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
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 --
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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 --
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.
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.
Mr. Brown, I suggest you take your list up with you if you 78 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 don't have it.
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?
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.
And who are property owners and do live there, just for my own information.
Before you answer, that, I believe, is a list that was attached to a letter that you sent out to me, Miss Adams?
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?
Would you answer whether this is the list that's in the advertisement.
Excuse me, I don't think you're not conducting the hearing, dear.
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?
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
I'm saying -- no, I'm saying that 827 South 13th Street is on the list.
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?
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.
Okay, 'cause I also heard you say that no one knew about the meetings.
'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
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 --
I'm talking about the prior relationship, business dealings with Universal Homes.
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.
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.
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?
No, I didn't ask if you're being compensated; I'm asking if as an 101 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 attorney --
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 --
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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, 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.
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.)