or five meetings over the entire year that were publicized for the greater community.

And you attended all of those meetings?

Yes, I have. 94 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254

I was at a few them and my staff --

Yes. I saw you there.

Okay, 'cause I also heard you say that no one knew about the meetings.

They didn't.

Then how did you know about them?

'Cause I'm nosey. And I ride around in my car and I pry 'cause I look out for my neighbors. (Applause.)

Did you ever, during the time that you were driving around and found out about the meetings, discuss this with any of your neighbors to alert them that there any meetings?

Yes. And let me say this to you. Also, as I mentioned to you, this wasn't always a hostile relationship, which I acknowledge it is between myself and Uni-Penn, Universal Community Homes. We were friends, we started out doing business deals together. 95 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254

Okay.

So he would give me -- to answer question, I would call and ask if there were meetings or whatever. But the bottom line is, it came on such notice, they made sure you had a day's notice that by the time you got to everybody, the meeting was over.

Well, I'm not going to debate that. I mean I thought public notice was proper, and I understand from some of the meetings I had that there were a number of people who were not notified. I can't make any excuses for that. I can certainly assure everyone, as I did earlier this morning, that going forward, there will be proper notification. The notification will come from my office, and people will be made aware of fortunate meetings. You did mention that you had a relationship with Universal Homes, Kenny Gamble in the past, you sold some properties. What was your relationship, and how were you -- what was your relationship with Kenny Gamble and Universal Homes? How did they treat you and what do you think generally was the way they handled you? 96 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254

Okay, let me be honest with you. From the inception of the deal --

And I'm not speaking Martin Luther King; I'm talking about --

No, prior to that, I understand you.

I'm talking about the prior relationship, business dealings with Universal Homes.

Okay.

Do you think you were treated fairly? Do you believe that they -- everything that should have been done was done in terms of the transactions that had to take place between you and them?

Okay, I'm going to answer you and I'm going to be very blunt. They had no 19 choice but to treat me fairly. I don't toot my own but they --

Ma'am, I'm not asking whether they had a choice; I'm asking you, ma'am --

Okay. Well, no. Because, first of all, I told them that I was selling the 97 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 properties to them at a loss but that I would gladly give it to 'em. They constantly breached deadlines that we were supposed to meet. And if it wasn't for Pat Dorita (ph.) of Home Ark, I don't know what would have happened, but yes, I had problems with them even in that dealing.

Okay, I'm getting some conflicting statements. I heard you say earlier that you had a good relationship with them up until now, it became a hostile relationship. So if you're saying that you had a bad relationship, how could you also say that you had a good relationship? And that was one of your opening statements when it came to Universal Homes. I'm a little bit confused here.

Okay. Well, I'll clarify it for you. Up until the time that we had settlement, we had good relationships. That's why I offered them the property. If you will know, I didn't offer to sell them any more prop -- I mentioned it to Raheem, and he said to me -- let me finish 'cause you asked me a question 'cause 98 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 you're confused and I want to make sure it's clear. He asked me, "Why didn't you get back to me about the ten properties?" And I gave him some excuse but I didn't get back to him about the ten properties because I really didn't want to sell 'em -- not ten, the six properties, because of what happened previously.

So you've had some personal experiences with them that have not been favorable to you?

They've worked out favorable 'cause I handled them properly. I handled my business.

But you had experiences that, up until the final settlement, were not good experiences. That's what you're saying?

But they were not -- I understand and let me answer you. You asked me about hostility versus not hostility. They were not good business experiences but they were not hostile. Business is business, and things happen in business all the time, and I 99 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 didn't take it personally. But I made the decision not to do business with them anymore. So there wasn't no hostilities. I just hello, we would speak in the street, and that was it.

You used the word "hostility." I just repeated it.

It's now hostile.

What I'm saying to you is, prior to the MLK neighborhood revitalization, your business dealings with Universal Homes started out good, and they became hostile, or they were not as -- they didn't turn out the way you expected them to. You had a personal experience with them.

No, it's not personal.

A negative personal experience with them.

Okay, hold on, hold on. Let me answer the question, and please let me finish my answer 'cause I let you finish your question. Please respectfully, Councilman DiCicco. No, I have never had a negative personal experience with them. I do business. 100 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 I'm a business woman and I'm an attorney, and I know that things go wrong all the time and it's par for the course. The hostility only came after -- and you will see -- after, when I asked Raheem for the list -- not for my behalf because, mind you, I already knew that my property was on the list but for the benefit of the community. And he told me, quote, "I will not give it to you because you will use it against me." And that's when the conversation digressed. And at that point, it became hostile -- only when he told me he would not give me the papers for the benefit of the community. I had no 16 hostilities personally because I got what I wanted and I was satisfied from our business dealings.

Are you representing any of the other homeowners in this matter to date?

They have all elected to --

No, I'm asking --

Free of charge, yes, I am.

No, I didn't ask if you're being compensated; I'm asking if as an 101 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 attorney --

Yes, I am.

-- are you representing any of them?

Yes.

Okay. 'Cause I'd like to set up a dialogue with you in my office to discuss the various issues on a property-by- property basis if you have the power of attorney to represent them, and that's what I'm asking.

Okay. I will tell you now, and I guess these are members of my community. We didn't draw up a specific power of attorney as a technical legal document, but I'm sure they would not have a problem giving me one, and I'm glad that you finally agreed to speak after all the letters that I sent to your office, Councilman DiCicco. (Applause.)

For the record, Miss Adams, either myself or a representative of my office, for the last two to three years, have attended every meeting with attendant counsel or the public meetings. And I've said -- 102 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254

I've never seen you before last week. I've never seen you before --

Well, maybe you haven't, but other people have.

Okay.

And I'm certain there are other people in there that would say the same thing, that they haven't seen me. But either myself or a representative of my office has attended every single meeting since the inception of the Martin Luther King revitalization.

Well, then you should have known that there people who didn't know about it 'cause they weren't there.

And I was also at the --

Did you ever ask yourself, Why aren't the people here?

Ma'am --

I'm sorry.

I think we have quite a list of witnesses. I think you're going to have to sit with Councilman DiCicco and have a meeting to further discuss this. 103 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254

Well, I would respectfully request that they would not allow this bill go to full Council until something has been done properly through the proper channels, proper public notice before they allow our Council to entertain this bill. And I respectfully request that.

Thank you for your testimony. The next witness is Tyrone Toliaferro. (Tyrone Toliaferro comes forward.)

And after Mr. Toliaferro, we will hear from Shelly Hunter, so maybe Shelly Hunter could also come up front and also approach the witness table. (Shelly Hunter comes forward.)

Okay, Mr. Toliaferro please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.

My name is --

You're going to have to pull the mike closer to you.

My name is Tyrone Toliaferro. I've lived in the Hawthorne community 104 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 for 44 years on the 1300 block of Christian Street. I currently reside in the 1300 block of Webster Street. I am here to say that I am all for the development of my community, but I don't see why my house should be made into a parking lot to house abandoned cars in this city, okay? I obtained my house on Webster Street through the Redevelopment Authority just nine months ago. If you intended on tearing it down, why do you expect me to invest money in it? My mother owns a house on the 1300 block of Christian Street. They intend on tearing down her neighbor's house. I would just like to for once see the City reach out to help the citizens of the city and not the developers, okay? Because if you build homes and you don't build people, you're wasting money. That's all I have to say. (Applause.)

Thank you very much. Miss Hunter? 105 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254

My name is Shelly Hunter, and I reside at 1237 Christian Street, and our house is on the list. And I just want to say that I would like to save our home. We have invested in our home. That home is filled with generations of our family, and I feel that we should have the opportunity to redevelop along with the developers. (Applause.)

Yasmeen and Ulmar El? UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Excuse me. Some of the people you're mentioning now, their --

I'm sorry. I can't hear you. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Some of the people that you're mentioning now, their time has been given to Reverend Coger. They're not here now.

And they're not going to testify? Okay, Reverend Coger? (Reverend Coger comes forward.)

Good afternoon, Reverend. 106 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254

Good afternoon, Councilwoman Verna. Good afternoon, Councilman DiCicco. I appreciate the opportunity to address this community concerning the work that has gone on in the Hawthorne community. My name is Pastor John Coger. I'm the pastor at New Hope Temple Baptist Church, located 711 South 12th Street, right here in the heart of the Hawthorne community. I also live at 1115 Montrose, which makes me a resident of the community. I spend most of my day here, in this community, working and serving the people of this community. I also would like to mention that I have been a part of the task force since January of 1997, when it was convened. I have worked long and hard with this committee, and I have, with all that I have, tried to support the efforts of the revitalization of not only the Martin Luther King Housing Development Project, but also the revitalization of the Hawthorne community, which I did not feel should be separated. If you're going to remove the towers, then give the people in the towers an opportunity to live in the community. 107 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 So take those homes that are abandoned, those vacant lots, and make them useful. That was our input in this process. I have to say that from the beginning, it was a process that began as a ray of hope, a glimmer of light in a dark day. We welcome the process. We supported it and faithfully attended the meetings and gave our input at every opportunity that we had. But what began as a solely PHA development has now extended to a project which has its greater emphasis in the community outside of the PHA property. They intend to do more outside and off-site than is intended to be done on-site. But at no time in any of the proceedings did we get what I consider to be, as it relates to this matter today, a fair and an honest representation from the task force, the advisory committee. I've asked over a year and a half go when CHK, led by Tom Gallas (ph.), went out into the community to survey the area. He did not take one resident from the Hawthorne community. He took residents who lived in Martin 108 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 Luther King, but he took none from the community. And I asked him, I said, Tom, why would you go out into the community and not involve people who lived there, not involve the homeowners? And he said, Well, we just called, you know, the group that we had, and we just went out. In those first surveys, the lot next door, on the north side of the church, and the parking lot was included in the drawings and plans of the properties that were available for renovation. I protested, and subsequently, they were removed from the list and removed from consideration. To show you how deeply the community is torn over this issue, on Sunday, at 12 o'clock, the pastors of our community left our pulpits, the congregation left our pews. We gathered together on Webster Street and 13th Street in prayer. Our prayer was that our City Council would understand that the elimination of property and the confiscation of the American dream from homeowners is not necessary for the revitalization of Martin Luther King or for the redevelopment of 109 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 the greater Hawthorne community. (Applause.)

When we started out, there were 342 families, we were told, lived in the Martin Luther King Housing Development, 537 units. These were our friends, these were our neighbors. We were concerned from the very beginning that the outcome of this project would be that the neighbors and friends that we have grown up with and worked with and come to love would be completely removed from the community without the opportunity to return. We were told that everyone who wanted to return would have the opportunity to return. And, yet, it is the recommendation and the decision of the developers that only 85 rental units out of the those that will be built would be available for PHA for those residents who have left. We were told that only 30 homes would be available for purchase and that they have already identified those whom they feel qualify to return to our community. I'm reminded of a Greek folk tale about a frog who would be king. He was able to convince 110 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 and to rally enough supports to be elected. But soon after he was elected, he began to devour the subjects that placed him in office. This frog that we felt was a friend, that would be a good king, now seems to be devouring our hope, devouring our dreams, devouring our community. When speculation was done or the survey was done, a property owned by one of the neighboring churches was selected. That property is already under construction, and yet the City plans to take it, that property, which is adjacent to the church. The problem I have is that at no time during the proceedings was any member of the community involved in the selection process. As a member of the task force, as a member who now serves on the advisory committee, I have personally asked Raheem Islam, I have personally asked Bob Totarro, I have personally made statements at every meeting that I attend that I wanted to see the list of homes that are on the property. As a member of the committee, I felt that I should have been obliged. But at no time was I ever given to 111 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 opportunity to even view the list. I was told that it could not be made public, that there was no need to arouse public furor. And yet, at the same time, families are building and renovating their properties that are on the list to be taken. I've asked at numerous occasions when the elimination of Webster Street first appeared in the plans, when I saw it on the drawing, I was amazed because we had no discussion concerning the elimination of Webster Street. But we were told -- and we don't have any fact that this is true but no reason to suspect that it isn't, but that it was the Planning Commission who insisted that Webster Street be eliminated. We want Webster Street renovated; we don't want to see the elimination of our neighborhood. (Applause.)

We stand to lose, with the relocation of Martin Luther King, over 520 neighbors that we have lived with down through the years. Many of them we know will not be allowed to return because they will not qualify: they will not qualify for income, they will not qualify 112 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 for employment, they will not pass the drug test, they will not have the credit history, they will not have the criminal background that will allow them to return to our community. Why, on top of that loss, would we want to relinquish the residents in these 51 occupied homes, more of our community that is being lost, and for what? Webster Street does not stand in the way of a super highway that needs to be built. Webster Street does not hinder the progress of the Avenue of the Arts redevelopment. Webster Street does not hinder the revitalization of Martin Luther King. Neither does Webster Street pose a problem to the revitalization of the greater Hawthorne community. At the meetings that I've attended, I vigorously objected to the including of Webster Street and 13th Street in the process of elimination. I was told, Well, there's blight. Well, elimination is not the only way to remove blight. Renovation is the best way. Elimination to build a parking lot or to put somebody's house in somebody's back yard is not an 113 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 acceptable solution. It's not acceptable to me or to any member of this community. (Applause.)

Do we want change? Yes, we do want change. We want homes that are abandoned to be renovated, to allow people an opportunity to own, to allow them a better opportunity and better living conditions, to improve the overall quality of our neighborhood. But the last thing in the world that we ever intended when we asked PHA to include the Hawthorne community in the scope of project, the last thing we expected is that they would take, they would confiscate the homes of those who scrubbed floors and houses they could not live in, those who washed bathrooms that they could not use, those who cooked in kitchens in places that they couldn't even sit and eat in, and those who worked in other neighborhoods where after dark, they could not even walk in, to buy these houses and to buy a place where they could not only live but die in, a place which they could pass on as family heritage to their children's children, a place where they have not only staked a life, but 114 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 a place where they have made roots. For what reason is Webster Street, in the eyes of the Planning Commission, the elimination rather than renovation not a good plan? I've asked the Councilman and I was told. Webster Street, they said, was too small for traffic. I live in the 1100 of block of Montrose Street. I took a tape measure because my own Councilman told me that the dimensions were different. And I measured the 1100 block of Montrose Street and found it to be 13-feet-6- inches wide. I took a tape measure and measured the 1300 block of Webster Street, and it was 14 feet wide. It was six inches larger than the block on which I lived. And yet, when I look at Montrose Street, we have a collection of new renovation, we have a collection of new construction, we have a collection of old houses. They come together in a wonderful, magnificent blend of neighborhood and community. And I believe that that same type of renovation, of new construction, renovation of existing house, along with those that are there, 115 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 will come together in a wonderful neighborhood. We was told that another reason that Webster Street needed to be eliminated was because of the unfavorable traffic that congregates on 13th Street and on Webster Street. And yet, like Atlantic City and like Las Vegas, the centers in point, it comes with the tourism, but it is not the community itself. These are just side effects. And yet, as we speak, PHA is continuing to remove the residents, the neighbors and friends that we have had over the years. We ask not that a committee be sent to Councilman DiCicco's office to bargain; we ask that you would just eliminate from this process the taking of homes from those who have given all they have, those who chose to live on a small street, those who chose to live in this community. The scope has changed from redevelopment of PHA property to now the confiscation of the homes and the dreams of the members of Hawthorne community. We deserve an opportunity to examine, property by property, the list so that we can have removed from the list the lot that belongs to the church in which they've 116 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 invested over $200,000, signed notes, obligated to repay. That should not be on the list. A home on the other side which they intend to redevelop for seniors should not be on the list. People's properties that they purchased so that they can make a contribution in the neighborhood should not be on the list. This community is adversely affected by the actions of this committee that took place without our presence or without our knowledge. I attended every meeting, with the exception of those for which I was not able to attend because I was officiating at funerals or was called away on another emergency. From the day I've moved into this neighborhood, I've been involved in the redevelopment and in the revitalization of our community.

I served on the advisory council when Ridgeway development was suggested. I serve even now on the nonviolent partnership with Thomas Jefferson University. I give my heart and soul for this community. I live here, I work here, I love my neighbors and the friends that I've met and the people that I serve. They need an opportunity 117 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 that their Council could afford them, to just be able to sit down and to examine the list property by property. Do I have property on the list that is about to be taken? Well, as New Hope Temple, we own a few properties. Are we opposed to those properties being taken? Well, we'll have to change our plans but because we have other properties, we'll probably be able to bring in a concise location the things that we want to do for the community. But if we had lived in those properties, if we had mothers who were not able to pack in order to move, we would object strongly. If we had those who were too sick and a move of this nature might cause their demise, we would have to object strongly. But those properties are not occupied. And so for the good of the community, we're willing to relinquish them. But we are not willing to lose any more neighbors just so that somebody who sits behind a desk and is not in touch with the heartbeat of the community can bring a plan on paper that spells elimination instead of renovation. )

Please. Although we are deeply upset and deeply affected by this action, we avow to come here and to try to have a rational settlement to our concerns. We did not come in bitter protests, using profanity, being disruptive. But we have come as law-abiding citizens asking for the opportunity to have the dreams that we deserve and that we earn and that are due us. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony and your patience in waiting as long as you did.

Thank you.

Is there something that you want to add to this?

Yes. I would like to say that early in this process, we had grave concerns that the revitalization of Martin Luther King and, subsequent to that, the development of Hawthorne community would involve the displacement of those homeowners. 119 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 To Noel Eisenstat, I raises the objection that gentrification is the fear of the people. He told me, well, just like in East Falls, gentrification didn't happen there, and he said, I can assure you, it wouldn't happen here. And to the greater extent, he's true, but I now know that it wasn't gentrification but elimination that I should have been concerned about. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Thank you. Our next witness is Anna Biggs. (Anna Biggs comes forward.)

Good afternoon.

Hi. My name is Anna Biggs.

Please pull the microphone closer to you.

I live at 1217 Webster.

Mrs. Biggs, pull the microphone closer to you. Thank you.

My name is Anna Biggs, and I live at 1217 Webster. I'm appalled that you people that I 120 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 voted for to help me want to put me out. The American dream is to have a home. I've got a home and I want to keep it. I can walk to work from my house if SEPTA goes on strike, I've lived here in this community for 56 years, and I've lived in my house for 35. I want to keep my house. We the people on Webster Street want change and we want our homes. We feel, with some help from the City, we can restore our homes. And I'm hoping that you people will go back to the table and look at our houses. Our houses are: 1217 Webster, 1208 to 1212, 1202 to 1206, 1215, 1216, 1218, 1226, 1227, 1229, 1232, 1234. These are the houses in the 1200 block of Webster Street that are occupied. We need your help because we don't want to lose our homes. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you very much. If Mr. Eisenstat's in the room, would he please approach the witness table? (Noel Eisenstat comes forward.) 121 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254

Thank you.

Good afternoon again.

The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Eisenstat, you've been in the room 9 today and you've been a part of these discussions since its inception. While there are a significant number of issues that relate to relocation and the taking of properties within the prescribed area of the Martin Luther King revitalization, Webster Street -- and by no means, I don't mean to be disrespectful in the audience who does not live or own a property on Webster Street, it seems to be one of the most contested -- not contested but the most contentious of all the issues that we have to deal with because there involves about 30 or 31 families or properties that are occupied of the 51 occupied properties in the Martin Luther King area that are being requested to be taken. Is there a way in which we could today remove Webster -- the taking of Webster Street 122 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 until we have time to work with the residents of that street to let the people know exactly what the relocation concerns are and processes are as we explained earlier today? I'm looking to buy some time over the summer months to work with my office, the developer, Housing Authority and the Redevelopment Authority. Is there a way we can do that?

I believe so, Councilman DiCicco. If I could explain, the bill 12 before you, as introduced, cannot be amended by a deletion of specific properties. However, the Authority can, and has in the past, and I recall a specific request of Council President Verna on Sears Street a few years ago. And as you might request today, that the Authority proceed with this ordinance with the exclusion of this -- of this street, the Authority would be happy to not move forward on this particular block, as you've identified, until September, at which point, we could reassess where we are from there.

Thank you.

How many properties 123 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 are we talking about here?

There are a number of properties, 51. That's the most populated street. There's a massive taking that is being requested. And I heard the rev -- I apologize, I didn't mean to be ignorant and leave, but I was trying to get a sense of what some of the mechanics are 'cause this is kind of new to me also. So I didn't mean to be disrespectful and get up while you were speaking. And I heard your concerns and I heard some of the other concerns, and while I may not be in total agreement with everything I heard today about were properly notified, was there community involvement, I think there's a little bit of truth to most of the statements that were here, and I think that maybe there's some exaggeration but I'm not going to debate that or argue that today. I want to have people in the process. I mean, that's the way I've been running my office since I got elected and put in here since 1996. The end result in September may not change things all that much, but I at least want everybody to say that at least they were a part of the process 124 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 and had a full understanding of what the options were. And at some point, I will have to make a decision as the representative of that district -- some people may like the decision I make and some people obviously may not agree with that, but that's what they pay me to do. And I'm willing to stand up and meet that responsibility. But I will request that we do remove the taking of the 1300 block of Webster Street so that we can address those issues between now and the time Council comes back into session in September -- the middle of September. I'm going to request that we recess the hearing just for a few minutes so we can discuss this issue. Thank you. (Hearing briefly recesses.) (Applause.) - - - 125 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 (Proceedings resume.)

Mr. Eisenstat, I understand you want to make a statement?

Thank you, Council President. I'd just like to clarify a few items. This is a series of complexities, and in the generalization of things, sometimes things are not totally clarified and it allows us to check some things. I just wanted to clarify a few items that may have been mentioned. But just for the record, 827 South 13th Street is on the list that you received today and is on the list that was to the clerk as part of the bill package that was introduced by Council. Secondly, the Authority talks about 51 occupied residential properties. That is an estimate. We don't -- that number could be a few more or a few less. And, again, as an estimate, we assume about of those properties are 22 owner-occupied, and the remainder of those are 23 rentals. 24 And finally, the other matter for clarification is in the discussion of the 231 126 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 parcels to be acquired, 54 would be acquired for rehabilitation; the other 177 would be cleared. And those are just points for clarification.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear your last statement. You said 177 would be --

There are a total of 231 parcels within the proposal today to be acquired. At this time, we estimate approximately 54 of those parcels have structures that can and would be rehabilitated rather than cleared.

Thank you. Thank you very much. At this time, the Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the last five or ten minutes, I have been conversing with representatives of the Redevelopment Authority, the Housing Authority, and the developers. And it is my opinion at this time that because of some of the testimony that was presented here today -- and, again, I think I 127 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 said this a few minutes ago: although I may not agree with some of the representations that were made about people not having been properly notified, and there is a major issue of a significant amount of relocation, I'm requesting at this time that the bill be held until this Council comes back into session in September. And between now and September, I will be personally involved in the process with the community, and we will devise a system by where Reverend Coger, with your assistance and help, we can choose maybe one representative that is selected by either yourself or the residents of a block to be a part of the task force to work with myself, the other agencies, and the developer. And by the way, the developer, Mr. Raheem is still here, concurs with this. They would like to have it move forward. They understand the issue, they understand my concerns and my colleagues' concerns, and they are willing and have agreed to holding this hearing until September. You might have to come forward, Reverend. 128 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 And unless there is someone who has anything to offer than what we've already heard, and we understand about each individual house, we would like to conclude this hearing because we will recess it until -- hold the hearing until -- (Audience member indicates desire to testify.)

Unless you're going to come up with something different than what has already been said, we would appreciate that we hold the discussion until September. (Reverend Coger comes forward.)

Yes, Reverend?

Councilman DiCicco, I respectfully acknowledge your proposal, but I would that you would accept a committee selected by the community to represent their concerns. My house isn't about to be taken, although I would love to be a part of the process. But we have people here who are about to lose their homes, and I think it not fair for me to select someone else or somebody else. I think that we as a community could come together and would -- 129 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 (Applause.)

Thank you.

-- be a part of a committee that will work with you.

What I thought I said was, either you can select or the residents on every block within the designated area can choose one person --

That's good.

-- to be their representative. I don't want to pick the person.

Okay.

And if you could be a part of the process, that's fine. I'd like you to be because you've been involved in the task force from the beginning.

Yes.

But we will create a new task force made up of one resident from each block chosen by the residents of that block. (Applause.)

Okay. Can I just say, do you all agree with that? (Addressing audience members.) 130 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 (Applause.)

All right, I think that in order to move forward, I --

Let's start with one representative.

I think that in order to move forward --

And then we'll discuss any -- if we need additional people, we'll work that out.

I think that in order to move forward that, we can accept that proposal, and that if we can meet to work out the details, that would be helpful.

Thank you.