COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Monday, June 6, 2005 10:30 a.m. - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - - - BILLS NO. 050302, 050346, 050364, 050365, 050366, 050367, 050368, 050370, 050372, 050373, 050380, 050381, 050382, 050385, 050386, and 050414 - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA, President COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2
Good morning, everyone. I am sorry, there is entirely too much noise. Those having conversations, I would suggest you do it in the corridor, please. Thank you. This is the Public Hearing of the Committee on Rules. I would like the record to reflect that we do have a quorum. To my immediate left is Councilman Kelly, to his left is Councilman Cohen, to my immediate right is Councilwoman Miller and Councilman Kenney. And I see that Councilwoman Brown is on the phone, but she is here. I would ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 050302.
Bill No. 050302, an Ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Zoning and Planning," by providing for new special district controls for the Girard Avenue area, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and 3 BILL NO. 050302 - 6/6/05 proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Thomas Chapman, I am the Director of the Development Planning Division for the City Planning Commission, and I am here today to testify on Bill No. 050302. Councilman Clarke introduced this bill on April of this year. This bill is 11 an amendment to the Philadelphia Zoning Code 12 that would create a zoning overlay for a 13 portion of Girard Avenue. 14 The controls set forth in this bill 15 would be applicable to all commercially zoned 16 property with frontage on Girard Avenue, from 17 the 2500 block to the 3200 block, inclusive. 18 The following uses would be 19 prohibited in all commercially zoned 20 properties: Auto repair shops; the 21 installation of automobile, boat, motorcycle or truck parts; retail sale of bakery goods, confectionary goods, fruits, vegetables, or groceries where the use exceeds a thousand square feet of floor area; the retail sale of 4 BILL NO. 050302 - 6/6/05 automobiles; retail sale of drugs or cosmetics; retail sale of variety store merchandise; clubhouses, lodges, and fraternity houses. It would further prohibit businesses or professional offices and the personal treatment of patients when occupying the first floor of the building. This bill would also require any newly erected buildings to have no setback from the street line of Girard Avenue. The Planning Commission at its meeting of May 12, 2005, considered Bill No. 15 050302 and requested that the bill be tabled for further study. That concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions of the committee.
Mr. Chapman, did the Planning Commission have any role in drafting this bill?
It is my understanding that this bill, which is, 5 BILL NO. 050302 - 6/6/05 essentially, a zoning overlay, would prohibit a number of uses in a special control district. Do many of these uses currently exist?
Along this stretch of Girard Avenue, I really couldn't answer that question, Madam President. I might have to defer that one to Councilman Clarke.
The record will also reflect that Councilman Clarke has now joined the committee. Councilman Clarke.
Madam President and to those interested parties, as you may know, Girard Avenue is currently under the process of hopefully some redevelopment. There is a substantial amount of activity proposed and currently taking place around this commercial corridor. There have been some concerns raised in the past about the potential use of some of 6 BILL NO. 050302 - 6/6/05 the parcels or stores on the avenue. What we're attempting to do is to, essentially, give the community and the business corridor an additional voice. Some of the zoning currently on the avenue could potentially authorize some developments that may not be conducive to what it is the community is trying to do up there. This particular bill, while placing certain prohibitions in addition to what's currently in place, does not prohibit any developer or development from going to the Zoning Board and getting a variance. But this just adds another level of process that, hopefully, community members will be able to be involved in, if there is something that's not conducive to what it is we are attempting to do. So that's why we are attempting to put this overlay in place.
Thank you, Councilman. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Yes. I have a 7 BILL NO. 050346 - 6/6/05 question for Councilman Clarke. I just want to know how many businesses are currently doing business in that Girard Avenue strip? Are they going to be grandfathered in?
Are there any other questions from members of the Committee on this bill? Do we have anyone to testify on this bill? Seeing no one, I would ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 18 050346.
Bill No. 050346, an Ordinance amending Section 14-1629 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Yorktown Special District Controls," by specifically amending Section 14-1629, Subsection 3, entitled "district Boundaries," all under certain terms and conditions. 8 BILL NO. 050346 - 6/6/05
Good morning once again, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. Once again, for the City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. Councilman Clarke introduced Bill 9 No. 050346 on April 28 of this year. This bill is an amendment to the Philadelphia Zoning Code that would extend the boundaries of an existing overlay known as the North Central Community Special District Controls. This bill would add the area generally bounded by Turner Street, Master Street, Hutchinson Street, and 11th Street to the existing area of controls. The North Central Community Special District Control section of the code prohibits multiple-family dwellings, apartment houses, tenement houses, student housing which is not owner occupied, and fraternity or sorority houses. Currently this area is predominantly zoned R-9A residential, which does not permit 9 BILL NO. 050346 - 6/6/05 multiple-family occupancy as a matter of right. My understanding in discussing this bill with Councilman Clarke is that these amendments, as well as the original overlay, were done in response to a legitimate community concern regarding student housing in the area, in this area of the city. This area of the city is in a close proximity to Temple University. The Planning Commission had previously considered the subject matter of this bill at its meeting of October 14, 2003, and had recommended that the bill not be approved. Thank you.
How many properties will be affected by the expansion of the boundaries of the Yorktown Special Control District, do you know?
No, Madam President, I am afraid I don't know. I believe that the expansion is approximately eight to ten blocks.
Mr. Chapman, what 10 BILL NO. 050346 - 6/6/05 do you mean when you say the area is predominantly zoned R-9A? Do you mean the existing special control district or the expanded district?
Well, if these controls exist in the adjacent area, what reason is there not to expand the district?
If the controls exist in the adjacent area -- do the controls exist in the --
Okay. Then my question to you is, if in fact the controls exist in the adjacent area, what reason is there not to expand the district?
Well, I am sure that Councilman Clarke's purpose in expanding the district is to extend the same controls to the expansion area that are in existence for the existing area and to offer that area the same 11 BILL NO. 050346 - 6/6/05 protections that are already in place.
But you are saying that City Planning is not recommending that the bill be approved.
And I am asking why? If in fact the controls actually exist presently in the adjacent area, what reason can you give us not to expand the district?
It's our position that the R-9A zoning in this area already prohibits apartment houses, student housing which is not owner occupied, tenement housing, and multiple-family occupancy. My understanding from discussing this legislation with Councilman Clarke in the past is that, he recognizes that it is his belief that having this overlay will add an additional layer of controls for this area, making it even more difficult for someone to establish one of these type of occupancies. And our position is that those 12 BILL NO. 050346 - 6/6/05 controls already exist. That rather what maybe should happen in this area is that there be a concerted effort to enforce the existing provisions of the Zoning Code.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Chapman, I'm not going to shoot the messenger. But do you believe that Yorktown, Peoples Village, and Jefferson Manor are probably some of the most stable neighborhoods east of Broad in North Philadelphia?
Don't you also believe that we probably should maintain that character?
Do you believe that the enforcement on the existing zoning classification is essentially nil? It is more or less driven by a call 13 BILL NO. 050346 - 6/6/05 from a community resident? We don't currently have enforcement officers going around checking to see if people have converted properties?
I would agree with that. It is, essentially, complaint-driven.
So if your position is that we should, essentially, rely on the existing zoning classification, the likelihood is that we are going to continue to have individuals or developers who are cutting up that very, very, very pristine community, I will even use that terminology, because I think that is a pristine community, and continue to create student housing?
Without a strong enforcement effort, without a concerted enforcement effort in this area, I would have to agree with you.
So given the fact that we probably don't have the level of enforcement that should take place, my option, along with the community -- because the community participated in pulling this 14 BILL NO. 050346 - 6/6/05 legislation together -- would be to increase the level of requirement by the developer to ultimately get zoning. That's what we are attempting to do, short of having the appropriate enforcement.
Okay. Well, there is currently, if you can check this out, there's currently a property on 12th Street, I believe it is just south of Jefferson, that is being converted, and I don't recall ever seeing a zoning notification. So if you can track down one of those enforcement officers and ask them to go out and look at that, because I am sure they haven't got proper zoning notification. It is being converted as we speak.
It is on 12th Street, just south of Jefferson. It is actually in the rear of a cul-de-sac. The front of the property is on the cul-de-sac. 15 BILL NO. 050346 - 6/6/05 And the rear, they are taking the garage out and they are converting it into an apartment. And I am willing to bet that there has been no 5 zoning and no building permits.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Seeing none, I would ask anybody else like to testify on this bill?
Mr. Chapman, you can stay there. There are three seats. Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, my name is Barbara King, and I am a resident of Jefferson Manor. And we have written a number of letters to Councilman Clarke asking him to straighten out the boundaries of Jefferson Manor. The way this bill is written up, the townhouses were built in 1958, and it was two sections. And all of the sudden our section 16 BILL NO. 050346 - 6/6/05 is not included with the other section of Jefferson Manor. We need to be protected by the special control district. At present, the enforcement policy under L&I is not protecting us. And this is the first time I ever seen this gentleman, and I don't understand why he is speaking for our community.
Thank you very much. Any questions or comments from the committee of this witness? Thank you for coming in to testify.
Well, I would like to know what the results is going to be before I leave.
We have several bills that are listed, and at the conclusion of the hearing the committee will make its determination. Or you could call Councilman Clarke's office later in the day, since it is his bill.
Can I ask, what does this 17 BILL NO. 050346 - 6/6/05 gentleman have to do with our communities?
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Seeing no one, I would suggest that Ms. Murray please read the title of Bill No. 11 050363.
Bill No. 050363, an Ordinance approving the eighth amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Haddington Urban Renewal Area, Unit No. 1, being the area beginning at the intersection of the northerly side of Parrish Street and the westerly side of 52nd Street, including the eighth amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan and the First Amendment to the Relocation Plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately four properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law; and declaring that 18 BILL NO. 050363 - 6/6/05 condemnation is not imminent with respect to this project.
All right. Are we going to hear from Mr. Wetzel or someone from his office? Good morning.
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
I promise I'm not reading everything in here. Good morning. My name is Herbert Wetzel. I am Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia. Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I am here to speak in support of Bill No. 050363, which is the eighth amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the eighth amendment of the urban renewal plan for the Haddington Unit Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire four 19 BILL NO. 050363 - 6/6/05 properties, four vacant structures will be acquired on behalf of Mr. Carmel Human Services Corporation in partnership with Jacques Ferber. These structures will be substantially rehabilitated and sold to low- and moderate-income first-time home buyers. Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 050363 and would ask for the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June 9, 2005.
Thank you. Mr. Wetzel, what is the estimated cost of acquisition for the four properties?
Am I correct in assuming that NTI bond proceeds are being used for this acquisition?
That is correct, Madam President. 20 BILL NO. 050363 - 6/6/05
What is the source of funding that will be used for the development phase of this proposal, and will that funding come from the Year 31 CDBG budget?
My understanding is that this project is going to use the HRP program, the Homeownership Rehab Program, that's administered by the Redevelopment Authority. It could come from Year 31, it could come from Year 30 money, depending on if there is any Year 30 money left.
Great. Mr. Wetzel, can you please explain to this committee what is meant in the last clause in the title of this and all condemnation bills declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the project?
Yes, Council President. What's before this body in the form of an ordinance is a redevelopment proposal that was adopted by the Redevelopment Authority's Board, which was reviewed by the Planning 21 BILL NO. 050363 - 6/6/05 Commission and is in front of you today. It adopts the proposal, but does in the require the Redevelopment Authority to acquire these properties. The act of acquisition has to be an act taken by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Authority. So Council is authorizing -- or, by authorizing this proposal allows the authority to take that action, but doesn't require or mandate that that action be taken. And there are cases where, for example, Council President, that the project doesn't have all its financing in place, and there may be a desire to wait until the project is fully financed before you would acquire the properties.
I guess for the benefit of those in the audience, too, how is the declaration of taking different from what we are doing here today in Council?
The declaration of taking, which would be approved by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Authority, 22 BILL NO. 050363 - 6/6/05 is the actual act of using its eminent domain powers to acquire the real estate. There are other actions that are taken prior to that, including an appraisal of the property, allowing the owner to be accompanied by the appraisal, an offer letter, and other acts taken by the authority. But the declaration of taking itself is the act of the authority using its eminent domain power to acquire the real estate.
Can you define what a moderate-income buyer is according to the RDA? What is the upper income that a buyer could have and still qualify for a property?
Council President, for the specific dollar amounts, we will get back to you. But in the way the city structures its CDBG program, 80 percent of median or less is considered low and moderate. In many cases, low income is around 50 percent of median, in between 50 and 80 is moderate income. 23 BILL NO. 050363 - 6/6/05 And if you would like the specific dollar amounts for the current year for what those represent, depending on family size, we can make sure you have a copy today.
I would appreciate that. Is the income criteria the same for all affordable housing developments funded through the RDA?
The 80 percent of median is tied to all federal funding that the city has adopted, when you adopt the consolidated plan. Occasionally the Redevelopment Authority will receive or have bond proceeds that have a different criteria and, essentially, consider moderate income up to 115 percent of median.
Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Wetzel from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
You stated that 24 BILL NO. 050363 - 6/6/05 you have put aside a certain sum of money, I think $112,000. How was that dollar amount arrived at?
There is an estimate of the value of the real estate. There are also the advertising costs, the appraisal costs. There is a contingency of 35 percent in the event that there is a negotiated settlement. There are monies set aside for legal fees and other items that all together compose that number. So it may not cost $112,600 in the end; it may be less than that or it could be more than that.
And from whom do you get approval for that larger sum, if needed?
We would have to come back and get approval from the Administration 25 BILL NO. 050363 - 6/6/05 to spend any additional dollars over that amount.
Could we have a copy of that document? Could you send it to the President, so she can make it available?
Yes, we can get you the detailed budget that's behind that number.
Then that money gets reprogrammed and not used. This money, I believe, is in Councilman Nutter's district, so there is a budget for his district. And, so, any unused money then goes back into that budget to be used for future acquisitions.
What about this budget per district; how is that arrived at?
How is the budget for each district arrived at? BILL NO. 050363 - 6/6/05
That's in the NTI program statement and budget. There is a detailed breakdown of how the acquisition money was divided among the various districts.
There is three categories, Councilperson: High, districts that had a high level of vacancy and blight; a moderate level; and I'm not quite sure what the other one was, but let's just say it was a very low level of vacancy and blight. And there was a formula developed to divide the acquisition money among the districts based on that calculation.
Councilperson, I believe it was the NTI office that put that together.
Could we have some document showing that, showing how it was --
Could that be sent together with the document establishing the sum of money allotted?
Right. That document is contained in the program statement and budget. And we can find the reference page in the program statement and budget that each of you have received.
All right. I would be pleased if you would do that. Thank you very much.
Are there any other questions from members of the committee of Mr. Wetzel? Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill?
Please approach the witness table. And Doris, you can also approach the witness table. Good morning. Kindly identify yourself, sir, for the record, and proceed with your testimony. 28 BILL NO. 050363 - 6/6/05 REV. ALBERT F. CAMPBELL: I am Albert F. Campbell, Pastor of the Mr. Carmel Baptist Church in West Philadelphia, which is part of the Haddington district. And President Verna and members of the Rules Committee, I am pleased and delighted to have the opportunity to address this group on behalf of the Mr. Carmel Baptist Church, which is currently in the process of redevelopment of its own facilities and, hopefully, the acquisition of other housing locations that will help to expand the services that we already render in this community. Mr. Carmel Baptist Church is 125 years old in that location, in Haddington. And we have invested just during my own 39 years of tenure there something close to 5 or 6 million dollars in redevelopment. We have built Mt. Carmel Gardens, which is a low- and moderate-income housing development adjacent to our church facilities. We have provided counseling for victims of alcohol and drugs and HIV/AIDS. We provide 29 BILL NO. 050363 - 6/6/05 after-school programs for youngsters in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and in music, both voice and instrumental. And we sponsored a successful charter school, at least it is successful up to this point, called Discovery Charter School. So that we feel we have established an important and meaningful track record in the Haddington area. And, so, our desire is to expand our facilities in order to expand our services. But in light of the bills, two of the bills, 050363 and 050366, which have mentioned eminent domain, it is our desire to redevelop the spaces that are made available to us and the houses that are made available to us; but also to rehabilitate other housing, make other housing renewable for the benefit of those persons who may be relocated, who will want to continue to live in the immediate area. And they will be provided with virtually new housing. And we feel that we have the entity, 30 BILL NO. 050363 - 6/6/05 we have Mt. Carmel Human Development Corporation, we have access to responsible legal counsel and financial counsel that will help to stabilize the community. That's our desire, ultimately, to help stabilize what is a changing, if not deteriorating, neighborhood and community. And we think we can play an important role in making that happen, stabilization, both for the present and the long-term future of the neighborhood and community. And I am here on behalf of Mt. Carmel Baptist Church.
Thank you very much, Reverend. Thank you. Good morning, please identify yourself for the record.
Are you in favor 31 BILL NO. 050363 - 6/6/05 of the passage of this bill?
I know nothing about it. I am here for information. This is all that I know.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I would have to believe that the witness is probably holding up a notice that she had received regarding this property. The documents that we have as a part of this package show 5711 Race Street presently as a vacant structure. And, again, as Reverend Campbell has alluded out, this would be part of a revitalization opportunity for the neighborhood. I do not believe that I know the lady individually, or what her circumstance or situation may be. But I fully support both bills, 363 and, I believe it is, 366, as possibly some of the most important work that 32 BILL NO. 050363 - 6/6/05 will be done in this part of West Philadelphia. I would be glad to have a conversation, or if she needs to talk to the Redevelopment Authority further, about the matter involving this property. But it is listed as a vacant structure and clearly is in need of rehabilitation. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam President, I would be happy for us to sit together and talk about this.
That would be wonderful. And Councilman Nutter just offered his time and service. Thank you, Reverend. Do we have anyone else to testify on Bill No. 050363? Anyone else to testify on Bill No. 050363? Seeing none, no one, I would ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 22 050364.
Bill No. 050364, an Ordinance approving the sixteenth amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the South 33 BILL NO. 050364 - 6/6/05 Central Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at the intersection of the southerly side of Washington Avenue projected and the easterly side of Delaware Avenue, including the sixteenth amendment to the urban renewal Plan and the twelfth amendment to the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately three properties for residential and related re-uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law; and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the project.
Good morning. My name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I am here to speak in support of Bill No. 050364, the sixteenth amended redevelopment proposal and the sixteenth amended urban renewal plan for the South Central Redevelopment Area and the South 34 BILL NO. 050364 - 6/6/05 Central Urban Renewal Area. This bill will allow the Redevelopment Authority to acquire a total of three properties, vacant structures, to support new residential project. The planned amendment includes properties to be acquired under the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. This ordinary provides for the acquisition of three properties on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. Habitat will rehabilitate the three vacant structures on South Colorado Street for sale to very-low-income households. This new development in South Central will support prior development by Habitat and will not require additional public subsidy. This project was recommended in the Office of Housing and Community Development's RFP for the acquisition and development of homeownership. The estimated acquisition costs for this project is $250,000. Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable 35 BILL NO. 050364 - 6/6/05 consideration of Bill No. 050364, and would ask for the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June 9, 2005. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Wetzel. I am rather curious, why is it that you have chosen to reveal the cost of acquisition for this bill and two others, but for the vast majority of the bills before us you have included no testimony about the cost of acquisition?
You have got a very good eye, Council President, and I would be glad to include it in all in the future. And I can also probably tell you on the ones that don't have it in the actual testimony, I believe I will either get you the answer today or I will be able to tell you now because I may have it in my material. In the future, I will be cognizant of and we will include the cost of acquisition in the testimony directly.
Thank you. 36 BILL NO. 050364 - 6/6/05 Is the cost identified for acquisition just the fair market value compensation for the land, or does it include all RDA costs for legal and advertising, as well?
Yes, Council President, the detailed budget that backs up each one of these includes the estimate of the fair market value of the real estate, but also the additional costs associated with acquisition; including appraisals, title reports, advertising costs, potential legal fees, and a contingency fund in the event that there is a negotiated settlement.
Can you tell me what the average price of homes in the nearby area would be?
Council President, I can't off the top of my head. But we will get that detail from the budget that was put together and deliver it to you.
Very well. This is my bill. And I will not at this time, I will repeat, at this time, support the 37 BILL NO. 050364 - 6/6/05 declaration of taking for 1024 South Colorado Street. Do we have any questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
I haven't heard in any of the bills presented by you, Mr. Wetzel, anything about an investigation as to how the community feels. Are these places without other communities or other people going to be affected by these various condemnations or takings or improvements?
Councilman, my understanding in this particular instance, and in many of these instances, this is three vacant shells. I think the Council President has asked us not to acquire one of those three. Am I correct, Council President?
Yes. That's 1024 South Colorado Street. And I can only talk for my bill, Councilman -- 38 BILL NO. 050364 - 6/6/05
I am not thinking of any particular bill. I am just noting --
I can tell you that both SOSNA and the ward leader have agreed to what we are doing here.
I am just wondering, don't you, as a matter of course, document your efforts made to inform community residents in case any of them have any knowledge? I am content that the area covered by the Council President is fully dealt with, but I am thinking of other areas. You have covered quite a wide area here this morning.
Councilman, what we do is, we rely on the other city agencies that are asking for this acquisition and District Councilpeople to inform us as to whether or not there are any issues with the neighborhood. We would not proceed if the 39 BILL NO. 050364 - 6/6/05 Councilperson or the entity that's asking that we acquire these, if they felt that there wasn't some sense of support for this. So we do rely on others, Councilman, in order to put this package together.
Well, do you indicate somewhere the extent on which you rely and how deeply you question whoever speaks on behalf of the community to make sure yourself that the investigation has covered enough ground? If I had a conference with each member of City Council to know that each one did a thorough investigation and had full concern, that would be one thing. But District Council members are quite busy, and they may or may not have the time nor the inclination for whatever reason to make a full investigation. I am interested in my duty to protect constituents much more than I am interested in the particular rights of the Council member. (Applause.) 40 BILL NO. 050364 - 6/6/05
I understand, Councilman, and my answer is the same. We are relying on the different city entities that make these requests and working closely with District Councilpeople. That's the extent of our investigation.
And, Councilman, I am sure that before a Council member introduces an ordinance that's in his district, he certainly wants to be completely aware of --
There is a difference of opinion with respect to that, particularly on several occasions Council members get very busy, and they may or may not have the time. I think it is the duty of the acquiring agency to make certain, not to depend on unknown factors involving other people's decisions. And, to me, it has always 41 BILL NO. 050364 - 6/6/05 been fundamental that the acquiring agency must make an independent investigation. Has that matter been researched by Redevelopment?
Well, I would like you to and would be requesting independently a recommendation from the City Solicitor
And I think that City Council is the authorizing agency, that's why we are here today.
I'm not trying to lessen the role of the Council member, but I think it gives the Council member full protection.
Yes. Mr. Wetzel, I just want to know, these properties, they are not vacant, are they? Or are they vacant?
In this ordinance, yes, 42 BILL NO. 050364 - 6/6/05 they are.
They are vacant. And I understand that they are being developed by Habitat?
In other words, they have the properties in hand and they are doing the restoration or all the improvements to these properties?
Well, they don't have them in hand. We have to carry out this ordinance, and then we will convey them to habitat. Habitat has done a number of rehabs. And I think one of the fascinating things with Habitat is that the buyer, the person that's going to buy, actually has to work on the house and help rehab the house they are going to live in. It is a very exciting program.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? 43 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Seeing no one, I would ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 6 050365.
050365, an Ordinance 8 approving the First Amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the 51st and Baltimore Avenue Urban Renewal Area, being the area in and around the 5000 and 5100 block of Baltimore Avenue at 51st Street, including the First Amendment to the urban renewal plan and the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisitions of approximately properties for institutional 17 and related uses; the provision of certain 18 relocation services, as required by law; and 19 declaring that condemnation is not imminent 20 with respect to the project. 21
Thank you. The 22 Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell. 23
Thank you, 24 Madam President. We strongly support this bill and 44 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 its intended use; that is, the redevelopment of this stretch of Baltimore Avenue supported by BARC, Baltimore Avenue Redevelopment Corporation. Almost ten years ago we first met with Bishop Patterson to create this urban renewal area for Mercy Health Center and made a commitment to redevelop this stretch of Baltimore Avenue with the social service theme and recognition of the growing needs of families in adjacent blocks. We welcome the University area residents and institutions, as well as Cedar Park neighbors who may want to deal with the creation of retail shops and push the real estate market. We would like, however, to note that in the 5100 and 5200 blocks of Baltimore Avenue, the churches and pastors in that area have long had a stewardship about what happens. And we hope that the faith-based community and Cedar Park neighbors and others can work together with regard to the future of 45 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 this area. We applaud faith-based redevelopment plans and it reminds us that this area is a gateway to Southwest, a section of the city that has high rates of disease and unemployment. We believe that this redevelopment proposal will provide a balance for the existing residents, as well as new residents, so that we maintain a diverse and equitable community now and into the future. Thank you.
Good morning. My name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I am here to speak in support of Bill No. 050365, which is the first amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the first amended urban renewal plan for the 51st and Baltimore urban renewal area. This bill would authorize the 46 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 Redevelopment Authority to acquire vacant structures and lots. 21 properties comprised of vacant structures and 15 lots will be 5 acquired on behalf of the Baltimore Avenue 6 Redevelopment Corporation, Incorporated, or BARC. These structures will be demolished and on the assembled land will be a newly constructed with 38,000 square feet community development center, which will be leased by the Richard Allen Preparatory Charter School and shared for night and weekend adult and continuing education programming. Three vacant structures will be acquired on behalf of the Peoples Baptist Church to be fully rehabilitated and used as a community center. Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 050365 and would ask for the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June 9, 2005.
Mr. Wetzel, I am assuming that all of the properties that we're 47 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 referring to in this bill are vacant? AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No. No. 4
The data that we have indicated that all the structures were vacant. AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Do your homework.
There's properties, 12 Council President. There are 15 lots and 9 13 structures. 14
You know, the 24 15 properties to be acquired in this bill 16 represent one of the larger proposed takings 17 we're considering today. 18 I think the total under 19 consideration is approximately 185 properties; 20 is that correct? 21
That makes me 23 wonder how quickly the Redevelopment Authority 24 can process these bills. If we approved these bills today and 48 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 the Mayor were to sign them this month, when do you reasonably anticipate the Redevelopment Authority will have these properties in their inventory for disposition to redevelopers?
Council President, approximately nine months from the time the Mayor approves the ordinance.
I know that you would probably not have this answer off the top of your head. But of the more than 5,000 parcels that Council has approved for acquisition since 2002, how many have actually been acquired by the RDA and how many have been disposed of to the intended recipients?
I know you have that information off the top of your head, I just know that.
Council President, I wish I did. Well over 2000 have been acquired, and I will have to find out how many have been 49 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 disposed of.
What is the Baltimore Avenue Redevelopment Corporation? Who is the head of that organization? Would you take the witness table, please. Good morning, sir. Welcome. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Joseph D. Patterson. I am the former Pastor of the church at 50th and Baltimore Avenue.
Okay. And, Bishop, you are the head of the organization?
Can you tell us who is the head of the Board of the Richard Allen Preparatory Charter School?
When I came to that area, 50th and Baltimore, I began to 50 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 think in terms of the academics of our young people. And I developed a child care center that had over 175 children, and then we moved into the charter school area. And we now have 350 young people, with a waiting list of another 75. And that is the reason why we want to expand our facilities. I also was the builder of the wellness center at 50th and Baltimore Avenue that will be adjacent to this property.
Thank you, Bishop. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Your name, please. We will take everyone. Please. Please identify yourself, sir, for the record.
I am Dr. Benjamin Smallwood. I am a consultant to the Baltimore Avenue Redevelopment Corporation, and my firm is Management and Environmental Technologies, Inc. Just to add with what Dr. Patterson said, the Baltimore Avenue Redevelopment Corporation was created in 1990, and its 51 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 mission was to combat deteriorating areas, particularly the Baltimore Avenue business corridor. In 1997, the Baltimore Avenue Redevelopment Corporation was named redeveloper of the 51st and Baltimore Avenue urban renewal area and acquired properties from 5008 Baltimore Avenue to 5038 Baltimore Avenue. Those structures were demolished and a new $3 million outpatient medical center was constructed in an area which had been heretofore considered medically underserved. In October 1998, the Samuel J. Patterson Mercy Wellness Center opened with a lease to Mercy Health Systems for 15 years, and it carries with it two 15-year options. Additionally, after the opening of the medical center, support for the Baltimore Avenue Community Development Center was requested by BARC and support was received from Councilwoman Jannie L. Blackwell. The community center will be located adjacent to the medical center on 50th and 52 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 Baltimore Avenue. The Baltimore Avenue Community Development Center will be used by a public education entity and will host evening and weekend job training, education training, and social events for community organizations, adults, and youths. The local community will be involved in the planning of the evening and weekend activities of the center. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Do we have any questions of the witnesses from members of the committee? Thank you very much, Bishop. Thank you very much, sir. We will now hear from members of the community, I assume.
She had called and said she wanted to testify. Can you pull the chair closer to the witness table, please, identify yourself for the record, and proceed with your testimony. 53 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05
My name is Carla Brown and I am a property owner in the area that they are talking about redeveloping, that they are stating that all the properties have been researched and they found that they were vacant. My property is not vacant. I am 739 South 51st Street.
It was a residential property. It is a garage. I purchased this for a business. I purchased this from the city. And if the city knew that they were -- they already had this in the makings, why did they sell it to me? Why did they sell it to me and let me put my money in it?
I understand that this may be one of those Lineberger issues. Because Reverend Patterson, from at least ten years, has been working on this, Bishop Patterson and his project. But, you know, Lineberger doesn't always work with City Council. That's one of our myriad issues with them. And I agree with her, knowing that this was well underway, and Bishop Patterson had a record building the wellness center in the middle of the block on Baltimore Avenue, they should communicate. But, you know, it is part of the issues that we have with Lineberger because they should not have had her come out and plan to -- she planned to do a development in a garage that was planned for another project for years and years, at least ten years. So it's --
When you say you acquired this property, was it through 55 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 sheriff's sale?
I acquired it through sheriff's sale, which means it was public notice. Which means that anybody and everybody that had anything to do with this property should have known that it was up for sheriff's sale.
Automotive business. It is a garage. It was already a garage. We went -- first of all, we had squatters there, so we had to legally remove the squatters. So, that's the first issue. So now that we are actually physically into the property after all the redevelopment, we are ready to open for business, and now we get this letter. We spent a lot of money on this property, and now we get this letter saying that, "We're going to acquire this property."
Okay. We will certainly have to put this under consideration. 56 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 The next witness, please.
I am Kathy Huggins from the Peoples Baptist Church for the Peoples Community Center. And I have a representative from our organization to speak on behalf of our church.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record. MS. DEBRA McMILLAN: My name is Debra McMillan, I am one of the Board members of the Peoples Community Center. We would like to thank Council Jannie Blackwell for helping us in the process of identifying these properties for us adjacent to our church for us to be able to continue our community outreach and social services to the neighbors around Baltimore Avenue and Baltimore Avenue corridor. We are a little disappointed that we had a community meeting in April, and to know now that Cedar Park has concerns about our project. But we did have a community meeting where all the neighborhood groups were brought 57 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 together. And at that time there was a lot of support for our plans. Our first project is a culinary arts program for the neighborhood, to include a collaboration with the Penn State extension program to focus on nutrition, as well as healthy eating and cooking, to start this summer. And we are looking forward to expanding our services to the community after we get these properties, and then are able to plan toward the building of a community center to properly serve the area. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of the committee of these witnesses? Thank you, ladies. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record, sir.
My name is Josh Schneider, and I am with Cedar Park Neighbors Community Corporation. I would like to thank the Council for hearing us. 58 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 Cedar Park Neighbors includes the area -- or, Cedar Park includes the area under consideration here. And we are currently coordinating a major effort to renovate the park at 49th and Baltimore, Cedar Park, and have been interested in commercial development and other development on Baltimore Avenue from 49th to 52nd. Our boundary goes out to 52nd. And we would very much like to see a comprehensive development plan go forward here and would like dialogue with others about what form this will take. We hope that the full details will be made available to the community and input taken before any construction plans are approved. And we did have this meeting in April, the mentioned meeting, but we really didn't get any information about this project. And we also have some specific concerns which we would like addressed, if we can. There has been no information about the proposed plan shared with residents, really; a very, very tiny bit. And it has 59 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 been difficult to get any details about the project. And this is a time when there is significant and frustrated demand for retail space on the Baltimore Avenue corridor. And this proposal calls for the elimination of a major portion of retail space to accommodate what we understand -- part of it for what we understand will be parking lots temporarily. And that is because we understand that Peoples Baptist may not have the funding right now to go forward with their community center project on the north side of Baltimore Avenue. We understand that the plan calls for land to be utilized for nonprofit purposes. And we are a little concerned about the undermining of the tax base by changing these properties into nonprofit entities across the board. And we are concerned about the splintering of retail space by the leveling of property on the north side of the avenue, and it may have a significant negative impact on 60 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 new and old businesses because of the diminishment of the overall retail potential. And, finally, we are wondering if anyone has determined whether the existing properties are structurally unsound or too expensive to rehabilitate, particularly on the north side of Baltimore, and has consideration been made of the value of the original architecture on the avenue, also considering that real estate values have been increasing in the area. And, finally, it should be noted that several businesses have started, including the Browns, and there is another business in one of the properties that's to be taken on the south side of Baltimore that's currently being rehabbed to be a salon. So we are concerned about taking aware those potential commercial properties. Thank you.
I am not a property owner on the block; I am a representative of 61 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 the community organization that covers this neighborhood. And our real concern is that we don't have a comprehensive idea of what this plan consists of.
Mr. Schneider, I just want to know, have you been working with the Baltimore Avenue Redevelopment Corporation? Have you recommended --
I have had one contact with Dr. Smallwood, who just spoke, and with Dr. --
You seem to be interested in commercial development of that strip, rather than Richard Allen Preparatory Charter School.
We are not opposed to the charter school or the community center. We are interested in knowing more about the project, to know what form it will take, whether there is the potential even for retail space on the first floor of it, and other 62 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 details like where parking might be.
In other words, you are thinking of mixed use, more or less?
That would be of interest to us, yes. And, simply, we would like to have a conversation with the BARC and the Councilwoman's office about this. COMMISSIONER KELLY: I just wanted to clear that up. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Our next witness, would you please identify yourself for the record, please.
I am Victoria Bassi. I own a property on 5040 Baltimore Avenue. I bought the property, and they sent me my title for the property, and I am surprised I am hearing they want to repossess the property for their use. I am building a drugstore, an individual drugstore, and I have my plan set, which are they should be finishing by December. So...
I'm sorry. Did we 63 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 understand you to say that you own the property?
I bought the property March, and I bought it from the owner. And the owner bought it from sheriff's sale, he said. And I just got my title came in.
Madam President, again, this is an instance. As you know, all of us get lists of properties on sheriff's sale, but we never know -- on the other end, we don't get lists of people, if they are purchased or not. So we don't have 64 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 any way of knowing that. And these really should not have, after all these years, at least ten years on the project, it should not have happened. But we never get, we don't get information in that regard.
I came to the city to ask them if my property is among the one they were talking about, and they told me no. 11
Excuse me. I worked with the sheriff's sale properties. And you can go online. And if you are tracking a property, you can go online and find out when it is going to be sold, what the results were, and you can contact the sheriff's office to find out who bought it. So I can't even believe that this is the second sheriff's sale property that was sold, and -- under this planning. You already knew you wanted it. Why didn't you take it? You had, you had a 65 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 greater opportunity of getting it before we as a small businesspeople came along and took our hard-earned money and put it into this property. You had that opportunity.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We have witnesses at the table that I would like to recognize. Sir, please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Frankie Francis, owner of Francis Funeral Home located 5201 Whitney Avenue, which is approximately 100 yards from the properties that are at issue here. The Francis Funeral Home has made a major investment in the community, and also we actually have acquired four of the properties ourselves for the purpose of development. And I want to say that there are three business owners presently sitting here before you all that have a lot at risk, you know. Development is underway, there is a lot going on at the 52nd Street -- 51st Street 66 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 area, 51st and Baltimore Street area. You know, pretty much, you know, we stand here to, we want to keep what we have, we don't want to sell it, and development is in progress.
How long have you been located at your place of business?
Francis Funeral Home has been at this location, we relocated there, approximately in 1999. But prior to that, we have been open, we have been established, for years. 14
Madam 15 President, we remember when this business, 16 this funeral parlor, relocated to the area, 17 and the people only have fine things to say 18 about it. And I know people who do business with them. I had no idea, we had no idea, that he was interested in properties in the area. He didn't contact us. We are happy to work with him in that regard because he has been a good addition to that corner, and we are glad to have him to that side of Baltimore Avenue. 67 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 So if they will contact Alicia Snead, we are happy to have discussions with him. But he has interacted with various community groups, et cetera. And, frankly, I am just surprised he didn't contact us, because he does work with businesses and other entities and store owners and, you know, other businesses on the Baltimore Avenue. So if he will contact us, or contact Alicia Snead, we can have a discussion.
My name is Sean Dorn, and I would like to thank Council for letting us all speak. I am a business owner on the 5000 block of Baltimore. We opened -- we bought the building two years ago. And we have had -- we have opened a new store, basically a boutique store, gift store, on that block. And since we have opened -- well, in 68 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 the time that we were working on that block, every day that I was painting and doing restoration of the commercial space, I would have two or three people stop by asking about, you know, would we be renting that space. I know there is a big demand for commercial development on that block. It is just these buildings that they are in very rough shape, and I think a lot of people have been hesitant to tackle those buildings. I also understand very much that there is financial limitations for what -- in these kind of projects, how much is available. But as a business owner on that block that has seen four new businesses open in the last two years, our business is Mialou at 5009 Baltimore. And at, like, 5031, I think there is a store called Culture that's also brought a lot of foot traffic to the block. As much as possible on both these developments, if there is any way, I would like to encourage -- to be a voice for encouraging retaining commercial on the ground floor. 69 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 And I realize, of course, that there is limitations in that. But, this is a very busy commercial corridor. I mean, it is on the trolley line, it is a very -- it was once the densest block of store fronts in that -- on the entire Baltimore Avenue corridor. So part of the problem is, I have been playing phone tag with BARC. But it is a little -- I have very much respect for what BARC has done with the Mercy Health Center as an addition to the block. But I would very much like to emphasize that, as a business owner on that block, it would be great for any new development on that block that provides community services to include commercial on the ground floor as part of the new development. Thank you.
Madam President, if I may. For those who may know the area, it is really blighted, this area we are talking about. And it is just amazing; we have a lot of interest today. And I just regret that we couldn't have had these 70 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 meetings earlier. We were at a meeting attended by several hundred people, the meeting that was referenced here. And I believe that, you know, my opinion is always that, well-intentioned people can work things out. So we certainly will be available to have Cedar Park neighbors and BARC have a meeting, but we certainly believe that we should move forward. I mean this is an opportunity to really -- you know, the wellness center was mentioned a few times because it is really a beacon in that area. It is a really, really blighted area. And we are glad to have all of this interest. But, as I said, this has been planned since the wellness center. I mean, we are talking ten years. And we are glad to have the interest now, but we don't believe that it is in the best interests of the community to stop the project; but meet, we will make ourselves available, have Cedar Park Neighbors and BARC 71 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 meet, and see what we can work out together.
Councilwoman, I just have a question. How long has this area been a blight?
It has been blighted -- gosh, I don't know. It has been -- how many years? years? I mean -- 9
In 20 years there 10 hasn't been anyone from the business community 11 to come around and say, we will develop it or 12 we will put stores in, or whatever? 13
There 14 hasn't been that concerted push. No, 15 Councilman, there hasn't. 16 And we want to work with them. And 17 we realize that real estate values here and 18 across the country are moving. 19 But it just seems somehow unfair to 20 now say, we have ideas, when we have been waiting forever and tried -- and the church, Bishop Patterson who has his church on one of the main corridors in that community, said we have got to do something to service the people in the neighborhood. 72 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 So absolutely it has been vacant 20, years, it has been blighted. And you know, 4 I mean, seriously blighted, so that I am 5 embarrassed every time I go through the area. 6
Do we have anyone 9 else to testify on this bill? 10 Please approach the witness table. 11
Carla Brown again. I 12 just want to know when we are going to receive 13 an answer as to what the end result will be? 14 Because as it is, being that is my 15 husband's lifeline as far as his business 16 goes, that kind of leaves us flat. 17 We bought this intentionally to open 18 a business that is his business. And if we 19 don't have that business, we have no business. 20
Madam 21 President, there is no business there now; 22 there is a vacant garage. We are happy to 23 work with her. 24
No, it is not. No, it 25 is not. No, it is not. No, it is not. Go 73 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 there.
I am her husband, I am Keith Brown. If she or any of her workers were to come around, they would have seen that that place had been rehabbed, with trees planted in it, painted, all redone correctly. If you had been around there. And, like I said, when your city workers, your little project came around to put fences up around it, the only thing that your project came in and broke up the sidewalk with its big tractors while it went and cleaned everything up. Which I then took my money out and patched up the sidewalks to make sure that it was correct. $3,000 of my own cash.
I do, too. I would like you to come around there and see, some of your workers. 74 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05
Mr. Wetzel, please approach the witness table. Mr. Wetzel, assuming that the Redevelopment Authority moves forward with the acquisition, can you tell us what compensation are the openers entitled to?
The owners are entitled to the fair market value of their property. They are entitled, if there are operating a business, for any cost of moving any machinery or equipment. They are entitled to services to help them locate another facility. They are entitled to up to $10,000 for business reestablishment purposes.
How about renovations, if they made improvements to the -- 75 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05
Those improvements should be considered when the appraisal is done as an increase in the value of the property.
But, for instance, if they put a new roof on or whatnot, they had a bill to prove that they spent thousands of dollars for a new roof, you would automatically include that?
No. The property would be appraised by an appraiser. They would also have a right to have an appraisal done, and we would provide them up to $500 towards an appraisal. If their appraisal and our appraisal were close, you could have a negotiated settlement. If not, they have a right to have a hearing at a Board of U, who essentially is appointed by judges to hear the case, and then a ruling could be done at the Board of U. And then there is also the option of Common Pleas Court.
They do have a right to appeal, in other words? 76 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05
Yes, they do. And they have a right to go to Common Pleas Court, as well.
Which means spend more money? Do we have to spend more money now?
I don't think that you may have heard what Mr. Wetzel said.
My understanding is -- and correct me, Councilwoman -- you said you would be willing to sit down and talk with folks?
Absolutely. Always. We have out there every day, all the time. I am available. I am at meetings seven days a week. You know, this is the first that I heard that they or any of these folks have an issue.
Well, when you were in the meeting a couple of months ago down there, don't you take a walk around the neighborhood to see? I mean, I'm sure you do. But you weren't paying close attention to, I am sure, some of the houses then. That's the answer I expect. No 77 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 answer.
Madam President, I am work hard. I am out in that area every day. So if there is an issue, we have said we are willing to work with anybody and everybody. And out of that meeting, we did not get -- it was a big community meeting, and we thought it ended positively. And this is the first time I am getting this feedback that people have an issue in a public forum. We are happy to meet. We schedule meetings with everyone, and had that meeting and had all the ministers and everybody else there. I mean, it is what we do. I believe in my community. I believe in the residents there. We are happy to work with them. We can argue, but it is not going to change anything.
Mr. Wetzel, I am assuming that the acquisition and relocation of the businesses is going to be very costly. Wouldn't you be in agreement with me?
Won't the acquisition and the relocation of businesses be very costly?
It depends on what the appraised value of the real estate is and whether or not there is significant machinery and equipment that needs to be moved. Or, if it is left in place, we have an obligation to purchase it. But, again, the question is, ultimately, does this project and any public purpose outweigh that. And that's a judgment call that has to be made by a body like this and our Board of Directors.
I know that you are really quite emotional right now. And I think it is imperative that all of you who have concerns about this sit with Mr. Wetzel and Councilwoman Blackwell and try to work this out to the best of everybody's interest. Okay. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? 79 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 Yes. Mr. Schneider, is it?
Yes. Briefly I just wanted to emphasize, again, we are not against this Baltimore Avenue Redevelopment Corporation project, nor are we against Patterson's project. But we -- our concern with the Baltimore Avenue Redevelopment Corporation project, in my communications with Dr. Smallwood, my understanding as of about a month and a half ago was that there is no 13 final architectural plan yet for this project. I don't know if that has changed. But the parcels under consideration include about two blocks of vacant lot, which is a serious problem for the neighborhood. And I'm not sure whether the plan could make better use of the vacant land, rather than existing properties. So, that's number one. And then on the north side of Baltimore Avenue, the properties that Patterson would like to take, our concern would be severalfold. First of all, if it is going to be 80 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 turned into a parking lot as an interim project while money is being raised, because we have heard there isn't funding in place for them to actually build new buildings in that, the old building's place, so that's a concern to us. Having a parking lot is a concern to us. And the destruction of the old properties, if they could be rehabbed, is of concern to us, in addition to having commercial space.
Well, all of the issues as you have expressed and concerns are not something that this committee could be responding to. As I said, you are going to have to get together with Councilwoman Blackwell, I assume the Bishop, and Mr. Wetzel, and whoever else could give you the information that you are seeking.
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on 81 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 this bill? Seeing no one.
We are not sure that even all code requirements are even in compliance with regard to all of that. So all this arguing, you know, for no reasons. You know, we are not even sure that they are in compliance with all our city rules and regs and tax requirements. But, again, we want to work with everyone. But, as Councilman Kelly asked, after years, it is just makes me wonder 17 why, if folks had other ideas, and even Cedar 18 Park, if they had other mixed-use issues, we 19 worked with them on everything else, I was 20 with them at an affair last week. 21 That's why we are here. We are the 22 Councilperson elected to represent the area. 23 You want to work with me, come. If not, I 24 have no way of knowing if, when I interact 25 with you, you don't say it. And we have been 82 BILL NO. 050365 - 6/6/05 meeting with Bishop Patterson all these years and years.
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Seeing no one, I would ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 8 050366.
Bill No. 050366, an Ordinance approving the eighth amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Haddington Urban Renewal Area, Unit No. 2 and Unit No. 3, being the area beginning at the northwest corner of Parrish and 52nd Street to the southerly side of Wyalusing Avenue, including the fourth amendment to the urban renewal plan and the third amendment to the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 12 properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as we required by law; and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the project.
Mr. Wetzel, I 83 BILL NO. 050366 - 6/6/05 invite you to the witness table.
Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I am here to speak in support of Bill No. 050366, which is the eighth amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the fourth amendment of the urban renewal plan for Haddington Units No. 2-3 urban renewal area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 12 properties. 12 vacant structures will be acquired on behalf of Mt. Carmel Human Development Corporation, in partnership with Jacques Ferber. These structures will be substantially rehabilitated and sold to low- and moderate-income first-time home buyers. Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 050366 and would ask the suspension of Council Rules to allow first 84 BILL NO. 050366 - 6/6/05 reading on June 9, 2005. Madam President, this bill is a companion bill to the first bill that was heard today. The church actually is near two urban renewal areas, so this is the second one that adds additional properties for the church to rehabilitate and sell.
I am just a little curious, how is the Haddington Units No. 2-3 urban renewal area different from the Haddington Unit No. 1 urban renewal area?
I would like to ask a staff person to go up there and point those out. Council President, sometimes these things are really old and it is hard for anybody on a temporary basis to determine why they would even name something they way they named it.
While he is walking up to the map, can you give us the estimated cost for acquisition for these 12 properties?
Okay. There is 2. And where is 1? Okay. Are they directly adjacent to each other?
Very well. Thank you very much. Any questions from members of the committee? Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Good morning, sir. Please identify yourself, for the record.
My name is Ray Boun. I own a property at 5852 Race. I would like to ask the Council to exclude that property from this bill that's being presented right now. I have an individual who wants to take that property and renovate it and use it for a childcare center. And I can't see why 86 BILL NO. 050366 - 6/6/05 the city wants to pay money for a private individual who is going to take over and have to spend all the city's money. And he is ready to do it now. We just got a notice like two weeks -- less than a week. Actually, picked up mine only on Friday, come down for a hearing, and the other one was dated on the 23rd. So we don't even know what's going on.
Well, I think that's an issue you would have to discuss with -- Councilman Nutter is just walking in. And, sir -- The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
I didn't purchase it. It was left to me in a will. It was left to me.
It was a drugstore at one time. And now it was left to me. And we have a lot of people that want to use the property as sort of a grocery-store-type thing, but they did not -- the people in the area did not agree to have that. I was talking to people just informally.
And, also, this gentleman wants to use it, ready to renovate, bring it up to snuff, and we were just getting ready to 88 BILL NO. 050366 - 6/6/05 do it, when we got this notice. So that's why I am here to ask that it be excluded from this bill.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Sir, I apologize. I was not in the room when you came up to the table. It is my understanding you are the owner of the property; is that correct?
And who is the person who is interested in renovating the property?
He is, I guess you call 89 BILL NO. 050366 - 6/6/05 it, an entrepreneur. He has -- he does redevelopment or remodeling on the side, has another job.
He remodels houses. And he wants to use this property to develop -- to put the property up for code for a daycare center.
I understand. What do you mean, he does it on the side? What does he do?
I mean, this is just another source of his income, to renovate. And he does that type of work, renovating, and he has done it for several years.
I'm not sure exactly what the -- his actual area where he works. It's like, I guess -- I don't know, you guys doing 90 BILL NO. 050366 - 6/6/05 this redevelopment and stuff like that. And he does it, is tear down buildings and whatnot. I don't know.
For the city. So he says he know how it does, he has been doing other work, and he wants to use that property. He has a family that lives next-door, so he is very interested in doing that.
So you own the property. The property is on the list. You are trying to work a deal with someone else who works for the city so the property is not --
He works for the city. I mean, there is not any kind of funny business going on. He just -- I know the family, and he wants to -- he doesn't want to have a business that's next-door to him where you have a lot of people hanging out on the corner. It is a corner property.
And we have been trying to find somebody that's suitable to keep the property -- keep the -- so the property will not go down the tubes.
Well, you are going down a path that I don't particularly want to go down. So, the property is on the list. I expect that the bill is going to go forward. Anything else that you would like to try to work out, you are going to need to have a conversation with the Redevelopment Authority about that. The property is not going to be taken off the list, and it is going to stay there. Okay?
That's the situation. All these other side issues, and who is working with who and who is connected to who, other than trying to get an understanding of what's going on here, I'm not getting into 92 BILL NO. 050366 - 6/6/05 those matters. That's not a place for me to be. But the property is vacant?
It needs to be renovated. We have some windows that were broken.
The property is considered dangerous, is that not right?
I think it has been examined by engineers and I think it is in a dangerous situation.
I don't know how they examined it. But, okay. I will go along with what you are saying.
The gentleman next to you would love to have a conversation with you after this hearing. Thank you for coming. 93 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Seeing no one, I would ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 7 050367.
Bill 050367, an Ordinance approving the third amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the 45th and Sansom urban renewal area, being the area generally bounded by Market Street on the north, South 44th Street on the east, Walnut Street on the south, and Farragut Street on the west, including the third amendment to the urban renewal plan and the First Amendment to the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the expansion of the northern boundary of the urban renewal area from Chestnut Street to Market Street between 44th and Farragut Street, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 11 properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring that condemnation is not imminent 94 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05 with respect to the project.
Thank you. Good afternoon Madam Chairperson and members of the committee. I am here to speak in support of Bill No. 050367, the third amended redevelopment proposal and the third amended urban renewal plan for the 45th and Sansom redevelopment area and the 45th and Sansom urban renewal area. This bill will allow the Redevelopment Authority to acquire a total of 11 properties, 4 vacant structures and 7 vacant lots, to support a new residential project. The plan amendment includes properties to be acquired under the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. The purpose of this amendment is to provide for the acquisition of these 11 properties on behalf of Partnership CDC. The Partnership will redevelop the properties into single-family homes for sale 95 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05 at market rates. This project was recommended in the Office of Housing and Community Development's RFP for acquisition and development for homeownership. The estimated acquisition costs for this project are $580,000. Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 050367, and would ask for the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June 9, 2005. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President. We are happy to speak in support of this bill. This is the second phase of a redevelopment project under the Partnership Community Development Corporation and a joint venture with Charles Lomax. We are especially pleased that we have minority market-rate developer in our district who is doing this 96 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05 project. To Mr. Wetzel, we say that a gentleman came to us with regard to 131 South 46th Street. We will speak to you to the side to talk about that, before the hearing is over, to see if we need to support that or not. And let me just take advantage of the opportunity to speak, to talk about those folks who weren't even zoned for business, who came in to complain. It is very unfortunate to take our time, when they are not even in order. To say all this about business, they are not even zoned for business and not zoned for auto repair, in spite of all that fussing that was done. All right. Thank you, Madam President. That's just an aside.
Mr. Wetzel. The bill before us states that 11 properties will be acquired, as does your testimony, but then your testimony states that 4 vacant structures and 11 vacant lots will be acquired, which 97 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05 would total 15 properties.
Council President, there are 7 lots. My error. You are really on it today.
I just wanted to make that correction for the record. Normally the bills we consider for eminent domain support affordable housing developments. Your testimony states that these will be market-rate homes. That being the case, will the developer be paying the RDA for the costs of land acquisition so that those dollars can be recycled into RDA's acquisition fund?
Yes. The policy that was adopted in the program statement and budget with regards to properties acquired by the bond funds from NTI require that properties be disposed of for projects that are going to sell at fair market value, that 98 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05 the actual land or the land and the buildings be sold at fair market value. And those funds then either go back into the original administration pot, if that's where the source was, or into the District Councilperson's fund.
Thank you. Do we have anyone on the committee to ask questions of Mr. Wetzel? Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. My name is Blain Stoddard, I am Executive Director of the Partnership CDC. We are in Council District 3. And I am here to testify in support of this bill with regards to what we are doing. And I do have prepared notes, but I am going to defer, as usual, from my prepared notes to talk about two issues. And one goes directly to your question, Madam Chair, and to the distinguished Councilpeople that are present, 99 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05 and to our Councilperson, Jannie Blackwell. The dollars that RDA is actually using to acquire these properties were actually from the first phase, where we paid in to the RDA to purchase the properties. So those dollars are being recycled. So this is a testament to the success of the program. Let me also say this: Of the properties we are doing, although they are market rate, we are doing 10 percent below market rate for low income for this one project. For all the other projects across West Philadelphia that we do, all those projects are low-income housing. So this is the only market-rate project we are doing based on the specifications that we were given by NTI. Two other points I want to make. One is, the Mayor of Philadelphia, along with our Councilperson -- you were there, Madam Chairperson -- signed an NTI bill on the 4500 block off Sansom Street two and a half years ago, and the construction has started on that 100 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05 block. So we are very happy to report that. There was a press conference, and something is actually happening. So, that's the first point. My second point is in defense of our Councilperson, Councilwoman Blackwell. And I am going to say this publicly for the record as it relates to how we treat people with this relocation business, because I know a lot of people are here and they are concerned. Let me say this: If you are in the 3rd Councilmanic District, nobody, I repeat nobody, is going to be relocated unless they are well taken care of. We do not put people out on the streets.
It is a shame you weren't testifying prior to the other people testifying.
We moved -- by the way, for the record, these houses are sinking homes. We have had two engineering studies, one by the City of Philadelphia and one commissioned by the Partnership CDC, that says 101 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05 that there is a creek running under here. And for new housing to be built in this area, we have to put pilings or 30 5 feet into the ground, and then on top of these 6 steel pilings you can put a new foundation. 7 So that's critical, that the 8 committee knows that this is the sinking homes 9 area on Sansom Street. So we strongly believe 10 that these houses and this land should be 11 taken so that new housing can go here, but 12 they have to be built and engineered in such a 13 way that they can withstand for another 100 14 years. And we have engineering studies to 15 prove that. 16 But my last point, again, is about 17 this relocation issue. We relocated two 18 families, the Ransoms and the Tucks. And some 19 of these people came to this City Council and 20 testified. And I wish they were here today. We put them in Korman Suites when we moved them out of their houses. Councilwoman was able to work out a deal with the Redevelopment Authority. We were able to purchase new homes for them. And, actually, 102 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05 we paid the movers to move them from their house to the Korman Suites, from Korman Suites, into their new homes. One family moved into Yeadon and another moved into Overbrook. And after they moved, they called to thank us about the way in which they were treated. So, again, the Councilwoman has set up very high standards for the City of Philadelphia to follow in the way we treat people and in the way we deal with this real estate issue. Because these homes are sinking, and the families didn't want to move. And I kept going back night after night. I would sit with these families at their dinner table. And we said, basically, we are not going to do you in. We are not going to do you in. And we are proud to say that for everything we have promised these families, we have kept that. I don't know what the other developers are doing across the city, but I can tell you in the 3rd Councilmanic District, that the families that are affected, thanks to 103 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05 Councilwoman Blackwell and to the Redevelopment Authority, they are well taken care of. We have no money because we spent all our money on relocating these people. But it is better to be broke and have your reputation, rather than have money in the bank and have no reputation at all in the community. And, again, I want to thank this able body for all the support they have given us over the years, especially our Councilwoman.
Steven Lon, the owner of 122 South 46th Street. We have a plan that we 104 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05 have developed to rehab the property. We have been tied up because there is a petition before the Board of Review of Taxes on some previous taxes that are being challenged. That is the only thing holding us. We don't think that it is appropriate to be subject to condemnation.
Again, Mr. Chairman and to the Councilpeople, we believe -- and we have engineering studies to prove -- that the properties as they stand right now will eventually all sink. So far, 50 properties or so have sunk in that area, and there's Mill Creek runs under there. And sooner or later these properties will have to be taken down because 105 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05 the foundation will not be able to stand long-term. And that is our position, and we have engineering studies to prove that, and that's how we feel. Now, let me just say this: I feel that all the homeowners, whether they are absentee landlords or they are there, I feel that they should be treated in a fair and equitable manner. But those properties, sir and madam, will eventually sink.
May I respond to that? What he say in effect presumes that they are the only engineers in the city or in the country that are qualified to view the house. We have our own engineers. When we finish submitting this to the License and Inspection Department, they will check the quality of the work to be done. So that I hear that the place is not good and we are the only person to be able to fix it is not acceptable.
Let me ask the question. I'm not familiar with the project. 106 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05 I mean, Councilwoman can. If there is one property -- is it an entire block?
It is on a T. So you have some properties running down South 46th Street, the 100 block, and then you have some properties on the 4600 block of Sansom. So you have some going east/west on Sansom and then south on South 46th Street.
Excuse me, Councilman. This particular property is not on the corner of either block; it is in the center. So I don't see the need for this to be subject to condemnation with reference to their project. This should be out of their project.
If there are subsidence problems -- if there are, because I am hearing now that there are conflicting engineering reports -- the redevelopment of the site, how would you be able to resolve that issue? Would you have to do massive excavation and fill?
If there is a creek underneath, wouldn't that creek -- 107 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05
There are actually two studies in place that were commissioned by two different people. The City of Philadelphia did commission their own study, L&I, which is separate than the Partnership CDC. We did commission the study working with Jeremy Novak's organization. And what we found is, yes, there has massive excavation. And then after you excavate, you have to put steel pilings down into the ground before you can build or put a foundation on top of the pilings. You have to actually pour steel into the ground.
Let me ask you a question. If somehow your property were able to stay at that location, would you have to have a similar treatment? How would you treat?
That is what I said. If 108 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05 you are to fix the property, it would be subject to the qualification required by the city, that's one thing. It is interesting thing, is that he is talking about corner. This is not corner. And if they were to take all the block -- this is at the middle of the block. If they were to take all the block, that's a different issue. So I don't even understand why this property should be subject to their job, unless they can satisfy the concept that this particular property, the engineering suggests that this should be part of their project. He is not suggesting that the whole block should be taken; he is suggesting that this particular property, which is in the middle. So they are picking and choosing, and that is not acceptable. It should not acceptable to the Council, please.
Let me ask a question with respect to occupancy, because I think this is probably going to come up in a number of bills we hear today. And I guess 109 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05 this is directed to Mr. Wetzel. In the instance where a property owner, you know, whereas the property comes to us, City Council, and says it is occupied or says it is vacant, and it is indicated on the condemnation list that it is vacant and the property owner says, well, it may be vacant, but I am currently renovating the property, how does the RDA determine whether or not there is some active renovation, rehabilitation of a building? Is there a threshold in terms of activity or building permits, or what?
No, there isn't. And I will tell you the reason why. The properties -- the relevancy of whether it is occupied or not is a budgetary issue. If the desire is to acquire 14 properties for a specific purpose, whether that be retail, commercial, residential, et cetera, that's the redevelopment proposal. The proposal is to acquire these properties to do a project. And, so, the relevancy has a lot to 110 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05 do with cost and budgeting, not so much -- for the individual, obviously, who is doing the work and were to get a letter saying that there is an interest in acquiring the property, it is very relevant to that individual. But for the purposes of planning a project, it is not -- it is important for budgetary purposes to know how many acquisitions of properties are going to be acquired are occupied, how many are residential, how many are commercial. The other part of this is -- and I think it is a good thing that we are facing -- is that we now have a more dynamic real estate market. There was a time in which no one would come forward on many, many of these redevelopment proposals because there was no 21 value in the real estate. So to a certain degree, with a dynamic market, you heard earlier somebody acquired a property in March. Maybe they have started rehab, maybe they haven't. I don't 111 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05 know if there is any way that we could tell other than going out maybe the week before we have the hearings and doing one more survey, for example.
So with respect to the level of activity in a building, it is really not the jurisdiction of the Redevelopment Authority to determine if there is an active renovation of the building, or -- I mean, I only say that, as a Councilperson, if I have to make a decision to maybe take a property off a list or delay the condemnation, if that person is actively renovating a property, how would we know?
If somebody comes here and testifies that they are actively renovating a property, we could, on your behalf, do the research for you to make a determination, does it have the building permit, go out and inspect the property. I don't know if everyone on Council is aware, we could acquire the property and revest it to the owner under a rehab agreement. 112 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05 Or you could say -- or you could ask us not to acquire on the commitment that the individual is going to fix it up. And you can hold them to that commitment for if down the road, six months from now, they have done nothing, you could suggest that we acquire it again. So you do have options. And, as I mentioned earlier, the approval of any one of these ordinances is not a condemnation, it is not the use of eminent domain.
It is authorizing. And as you and other Councilpeople know, we work very closely with District Councilpersons regarding properties. And in many cases, you know, we have been able to revest title to somebody who is actually doing, you know, the rehabilitation of the property.
Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Anymore testimony on this? Thank you.
My concern is being prejudiced. What I understand is that they pick and choose 126 South 46th. There is 124 South 46th, why isn't that on the list? Are they picking and choosing? That's what I want to know.
Yes, sir, we have applied for the whole block. We have applied for all of the 4600 block. And we have applied for the whole block of South 46th, between Sansom and Walnut. Maybe some of those properties did not come up today, and there are four more properties that should come up at another hearing, but we have applied for the whole block. In no way, shape, or form did we apply for one or two or pick any properties. However, let me just say this, Councilman, and to the committee, we have very sensitive about homeowners. In other words, we do this in a stratified, hopefully correct, manner, where 114 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05 homeowners that live in their homes obviously are a top priority. Then there are investors that may or may not be fixing up their properties, but investors that live elsewhere. And, you know, we work with the Redevelopment Authority and with Councilpeople, with our Councilperson, to work through all those issues. But, again, obviously, since this gentleman has come today, obviously the Councilwoman and Redevelopment, we are all going to sit down and try to work something out. But we are very sensitive. And I think with absentee landlords the issue then becomes what is the fair market value, what is the price, and that is determined by an appraiser.
Councilman, with all due respect, I think that the action today is premature. I would ask that the bill be denied at this time because I think that they need to do a lot of homework before they submit that to the Council.
Thank you very 115 BILL NO. 050367 - 6/6/05 much. Anyone else to testify on this bill? There being none, will the clerk please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 050368, an Ordinance approving the second amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Parkside National Register Historic District Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Parkside Avenue and Girard Avenue on the north; the Conrail freight railroad right-of-way running east of and parallel to 38th Street on the east; the railroad right-of-way line on the former Pennsylvania Railroad on the south; and Belmont Avenue on the west; including the second amendment to the urban renewal plan and relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 7 properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law; and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the project. 116 BILL NO. 050368 - 6/6/05
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am here to speak in support of Bill No. 050368, which is the second amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the second amended urban renewal plan for the Parkside National Register, historic district, urban renewal area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire seven properties, a total of six vacant blighted structures and one vacant lot will be acquired on behalf of Habitat for Humanity Philadelphia for future residential and related development. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 050368 and would ask for the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June 9, 2005.
Thank you. Councilwoman Blackwell. 117 BILL NO. 050368 - 6/6/05
Thank you. This is a project sponsored by Habitat for Humanity. We are happy to support this project. We realize there are a small number of residents who would rather see market-rate condos, but this area at this point won't sustain investment at 100,000 or more. We are hopeful this project will give long-time renters an opportunity to become homeowners, while increasing their investment in the neighborhood where they live. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Tim Block, Executive Director for Habitat for Humanity. And I have with me today Jon Musselman, my director of project planning, who will tell a little bit about the project.
We have been working with the community in the East 118 BILL NO. 050368 - 6/6/05 Parkside neighborhood for a number of years following a successful long-term development in the Cathedral Park neighborhood. And we are very happy to be able to provide the type of homeownership opportunity through rehab that residents overwhelming in the neighborhood are looking for at this time. We do have very excellent relationships with numerous community organizations, including the East Parkside Residents Association and the local churches. So we are very happy to be able to continue this partnership in the neighborhood with these additional properties.
Thank you. Councilwoman Blackwell indicated that this process would allow, I am assuming, affordable housing to take place in this neighborhood. What's the normal median income for applicants?
Councilman, the median income that we service is between 30 and 50 percent of the area median income.
Thank you. Anyone else to testify on this bill? Thank you.
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Seeing no one, I would ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 11 050370.
Bill No. 050370, an Ordinance approving the redevelopment proposal of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the Cathedral Park urban renewal area being the area generally bounded by Girard Avenue, 52nd Street, and Lancaster Avenue; approving the urban renewal plan and determining that such plan and redevelopment proposal conform to the general locality plan and make adequate provisions for individuals, business concerns, and families who are displaced; determining the necessity for changes in and for zoning, streets, alleys, public ways, street patterns, 120 BILL NO. 050370 - 6/6/05 location and relocation of public utilities; determining that the urban renewal plan and redevelopment proposal meet all nondiscrimination requirements of federal, state, and local laws and the regulations and policies promulgated with respect thereto; declaring that certain expressly designated and provided for condemnation is not imminent with respect to the project; and declaring the redevelopment undertakings in the project to be an important part of the city's program to remove and prevent the spread of urban blight.
Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and members of the committee. I am here to speak in support of Bill No. 050370, which is the second amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the creation of the urban renewal plan for the Cathedral Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 22 properties. A total of 5 occupied residential properties will be acquired on behalf of the 121 BILL NO. 050370 - 6/6/05 West Philadelphia Empowerment Zone for future development. The remaining properties consist of vacant blighted structures and 8 vacant 5 lots. 6 The properties to be acquired under 7 this plan amendment are with the project 8 footprint and will be used for residential and 9 related development. Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 050370 and would ask for the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June 9, 2005.
Thank you, Madam President. This is a new project that we received, a new area we have, because it was formerly Councilman Nutter's area. However, we are happy that we have the relationship we have formed with Cathedral Park Civic Association. The president, Mrs. Minnis, is here, 122 BILL NO. 050370 - 6/6/05 who knew Lucien even before me, so we go way back. We do support this bill with the exception of 4945 and 4951, and we ask that the RDA not acquire these. And we are also asking Mr. Wetzel if he would put on the record that RDA would be willing to leave these properties out of the equation.
Council President, I received an e-mail earlier today from Councilwoman Blackwell and indicated to her that the Redevelopment Authority will not proceed with the acquisition of 4945 and 4951 if this bill is approved by this body.
Thank you. For the record, can you explain the difference between a redevelopment area and an urban renewal area?
Yes. A redevelopment area is an area established by the Planning 123 BILL NO. 050370 - 6/6/05 Commission. The Planning Commission under state law is the only entity, whether it is a county Planning Commission or the city's in this case, that can survey an area and make what's called a blight determination. And if the Planning Commission certifies an area as blighted, they must develop what's called a Redevelopment Area Plan. And that plan would indicate that you want residential here and commercial there and, essentially, a general plan for the area. And that is established by the Planning Commission. An urban renewal area can be the same size as a redevelopment area or it can be smaller than the redevelopment area established by the Planning Commission. So, in many cases, there are redevelopment areas such as the West Philadelphia redevelopment area, that have multiple urban renewal areas within them.
Do you know what the West Philadelphia Empowerment Zone 124 BILL NO. 050370 - 6/6/05 proposes to do with these residential properties, and when they intend to do it?
I believe representatives are here today to speak to that, Council President.
Good afternoon. My name is Eva Gladstein, I am Executive Director of the Philadelphia Empowerment Zone. This project is one of several that are scheduled for housing development and housing rehabilitation in the West Philadelphia Empowerment Zone through Empowerment Zone funding, as well as funding through the Office of Housing. The plan is to do new construction on this block, which is an important gateway into this community. Right now there are a large number of vacant structures and vacant properties. It will be developed for affordable housing for homeownership.
Thank you. Mr. 125 BILL NO. 050370 - 6/6/05 Wetzel, have the occupied residents already been contacted about relocation?
Yes. And they would have been noticed. I believe there was a meeting on Saturday. Am I correct? Yes.
What is the estimated cost of this acquisition? And can you tell us if that also includes relocation benefits?
Yes, it does. And the estimate of the acquisition costs, including relocation, is $558,000.
Thank you. And I see we have a young lady to your right, who we would be happy to recognize. Please identify yourself for the record.
Thank you, Madam President. And also thank you our Councilperson, Ms. Blackwell. It is great to be here today. It is a long time coming. We have been looking forward to this project for a long, long time. And those of the Cathedral Park area, Girard 126 BILL NO. 050370 - 6/6/05 Avenue area, and other parts of Cathedral Park, are very happy to welcome something new and something different in our area. And we want to thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Mr. Wetzel, I don't believe I heard you ask for a suspension of the Rules on this particular bill.
I request favorable consideration of Bill No. 050370 and would ask the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June 9, 2005.
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Seeing no one, I would ask Ms. 127 BILL NO. 050372 - 6/6/05 Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 3 050372.
Bill No. 050372, an Ordinance approving the ninth amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Nicetown urban renewal area, being the area beginning at the intersection of the easterly side of Broad Street and the northerly side of Wingohocking Street, projected, including the ninth amendment to the urban renewal plan and the amended relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately five properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services as required by law; and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the project.
Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and members of the committee. I am here to speak in support of Bill No. 050372, the ninth amended redevelopment proposal and the ninth amended urban renewal plan for the Nicetown 128 BILL NO. 050372 - 6/6/05 redevelopment area. Passage of this bill will allow the Redevelopment Authority to acquire a total of five vacant structures as part of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. It is anticipated that these five structures will be conveyed to the Nicetown Community Development Corporation to rehabilitate and sell to first-time low- to moderate-income home buyers. This project was recommended to the Redevelopment Authority by the city's Office of Housing and Community Development, as it was selected as part of the 2004 Homeownership RFP. Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 050372 and would ask for the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June 9, 2005.
Thank you very much. Mr. Wetzel, can you tell us if there is a public subsidy for the development phase 129 BILL NO. 050372 - 6/6/05 of this project, and what the estimated subsidy is?
Council President, I can't tell you the estimated amount, but these properties are going to be rehabbed under the Homeownership Rehabilitation Program which has a maximum subsidy cap of $50,000 per unit.
Thank you. Can you give us the estimated cost for acquisition?
Thank you, Madam President. I don't know whether -- Majita Rashid is supposed to be here from Nicetown CDC. I don't see her in the audience. But we have been working with this community development corporation, and we are 130 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 very pleased to support this project because it is the beginning of a much-needed rehab, much-needed renovation work in the Nicetown area. Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Seeing no one, I would ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 11 050373.
Bill No. 050373, an Ordinance approving the redevelopment proposal of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the Southwest Germantown urban renewal area, being the area generally bounded by Hansberry Street on the north, Greene Street on the east, Windrim Avenue and Roosevelt Boulevard on the south, and Pulaski Avenue on the west; approving the urban renewal plan and determining that such plan and redevelopment proposal conform to the general locality plan and make adequate provisions for individuals, business concerns, and families who are 131 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 displaced; determining the necessity for changes in and for zoning, streets, alleys, publicly ways, street patterns, location and relocation of public utilities; determining that the urban renewal plan and redevelopment proposal meet all nondiscrimination requirements of federal, state, and local laws and the regulations and policies promulgated with respect thereto; declaring that certain expressly designated and provided for condemnation is not imminent with respect to the project; and declaring the redevelopment undertakings in the project to be an important part of the city's program to remove and prevent the spread of urban blight.
Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and members of the committee. I am here to speak in support of Bill No. 050373, which would approve the redevelopment proposal and the urban renewal plan for the Southwest Germantown area. Passage of this bill will allow the Redevelopment Authority to acquire a total of 132 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 properties, 10 vacant lots and vacant 3 structures, as part of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. Six properties, which include five vacant lots and one structure, will be acquired to support new construction of five units of for-sale housing to low-income families by Habitat for Humanity Germantown. This phase of the acquisition was recommended to the Redevelopment Authority by the city's Office of Housing and Community Development as it was a submission under the 2004 Homeownership RFP. The remaining seven properties are being acquired in support of Germantown restaurant owner Adam Kim's plan to construct a commercial strip. Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 050373 and would ask for the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June 9, 2005.
Thank you. Mr. Wetzel, again, I am going to ask 133 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 what is the estimated cost of this acquisition?
Is there a public subsidy for the development part of the homeownership acquisition?
No. Habitat doesn't accept public subsidies. The only time we have subsidized any Habitat development is when we have put foundations in on properties.
Yes. You asked -- with regards to Habitat, there is no subsidy. With regards to the seven properties that ultimately could be conveyed to the gentleman Adam Kim for a commercial strip, there is no 22 public subsidy in that. And unless there is any jobs generated as a result of that, the property would have to be conveyed at fair market 134 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 value.
Do you know if he is going to be paying fair market value?
I asked if Mr. Kim, who is the restaurant owner, will be paying fair market value for the property. And, if so, how much would he be paying. Any questions or comments from members of the committee? Seeing none. Are there witnesses? Yes. And Councilwoman Miller has a comment. Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Madam President. These properties have been an eyesore, particularly the ones that Habitat are taking, for a long, long time. In fact, some of them have been demolished. And the Wayne Avenue business strip, 135 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 Wayne Avenue is a major corridor in Germantown. And we have been working with many, many people to try to see what we can do to bring some of these blocks in under NTI, Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, to see what we can do to turn the community around. So many of them are vacant lots and some of them are vacant structures, and no one will be relocated in any of this action. Thank you.
Thank you. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. I am Pamela Braci, a 25-year resident and homeowner in the Southwest Germantown area, and I would like to speak to the bill before you today. This bill appears to not be in the best interests of the community for the following reasons: A blight certification was declared on December 17, 1998, but the community at-large was not informed, and we 136 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 really would like to know why and how this was done. The community was not informed about this bill, either. Had we not stumbled upon it in the newspaper, our NAC office was not informed of this bill. So, we really did not find out about it. The community is having some real problems with the blight certification because it is based on the following criteria: Unsafe, unsanitary, inadequate, or overcrowded conditions; economically or socially undesirable land use; faulty street and lot layout; and inadequate planning. Southwest Germantown has been a recipient in recent years of receiving large quantities of Section 8 residents, group homes, Narcotics Anonymous, Alcoholics Anonymous facilities, absentee landlords, abandoned properties that are oftentimes abandoned due to absentee landlords, and some of these properties are due to large representatives of the community that rehab them and then leave them sitting for several 137 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 years. The term "economically or socially undesirable land use," do these terms mean low-income persons, persons that someone has declared are undesirable for the community and must be moved out? Is this some kind of criteria that's been set up that the community at-large is not aware of? The faulty street and lot layout, is this due to the large number of properties that have been demolished, oftentimes over the objections of neighbors? The streets were laid out over 300 years ago, so what does the faulty street statement really mean? Inadequate planning. When research was done regarding Germantown, Germantown doesn't have a plan. According to the Planning Commission, it is declared blighted and a reclamation area. So where is the plan? Southwest Germantown has been included many times in the great grant-writing process, but in many areas of Southwest Germantown this does not reflect the written 138 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 projects. And many of these proposals are written over ten years ago, where houses were supposed to have been built ten years ago and monies were allocated, and those pieces of land are still waiting to be taken care of. Southwest Germantown doesn't want persons in the community displaced because somewhere along the line someone is thinking that Germantown is a great place, a right place for gentrification and some of the people living there now just don't fit.
Excuse me. You are aware that the properties in question are all vacant?
Yes. We are speaking to the fact that Germantown historic area. If this project is carried out, the community must be consulted because it appears as though we have individuals who come into the community to make plans, and then we don't hear about it anymore. 139 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 It also appears as though there are streets that are listed in this particular bill today that are not listed anywhere else. So it appears as though something is truly missing from the bill, especially when we have angle points here, center line there relating to streets. What does that mean? So we of the community, some of us, many of us, are really demanding respect by all persons, especially those in this Council here today, to the developers, and anyone else who is involved in Germantown. Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you for coming in to testify. May I ask, do you own any of the properties that may be subject to eminent domain?
Thank you. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Catherine 140 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 Franklin. I am a long-time resident of Germantown, since 1958, and a fifth-generation Philadelphian, and we know each other by sight. But I am here to support Southwest Germantown people. I was one of the people who found the legal notice in very small print in the paper and spread the news around the neighborhood about it. I called some people in Southwest Germantown, all of whom were very, very surprised at the bill and the news. I moved to Germantown with my family because I wanted an area that was historic and had very different backgrounds for people, that you couldn't just say, oh, you're from Chestnut Hill and assume something. Germantown is very interesting and wonderful. What has been happening over the last ten years is not so wonderful. We have become impacted, absolutely, with homes of every kind. It is not the same as having neighborhoods. You just don't walk up to another group home or something and say, 141 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 "Can you watch my baby, I have to go and do something? Can I have a cup of sugar," whatever. It is different. It is very, very different. A certain number are welcome, but we are impacted. We do not need in a select area, that has had a very fine study by Marianna Thomas, took something like three years to do, we do not need to have actions which are against the historic nature of our area. It is a beautiful community. Strip malls do not help it. We need an emphasis on tourism and jobs associated with tourism to help our area, since we have lost our manufacturing. The people of Southwest Germantown -- I have talked to some block captains and I have talked to some officials -- have no idea about this bill. What meeting May 5? It is a surprise to them
I don't mean to cut you short in any way. But I know if this were in my district and people didn't know about it and simply read it in the paper, 142 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 their first thought would have been to call the District Councilperson. Did you do that?
I did not call. I went online to find out what the bill was, because it was only last week that we found out about it.
There is a 5 foot set of plans in the Planning Commission for the Germantown area. 5 feet. Where is the Main Street program?
Thank you. I want to thank you, Ms. Franklin, Ms. Braci, for coming in to testify. I don't see that what we're doing today as relates to 13 properties that are vacant and a couple of vacant lots goes against any plan that Germantown has. 143 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 This is actually a plan that will help to restore and rehabilitate some of the areas in Germantown. This is giving Habitat for Humanity, whom everybody knows and they are working with us in other parts of Germantown, an opportunity to renovate vacant homes and then they actually give those homes to people that fit in the very low income category. So that's bringing some stability back to a couple of blocks. And with the commercial strip there, or the former strip at Wayne and Berkley that is now a tremendous eyesore, and I am glad -- I know that you would agree with that, at Wayne and Berkley, would just begin to restore some of the areas along Wayne Avenue that are blighted. We are not trying to go against any plan that Germantown already has. I, too, I was born and raised in Germantown, lived there all my life. Knew what it looked like when I was a child, and absolutely know the difference now. And have been there through all the various changes. 144 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 Germantown, Southwest Germantown urban renewal and blight certification happened in 1998 through the Office of Housing and Community Development. There were many meetings at St. Stephen's Church at Queen Lane and Germantown Avenue. I'm sure -- I think it is St. Stephen's, where many people from the community
Okay. But it was right there on Queen Lane. And, so, I know that probably some people in this room 15 were also invited to those meetings. So the blight certification happened in 1998.
I recall attending those meetings. There was nothing mentioned about blight. Someone came down from New York to give us a plan. And one of our questions was at that particular time, was the fact that this really was not new information; that it was information that anyone had seen in the past. But I know we're going back over 145 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 something. I would just like to say, Madam President, that I don't see, and Councilwoman Miller, with all due respect, I don't see that this is a plan for the area. I see it as something -- excuse me, if I may. I see it --
We are just giving away properties. We are just 13 talking about 13 properties, and certainly that is not a plan for an entire area. So that is all we are doing here today.
If you would be kind enough, Madam President and Mrs. Miller, that when your office decides to put together a plan -- because I think we will all agree, and you just stated publicly, that we don't have a plan, we really need one. Because our area is really being deteriorated greatly. And I think to put blight certification on it really makes us feel 146 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 extremely terrible about the fact that we are trying very hard and we attend meetings, but yet still it seems as though the more we attend meetings, it seems as though the more we are being dumped on. So I know that is not going to be addressed here today, but we are just saying that we are really a little tired of receiving just, it seems like, all the negative elements that society has to offer. And we know that, through God's grace, that we move forward. But sometimes, even with God's grace, you get a little tired. So we are a little tired of just waiting and waiting and waiting. And I think we have waited long enough, and we really need to move forward. So thank you again for your time.
Is there a developer, does anybody know, of anything? Is there a developer currently in the picture?
I believe the proposal says Habitat for Humanity and Mr. Kim. Is 147 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 that correct, Ms. Miller?
It has been in the papers about a Germantown community organization having difficulties. And the Redevelopment Authority, I think, has been involved in that. And I am wondering if that's tied to the same group or is this a different arrangement? I am trying to sort out where this fits. Does Mr. Wetzel know?
Yes. The proposed developer -- and, for clarification purposes, again, we have to come back to City Council in order to dispose of any properties. So whatever developer is selected must be approved by this body. The proposed developer for a portion of this is Habitat for Humanity, and the proposed developer for the commercial shopping is Adam Kim, who owns a restaurant on Wayne Avenue. Those are the two proposed developers. 148 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05
Is it tied in with anything that has appeared recently in the press about Germantown community organizations?
I have no idea. I just know that both Habitat and Adam Kim are independent entities.
Because I think in view of what has been occurring, it is very important that we step carefully and the people of Germantown feel that everything is being done properly and in order and that they're fully consulted. And I speak also as a past District Councilman to that area, and I feel very strongly attached to that area. So I do think it very important that we inform the city of what's going to happen and that there be complete community involvement.
I think Councilwoman Miller has already indicated that she will be certainly be doing that, did you not?
We have always 149 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 invited people. Many of people in this room 3 with signs on, it is my understanding, were a part of some of the meetings when the area was declared blighted. I called the director this morning from the NAC to ask him who was a part of the meetings when you had the meetings during the blight certification. And because I couldn't tell him everybody that was here, I just named a few people. I have seen many of these individuals at meetings prior to me becoming a Councilmember, and I see them occasionally now. But we are not doing anything in secret. It is our goal to help revitalize the Germantown community. We expanded the Germantown redevelopment plan from Sedgwick, down to Berkley so that we could have easier access to acquire buildings, vacant lots, and move forward with development. And that's all we are trying to do here. We are not trying to do anything against anyone's back. 150 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 The notice in the paper, big or small, we have no control over. City Council pays the various newspapers to publicize the public hearings. I did not know you were coming here this morning until I showed up in this chamber. If there were questions or discussions that anybody wanted to have, we could have had those without a problem. We are not treating Germantown any different than we have treated other parts of our district as it relates to community involvement. We have people stop us all the time wanting to know what's going to go on on Wayne Avenue because it is such an eyesore. And that's all we are trying to do here.
Thank you, Councilwoman. Excuse me. Did you want to testify? Please approach the witness table. Thank you both for coming in to testify. Please identify yourself for the record. 151 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05
Good afternoon, my name is Marlene Pryor. I am the founder, one of the founders, of the Concerned Neighbors of Greater Germantown, Inc., for 6 years. 7 And I am real full because Mr. 8 Wetzel was part of us, with the Southwest 9 Germantown Development Corporation. Donna has 10 a communication problem with me. But as of 11 today I'm 70 now. I have been in that area 12 for 33 years getting beat on, pushed around, 13 trying to help the people. But I come here 14 today because I want better communication with 15 Donna for that area. 16 Our organization have a property on 17 Wayne Avenue, at 4809 Wayne Avenue. We have 18 one at 101 West Logan, which they tried to 19 take away from us for back taxes. 20 Because we tried to do this 21 community work volunteer. We have no money. 22 We get no funding from the city or no one 23 else. And I'm really sad here today. 24 So all I want to say is I want some 25 communication about all this from Herb Wetzel, 152 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 because he lived right there. I am still there, 70 years old, trying to uphold the community with nothing, and it is very unfair to me, and Donna know it. As of today I hope, with me testifying, she give that community better service. Because it is a war zone, and I am very upset. I got grands, 8 greats, and 5 11 great-greats in that community, trying to 12 serve them with food and whatever. 13 Councilman Cohen know me since 1970. 14 Majority of them know me. Blondell Reynolds, 15 I am a committeeperson. I did everything I 16 can. So help, help, help. Thank you. 17
Thank you very 18 much. 19 Gentlemen, are you going to be 20 testifying on this bill? Please approach the witness table. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
My name is Robert Merit, and I do own one of the lots that --
Excuse me, Robert. 153 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 You are going to have to pull the microphone closer to you.
Good afternoon, Council. My name is Robert Merit, and I do own one of the lots in question here. I guess I can give you first a little bit of background about myself. I grew up in Germantown as a young person on Wayne Avenue. And I raised -- after I moved out of my home, I moved on to Coulter Street, which is right next to Germantown, and I raised a family of three there on Coulter Street. So I will say that I love Germantown first, so you will know my interest. I am also currently a realtor who services Germantown area for sales, along with Mt. Airy and West Oak Lane being my prime areas of location. I have since built, what you call it -- renovated quite a few homes in Germantown, one being on 4711 Green Street, 4616 Pulaski Avenue, 30 East Coulter, 6126 Belfield Avenue, 557 East Locust Street, just to inform you that I have a group of people 154 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 who renovate properties. My purpose in purchasing the property, the lot on Pulaski Avenue, which is on the corner of Pulaski and Berkley, was to acquire the other lots next to them. There are approximately four other lots next to them, two of them are owned by another individual and the other two are owned by the City of Philadelphia. Excuse my ignorance, Councilwoman Miller. I was not aware that I should have come, obviously, to Council to find out how to go about getting these properties. I was actually pushing for a sheriff's sale of the other two properties owned by the person who had just back taxes on them. In fact, one of those properties are pending sheriff's sale now, which I intend to go and purchase that lot. My overall goal -- I have already had a developer look at the lot and give me a plan and a cost associated with renovating that particular lot that runs from Pulaski and Berkley, to the next small street there. We 155 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 intend to build approximately homes there and sell them to low- to moderate-income people. So I am not interested in selling my lot or having someone take it away from me, because my goal is to help continue to help fix up Germantown Avenue.
The address is 4529 Pulaski Avenue. And the other two -- there are other two lots, 4531 and 35 is owned by another individual who will -- those properties are going to a sheriff's sale. And 4533, 37, and 39 are owned by the City of Philadelphia. We really need to sit down and talk. And I am not talking about a situation where we would wait five to ten years to have this project started. If I had possession of those properties, a project would be started within six months to a year, we would start building. Thank you. 156 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05
I would just like to get it clear in my own mind. You own one of the lots in question on this bill?
Yes. That would be the largest lot there on the corner of Pulaski and Berkley. Now, I don't believe that the other lots are included in this particular -- I haven't received any notice, other than this paper here telling me that there was a bill 12 where they would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire my property. And I have been diligently trying --
Sir, this lot, is this where you intend to construct new homes?
You are negotiating to purchase the lots so you can construct new homes?
Right. Right now I can build two homes. But it would be next to a large lot, and that's just not a good way of building. We want to make sure that the community is built up and not to just build two new homes right there and not build up the whole section.
And now you are trying to negotiate with the city to purchase the other lots?
Now, when would construction begin, or do you still intend to construct on the property that you own?
Not unless I can get the 158 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 other lots. It would just not be economical and it would not look good for the community. My goal is to make sure that there are homes in that area. And just to put up two new homes next to a large lot would obviously indicate that I have not done my homework to acquire those additional lots to move with the full project.
But, as far as I know, the Redevelopment Authority, of course, has an interest in also constructing homes on those lots.
Well, I had no knowledge of them at all until, again, I received this notice May 17.
Well, wouldn't this be in your best interest to -- if they did decide to put homes on those other lots, wouldn't that also be a good selling point for you in constructing two new homes on the lot that you own?
That may be the case. But I am not sure if they actually went out to purchase the other lots, just as myself. I 159 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 have been trying to get them, as well. And they are not part of this. COMMISSIONER KELLY: I would certainly think that no matter what we do here, we are going to see construction of new homes, at least I would like to think that.
But I would hate for someone to have to take mine to build, and I am willing to build. And I have also demonstrated that I have built in the past and renovated homes in Germantown.
Have you incurred any expenses so far, as far as cleaning the lots or doing anything of that nature? Putting up fencing?
Let me ask you, excuse me, sir, what would be the cost of acquisition for this bill?
May I have the bill 25 number again? 160 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05
And I would ask the young man at the table who just testified, would you be able to afford the acquisition?
No. They have not -- as I indicated to you, Madam President, there are one of those lots pending a sheriff's sale. I intend to be there and to properly bid.
And you would have the wherewithal for both acquisition and for construction?
Mr. Wetzel, is there a general feeling that if there is a private venture, the government would stay out and permit the private venture to take first place?
In general, that's the theory that we operate under. In this particular case the question is, do you allow Habitat for Humanity to develop properties that are going to be affordable to low- and moderate-income individuals versus a market-rate development. And, so, it is a public policy question.
Well, it isn't as if Philadelphia doesn't have properties. Philadelphia abounds in properties that are available for Habitat for Humanity and for other well-meaning groups. It seems to me we are moving backwards here rather than forwards, if we reject a private venture and, instead, have 162 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 something done with government funding. I'm confused by the different parties. I would expect that I might be on the side of government funding, and all the others would be on the other side. But I don't understand why we don't want to support a private venture. I have heard nothing except positive things about this gentleman today, his willingness to undertake the risk. (Applause.)
Councilman, I think that, again, is going to be a judgment call made by this body. And, you know, the question in some cases, yes, there are lots of properties in the City of Philadelphia. But you could be in a neighborhood with rapidly escalating real estate values in which you would want to create some affordable units. And that's going to be a public policy decision that we will face more and 163 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 more as our real estate values are escalating across the city. And I don't disagree with you. It is a good dilemma to have. Before we couldn't giveaway properties in areas like this, so it is a good dilemma to have.
It is a dilemma we ought to be encouraging private industry everywhere to build and rebuild our communities. Government can't do it all by itself, and we ought to use government funds where no other funds are available. You shouldn't use government funds where other funding is available. I don't know. I'm getting all twisted here with different theories being distorted. It seems to me if there is a private venture that seems to work, and on that I would bow to your expertise and would want to know why this doesn't work, if it doesn't work; but why it works, if you think it does. But assuming that it works, then I think we want to give support to private 164 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 initiatives all along. Because the force of private initiatives will be far greater than any general government force. (Applause.)
Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Miller, was your light on?
Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I didn't really catch your name, but we can get -- I can get it later.
But what I would like to do is have this bill voted out and ask RDA not to take any action until we get back to you.
Good afternoon, sir. Are you testifying? I think if you are 165 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 going to be testifying on part of this bill, I think the Councilwoman has indicated her willingness to meet.
I have willingness to meet. Did you hear what I said? Would you please say, yes, on the record.
Yes, Councilwoman, we will not take any action if this ordinance is approved and signed by the Mayor until we hear from you.
Madam President, my name is Tim Block. I am Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity Philadelphia. And I agree with the Councilwoman's decision, if she wants to table this for now. And I just want to say that Habitat is about partnerships, and we are willing to sit down with the residents of a community. That's our policy going into any project, is to work with the community as far as design, as far as identifying partner 166 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 families for our program. We do work with the community and we are also looking to do some joint ventures. So if that young man is interested in working with us, there may be an opportunity for us to work together, too. So, we will be back.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please come forward, identify yourself for the record.
My name is Ron Devereaux. I am block captain, 1500 block of Green Street and a long-time resident. And my concern is, I am supporting, you know, my community. I am not opposed to seeing, you know, the community being built up as far as, you know, houses being redeveloped, as long as we get, you know, good tenants. My concern is that we don't get red-lined as far as being blighted. Where in 167 BILL NO. 050373 - 6/6/05 the south side of Germantown, there was a time when that district was red-lined. We had Queen Lane above, just slightly above where we live, was considered a high classification. They were eligible to receive funds to build their community so they could keep it up and keep it as a historical society, historical neighborhood. Our neighborhood is just a little bit below. Now, when I heard the blight certification, and I just heard it, I was kind of surprised, because we do have a lot of homes that's being built up in that area, people are investing in their homes. We have a lot of concerned neighbors, some of them who were just up here talking, and people who want to keep Germantown as a historical place. So my main concern is that the blight certification does not stop us from getting funding so we can continue to build our community up.
Mr. Wetzel is sitting next to you and he is nodding his 168 BILL NO. 050414 - 6/6/05 head. So why don't you say something, Mr. Wetzel, to assure this gentleman.
The certification of blight is not a deterrent to increasing values. All of Center City, from river to river, from Vine down to South Street, is a redevelopment area that was certified blighted and areas within that have been recertified as blighted over the years. It is not a deterrent to value at all.
Thank you. Thank you for coming in to testify. Did you want to testify, ma'am? I understand you are here to testify on the next bill. Do we have anybody else to testify on Bill 050373? Seeing no one, I could ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 22 050414.
An Ordinance approving the second amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Tioga Urban Renewal Area, 169 BILL NO. 050414 - 6/6/05 being the area generally bounded by Hunting Park Avenue on the north, Broad Street, Germantown Avenue, Venango Street, 15th Street, Allegheny Avenue, and Germantown Avenue of the east, Glenwood Avenue and Lehigh Avenue on the south and 23rd Street, Allegheny avenue and 22nd Street on the west.
Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and members of the committee. I am here to speak in support of Bill No. 050414, the second amended redevelopment proposal and the second amended urban renewal plan for the Tioga redevelopment area. Passing of this bill will allow the Redevelopment Authority to acquire a total of 30 properties, vacant lots and 9 vacant 20 structures, as part of the Neighborhood 21 Transformation Initiative. 20 of the vacant lots will be acquired to support the expansion of Kinderton Recreation Center. The remaining vacant lot is to be acquired for reuse as parking for the 170 BILL NO. 050414 - 6/6/05 adjacent Tioga Arms Apartment Building. vacant structures, 7 of which are architecturally significant, are being acquired for the development of for-sale housing to low- and moderate-income home buyers. This project was recommended to the redevelopment authority by the city's Office of Housing and Community Development, as it was selected under the 2004 Homeownership RFP. Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 050414 and would ask the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June the 9th, 2005. Thank you.
So as we understand it, it is the acquisition of 30 properties, vacant lots and 9 vacant 20 structures? 21
Will the Tioga Arms Apartment Building be paying fair market value cost of the acquisition?
That determination has 171 BILL NO. 050414 - 6/6/05 not been made yet. But if this Tioga Arms is not an affordable housing development, under NTI the disposition would be at fair market value.
Is there a public subsidy already committed to the development of the affordable homeownership?
To my knowledge, Council President, the public subsidy for this is the HRP program.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from members of the committee?
This is a part of our district that's been blighted and actually fallen down for the last 20 or 30 years. And we have been working very hard 172 BILL NO. 050414 - 6/6/05 with the community. And the community group that we have been working pretty much with in this area is Tioga United. And that group has come a long way. We have Miss Alberta here today to testify in support. And I just want to say that our office strongly supports this proposal. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilwoman. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. My name is Alberta Hall. I am a Board member of Tioga United. And I would like to say good afternoon to each and every one of you.
Now you would like me to tell you something about Tioga and then something about the land?
Well, it is my understanding that if you just said, "I fully support this bill," it would be fine.
Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming in to testify. We do have a number of bills yet, and a number of witnesses, and we have a 2 o'clock Public Hearing scheduled for the Committee of the Whole. One moment, please. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly. COMMISSIONER KELLY: I just had a quick question. I just wanted to know where that Kinderton Recreation Center is located?
As far as I know, this is going to -- of these vacant lots 20 will be acquired to support the expansion of this recreation center.
Do you know if there is adequate funding for the city to expand? This as a recreation center, is it 174 BILL NO. 050414 - 6/6/05 not?
We have actually been -- this playground has existed forever. I used to pass it on the train, taking the Chestnut Hill local into Center City. And it was closed for quite some time. And each year that we have been here, we have been able to add a little bit more. This will give us an opportunity to expand the acreage, and I'm not sure what we want to do with the building. The play equipment was actually just rebuilt by the community and by Kaboom. And that's the same company that helped us rebuild the playground when they had the presidential summit. So this is just all a part of an overall expansion, but I cannot tell you every exact plan. But we are able to use the city funds to leverage resources from other folks. 175 BILL NO. 050380 - 6/6/05 So I can't answer whether the city can afford to do the expansion at this time. It depends on what we want to expand. Will we expand the building? I'm not sure. COMMISSIONER KELLY: I just wanted to know if the appropriations were in this year's budgets or next year's, or do you have any plans for it.
No, we don't really know. We have actually been talking about using the lots to expand the playground for a number of years prior to the deficit and the city funds. So we are just going to move forward with the expansion.
Thank you very much for your patience. Thank you for coming in to testify. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Seeing no one, I would ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 24 050380.
Bill No. 050380, an 176 BILL NO. 050380 - 6/6/05 Ordinance approving the fifth amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Independence Mall Urban Renewal Area, Unit No. 4, being the area beginning at the intersection of the southerly side of Arch Street and the westerly side of 9th Street, including the fifth amendment to the urban renewal plan and the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of certain parcels located within the bed of ground formerly known as Ridge Avenue and generally situated between the northwest intersection of north 8th Street and Race Street and the southeast section of North 9th Street and Vine Street.
Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and members of the committee. I am here to speak in support of Bill No. 050380, the fifth amended plan for the Center City Redevelopment Area and the Independence Mall Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire ten 177 BILL NO. 050380 - 6/6/05 properties located within the bed of a portion of ground formerly known as Ridge Avenue. The acquisition of these properties will enable the Redevelopment Authority to consolidate a number of underlying properties into one disposition parcel bounded generally by 8th, 9th, Race, and Vine, and facilitate the disposition of land for future commercial and residential mixed-use development. Acquisition costs will be paid for by the Redevelopment Authority. Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 050380 and would ask the suspension of Council Rules to allow a first reading on June 9, 2005.
Thank you. Mr. Wetzel, what do you mean that the Redevelopment Authority will pay the cost of acquisition? Isn't this normally done with NTA funding?
Yes. If I could explain this. This was an acquisition that was done well over 30 years ago. And the bed 178 BILL NO. 050380 - 6/6/05 of Ridge Avenue actually is on the city map going through this particular parcel. And as the Ridge Avenue gets stricken from the city's map, little pie-shaped pieces of land will revert back to owners who formerly owned these properties in the 1920s. Their land -- I know. These are land-locked parcels.
I am going to be speaking to a higher authority for some of them, I have a feeling.
That's the last known purchase dates on these. And that's because we took the land that the house was on, but the streets still stayed on there. And then when the street got struck, and because Ridge runs through at an angle, little pie-shaped pieces of land revert back to the former owner. And, so, this is about an $18,000 acquisition that the authority is just 179 BILL NO. 050380 - 6/6/05 undertaking to clean up the site and make it available.
You also say that the Redevelopment Authority is assembling this for future commercial and mixed-use development. Have you been approached by any developer to develop these parcels?
Yes. The Redevelopment Authority Board has selected a developer. The exact name of the entity I will have to get to you. It will be coming over here as part of a redevelopment proposal. It includes -- and the developers have worked closely with the existing tenant on the site, which is -- I am trying to get the name of the parking vendor. I know it is Harvey Speers, I don't know particularly the name of his company. He has leased this land for many years from us as a parking lot. Speers, Bill 23 Wilson of Suntara, another gentleman from Campus Apartments, and the Chinatown CDC have been working together. 180 BILL NO. 050380 - 6/6/05 They designed a program that would include condominiums, retail space, and about a thousand parking spaces on that particular site. And it would be done in two phases over four years.
Only about $18,000. These are land-locked parcels of land that have no real value whatsoever. You can't get to them legally.
When the Redevelopment Authority conveys this parcel to a future developer, do you expect to have the acquisition money repaid by the developer to the RDA?
Very good. Councilman DiCicco, this is your bill, it is Bill No. 050380. I don't know if you want to, if you have any comments. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No. Thank you.
Do we have any witnesses on this bill to testify? 181 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 Seeing none. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me. Again, this is the Siritski project?
No; this is cleaning up the bed of Ridge Avenue between 8th and 9th and Race and Vine where the parcels reverted back to the owners from the 1920s. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
Since we have no 11 witnesses, I would ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 050381.
Bill No. 050381, an Ordinance approving the fifth amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the New Kensington Fishtown Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by the rear property lines on the northerly side of Lehigh Avenue on the north, the center line of Delaware Avenue and I-95 on the east, the southerly side of Laurel Street on the south, and the rear property lines on the westerly side of Front Street and Kensington Avenue on the west, including the fifth amendment to the urban renewal plan and the second amendment to the relocation plan, 182 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 35 properties for residential and related uses, the additional acquisition of one property for institutional and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services as required by law; and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the project.
Thank you. Councilman Clarke, I know that Councilman DiCicco introduced this bill, he is the sponsor, but is part of this also in your district?
No. 16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't think so. I think it is all me. Fishtown may be confusing you. Because I used to have most of Fishtown, which now I only have one division.
I think it is two bills down, there is a parcel that's in Fishtown/Juneco is the new term used, just west of Front Street, that's in my Council 183 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 district. But this one is not.
Okay. I just wanted to make certain for the record. Mr. Wetzel, what is the estimated cost of this acquisition? I think from here on in, we ought to have that information. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: As part of the testimony, that would be good.
It is $162,025. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam President, for a point of information, I had asked the same question earlier, and I just received a copy of the condemnation budget. So the $162,025 is all the costs, including legal, advertising, et cetera.
Right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It is not just what they are paying to the owner for the acquisition. The acquisition is $100,425.
That's the estimated budget until formal appraisals are done.
Mr. Wetzel, so the record is clear, these are all vacant lots and 184 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 vacant structures; is that correct?
That is the information that was delivered to us and confirmed by the other entities, yes. Vacant structures and vacant lots.
On the vacant 8 lots that will be acquired for the New 9 Kensington CDC for reuse as gardens, who is 10 gardening those lots? Who is holding title to 11 the lots? 12
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Goods afternoon, Madam President. My name is Sandy Salzman. I am the Executive Director of New Kensington Community Development Corporation. The vacant land, New Kensington has been stabilizing this land since 1997, and we will hold title to the land and keep it as stabilized land, which means it will be cleaned and greened and have trees around the perimeter until such time that we come up with a development plan for the land. 185 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05
What happens if for some reason in the future the lots are no 4 longer maintained as garden space? Is there some kind of deed restricken that says that the owners, whoever they may be, that they can't just make money selling the land?
No, there isn't. However, this here land is part of an overall plan that New Kensington has for the community. The land is on Frankford Avenue, and also on Kern Street. Kern street backs on to Frankford Avenue. Ultimately we hope to have this developed into commercial space on the first floor, with residential space on the second and third floor. We have had Frankford Avenue named as an arts corridor by the Department of Commerce. And we have been in the process of doing a number of renovations of properties on that block -- I mean, on that street.
Can you tell me what the difference is between New Kensington 186 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 CDC and the South Kensington NAC?
Tell us which entity will actually be developing these properties.
New Kensington CDC will be doing these properties. Kensington South NAC abuts us at Front Street. I believe they go down to Norris Street. So they really are not in our area at all.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon. Sandy, currently are all the parcels being used as gardens now?
The ones on Frankford Avenue and the ones on Kern Street. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The parcels 187 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 that are reflected in this bill.
There are lots that are reflected in this bill that are on Abigail Street that we do not know who put in for. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: They are the ones owned by the gentleman that's sitting next to you?
Abigail is vacant. Front and Kern Street are being used as gardens. And there is a lot on Hagert Street that is being acquired with the help of the Commerce Department for two businesses. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is that the lot that has trees planted on Hagert?
1922-44 Hagert Street. And it is being acquired for Peretta Truck Services and Kafco. And I have a letter from each of these people for you for the acquisition. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The lots that are being used for gardening, you said they 188 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 had been used since '97?
We have been doing this since '97. Those lots have not been in the package since '97. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Were they being done with the owner's permission? I am familiar with what goes on up there. I am just trying to establish for the record many lots in the Frankford Avenue corridor, I will refer to it from personal experience, I know we are not kept up, and we would go out there literally and clean them. So a lot of these were just blighted, deteriorated properties that the CDC and the NAC and others took the initiative to clean up, because they were, basically, abandoned.
Correct. And we tried to get in touch with the owners. When we do stabilize land, we generally send out a letter to the last known address, which is usually the lot. It comes back to us, and we just keep it in the file. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Were you ever successful in getting a response from any of 189 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 the owners for any of these?
Once or twice. Yes, we have been. In fact, the rose garden that is at Belgrade and Frankford Avenue, we have an agreement with the owner to do that garden there. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. For the moment, I have no more questions for this lady.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee of this witness? Thank you. Good afternoon, sir. Would you identify yourself, for the record, please.
Good afternoon. My name is Forsan Amidi. I am the owner of the property on Abigail Street, 2035 to 2045. And I am here to testify today, this is -- I only received this letter about a week, two weeks ago, May 17. And I never know anything about this, so I am here today. Never again talk to -- never got 190 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 call from anybody, from the community, or from the city. I never receive anything. And I am here today, I am working right now with the office of DiCicco, Councilman DiCicco and Councilman Juan Ramos. And I am trying for the next couple of weeks, I am going to talk to them, see what we could come up with with a plan for the properties.
Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Just for the record, I have never met this gentleman until -- actually, I wasn't even formally introduced until today. I did receive a call that he was concerned that there would be a taking of his properties and wanted some time, which we are going to engage in that conversation either today or going forward. I just have a few questions for you, sir. How long have you owned this property?
Since 1985. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What is its 191 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 current use?
It is vacant now. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Vacant. What is the condition of that property?
It is not in excellent condition, but I am willing to -- right now I am willing to clean it up and fence it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Have you received any violations in the past from the city, whether it be Health Department or L&I, as to any of the violations that may have been there?
No. 17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is the mailing address for that property the mailing address in which one can find you at?
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't know what the title reads on there. Is it your business?
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So if in fact 192 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 someone needed to contact you, they would be able to find you through that business address?
I also own a business right across the street from it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What kind of business is it?
It is a warehouse for my stores. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Warehouse for your stores.
Yes. And I have people there all the time. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: From what I am told, you are opposed to this taking today. Could you tell us the reason why? Besides the fact that it is your land, but what are your future plans for this land? Do you have any future plans? Would you like to sell it? Would you like to develop it? If you would like to develop it, what kind of development would you like to see happen there?
If the everybody around 193 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 me is going to develop, I am going to develop, too. You know, but right now I'm not in good financial condition to do it right now. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So if the properties around it, surrounding it, were to be developed, then you would find the money to develop it?
I would seek, yes. I would seek some financial. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You don't want to take the initiative to start the development on your own?
For right now, I can't afford it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is there a question about what you think the value -- do you dispute the value that the Redevelopment Authority has put in this land? Do you think it is worth more in its present condition?
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Have you made that known to the Redevelopment Authority?
No. I haven't had -- you know, I only received this letter two 194 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 weeks ago. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, you understand if the surrounding properties were to be developed, it certainly would increase the value of your property. And you have not done anything since 1985 to maintain that property. So we, basically, would be rewarding you for letting your property sit there blighted. And I am going to take all these things into consideration. I will ask this committee to vote this bill out favorably, but I will ask them -- I will not move on second and final approval until such time as we have had a time to discuss. If you dispute the value of the land, then the Redevelopment Authority, there is a mechanism for that dispute. And I think Mr. Wetzel would like to answer that now.
I am just a little curious, sir. Are you current in your real estate taxes --
I just want to make a 7 correction. An offer letter does not happen 8 until this body approves this, the Mayor signs 9 it, we order an appraisal, the appraiser 10 contacts the owner so the owner has a right to 11 be there when the appraiser is there. Only 12 when we get that appraisal back do we do an 13 offer letter. 14 So he has not yet received an offer. 15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: How soon do you 16 think that will -- we have to do this first? 17
Yes. Council has to 18 approve this, the Mayor has to sign it, we 19 have to engage an appraiser who contacts the 20 owner and meets. The owner has the right to be present while the appraisal is done. Once we get the appraisal back and it is reviewed and approved, then we do an offer letter. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What is the 196 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 owner's recourse? If they dispute it, they do have, I believe, if I am not mistaken, they have the right to hire an outside appraiser, and there is a certain contribution towards that?
Yes. The owner has a right to hire and engage their own appraiser. It is up to $500 per property that we have to make available to the owner. And, again, if the appraisals are relatively close, you could have a negotiated settlement. If there is a wide gap, the owner has the right to go petition for a Board of U hearing. And if the owner doesn't like the Board of U's determination, they have a right to go to Common Pleas Court. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Do you understand that, sir, what your options are and your rights are?
Yes. But I also like to say, if the CDC of New Kensington cleaning up lots and making them green, I have a right probably to do the same thing. 197 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: They only do that because they have landlords who aren't maintaining their properties. They don't do that because that's just something that they are hired to do. They do it because they are trying to create a better environment in that community. And oftentimes, many times, throughout this city we have absentee landlords who don't maintain their properties. And but for the people who live in those communities and organizations like CDCs, we just would have a worse situation than we already have. I mean, you are a property owner. It is your responsibility to maintain that property, even if you are not using it.
I am willing to do that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, I understand. I think this pink sheet of paper got you a little bit excited and the letter you received. And, no disrespect, that's why you are motivated. If we didn't do this, I would assume 198 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 that it would be in the same condition that it has been for the last years for the next 20 4 years. 5 I am not badgering. I am just 6 trying to tell you that, unfortunately, we 7 have to do these things to clean up 8 neighborhoods. 9 It is really -- it would be great if 10 people who owned these properties took the 11 initiative on themselves to do what government 12 is doing, and then we look like the bad guys 13 because we are taking your property. 14 But what do we tell the people who 15 live in your neighborhood, people who live 16 there, who have to look at these vacant lots 17 and the weeds and all the garbage and the 18 short dumping that goes there? It is not fair 19 to them. 20 And there are a number of people who have profited, quite handsomely, over the years in this city by just letting properties sit there, development occurs, and there is a windfall. What we are trying to do is minimize 199 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 our cost and do something that will enhance the quality of life in this community. (Applause.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So we are going to vote this bill out. I am going to ask the committee to vote this bill out favorably, but we will continue to talk, along with the New Kensington CDC and yourself, sir, and maybe -- and the Redevelopment Authority, and hopefully we can come to a resolution. The last thing -- and I made a commitment to work with you -- but the last thing I will let happen is the condition to continue to remain that way. I am not going to allow that to happen. I am giving you fair warning. That's the way it is going to be Something positive will happen with that property either through your initiative or joint venture with the CDC or some combination thereof, but we are not going to allow that to continue.
Councilman, I actually have some neighbors here in support of this bill. But in the interest of time, I mean, they don't need to speak.
Could you please ask them to stand up so we can see who they are. (Audience members stand.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If I may, you obviously heard what I said. We are going to work on this thing, and we will hopefully come to some reasonable accommodation for everyone. If not, as I said, if all else fails, we will take it, CDC will get it, and we will get something going there in a positive fashion. So if you want to testify, that's fine, but I know what you are going through. I literally cleaned some lots back there a few years back on Saturday afternoons, in my other life. But, thank you. And thank you all for coming in. Thank you. 201 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05
My name is Jim Mason. I own a property on Kern Street that's scheduled to be acquired here. I am mostly here for information. The Redevelopment Authority says they have an acquisition cost estimate of $162,025. It would appear to me that they already have some kind of appraisal on these properties to -- how are they coming to this figure, if they don't have an appraisal already?
Based on Mr. Wetzel shaking his head, I am assuming that that was an internal estimate and not a real appraisal.
Yes. We do not engage a formal appraiser unless and until this body approves the legislation and the Mayor signs it. I can explain very quickly to the gentleman. If this body approves this, the Mayor signs it, we will then engage an 202 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 appraiser who will contact you. You have a right to be present while the appraisal is done. When we get the appraisal back, we issue what's call an offer letter to you.
I have another question about the criteria for the choosing of these properties. There's several properties on the block that are exactly the same as mine that there not on this list.
This is an area that's near our office. We have been cleaning the land both on Kern Street and on Frankford Avenue. And we put in for this land because it was not fenced off, it has not been taken care of by anybody except by New Kensington, and so, therefore, we felt that it was in the best interest of the community that we acquire this land.
What about the other properties that aren't on your list that are adjacent to this property?
Some of those 203 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 properties have already been acquired by New Kensington CDC and some of them are in the process of also going for acquisition.
I would like to state that I have never been contacted by this office or any other representative.
Kensington CDC? Yes, I have never been contacted. They have easily contacted me for this. I have responded to it. I would have responded to anything else that they had sent me. When I go by the property now, the neighbors are using it for a parking lot over there. Now, I don't know how much maintaining is going on over there. I see a lot behind my property that's over -- it is fenced in and it is very much overgrown. Nothing is being taken care of here. I am not saying it is a trash dump, but I don't see any maintenance going on with 204 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 this or any kind of protection going on here. Now, for them to just come in and say they want to acquire my property, that's easily said here, it is very easily said. As we all know, timing is a factor in real estate. And I do pay the taxes on this property here faithfully, yearly.
Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I am sorry, sir. I had a sidebar going on. I didn't get your last name.
My name is Jim Mason. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Mason, I will ask you some of the similar questions I asked the previous witness. How long have you owned this property?
I have owned it since the early '90s. I don't know exactly the date, Mr. DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And you acquired them for what purpose?
At the time there were 205 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 buildings standing on the lots that I had started to rehab. The city came in and started to tear down houses that were adjacent, damaged the property that was there, and I had to tear the buildings down. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What was your intention before the city demolished?
I am rehabbing the buildings. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You are saying that the city damaged your property to the extent that they had to --
The city damaged my property and did not inform me that they were condemning the property, and just went ahead and tore it down. I was unaware that anything was being done at all. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: When was that?
That was, once again, I will say in the '90s. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Early '90s. 10, 12 years. So for ten years, then. Is that when you demolished your properties, about ten years ago? 206 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And they remained vacant land since then?
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Why are you keeping it vacant? Is there something else you had in mind? What's the purpose of keeping it vacant?
Once again I will refer to, in real estate, timing is a factor. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You can't get a better time in Philadelphia to develop than it is now. This is boon time in this town. Value of land is going through the roof in every neighborhood.
What's going on here is not going to be something that I am -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Money is cheap now, mortgages are cheap. They are throwing money at people in Philadelphia today.
You are right, this is the time. And I am not going to have my opportunity, am I? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No; you had it. 207 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05
Oh, I had it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: This didn't start last week. This boon started a good six, seven years ago. And I am asking --
Not in this area, it didn't. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Oh, well, it has happened. So you have no intentions at the moment. Do you have any plans to develop it? Have you made --
I do have plans to develop it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What kind of development?
I would like to build some housing there. I am a contractor. I would like to be involved in something like this. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Where do you live, sir?
I live in Frankford. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So this is the first time you had an opportunity to hear from 208 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 the New Kensington CDC?
Just now. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Again, I will repeat what I said before. I am going to move for these bills to come out favorably. I would suggest that you all come together and start talking. And maybe there is an opportunity to do some joint venture, development. Look, if New Kensington CDC develops houses, whether it is on your parcels or not, let's assume for a moment we move yours from this list, it is going to benefit you. What we don't want to see happen is that you just sit on the land, not maintain it, so that a year or two down the road, after New Kensington builds, then we are going to move to condemn and you have another windfall. And I am not suggesting that that's your plan.
Mr. DiCicco, I agree with you -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me finish. That's something that I am not going to allow 209 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 to happen. So I think the best thing is, work with Redevelopment Authority, CDC. Maybe there is a way you can develop housing that is going to be complementary to what they are doing, and it is a win/win for everybody.
I agree. And as the other gentleman was saying from the Germantown area, on Wayne and Pulaski Avenue, who wants to build a house on two lots, when you've got seven lots beside them and you can't do anything with them? You can't talk to the city about getting those lots because you can't find out who owns them. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We could have, the same way the CDC did. But everything starts at a place. You can't always wait for the other person to do it and then follow. Somebody has to take the initiative. And in this case the CDC, with the community support, have taken the initiative. And there is an opportunity here I think, if 210 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 you can work through these terms, that you can develop the property, along with your properties, along with the CDC. Their only objective here is to remove the blight, clean up the condition so that the quality of life of the people who live in this nearby community is improved. That's all my mission is. I don't get anything out of it, other than trying to help everyone get a better life for their community and clean things up and get rid of this blight. There is an opportunity, it is a good time in this history of Philadelphia, mortgage rates are still low, developing, people are looking to move, the pressure from Center City is all the way up. Fishtown, a shell, $200,000 in Fishtown.
Exactly. You can't buy a house for $160,000 down there. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's not a house. We are talking about empty, vacant lots.
That's correct. But I 211 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 know of a vacant lot in the area recently going for $60,000. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Then you are telling me that the value of land there --
What is the value of this land, then? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, you are saying you think it is worth more. That's what you are saying.
I think it could be. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But, on the other hand, you are telling me, who wants to build there because it is not ready for development. You can't have it both ways.
I am not telling you that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You are saying you didn't develop it because nobody wanted to develop there.
I can't develop this much land on my own. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Then you need to do something. You either sell it or you work in partnership with the CDC, if you can 212 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 come up with a plan that works.
I will see what we can work out. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: There is no 6 other alternative.
I own 2555. And I also own 2557, which I got no notice on at all.
Obviously. But -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Look, you understand there are opportunities here. I think there can be a win/win all the way around. But I am going to move these bills out to keep everybody's attention on getting this done. I am not going to delay it and ask this committee to delay it. Because if I delay it, another six months will go by and we will be back where we were in six months where we are today. I am going to keep the ball rolling. (Applause.) 213 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05
Mr. Mason, I just want to follow up on Councilman DiCicco on what he was saying -- and he spoke about this issue very thoroughly -- that we have to do something with vacant lots in this city. Now, as your testimony, you said that this lot has been vacant for over ten years. Nothing has happened with that lot. And I think it is either going to be up to you or the community or the city to do something with it. And I think that, as Councilman DiCicco said, he would be willing to work with you, the city is willing to work with you, and so is the community. But the one thing I want to emphasize -- and I think the Councilman did it thoroughly -- is that it will not remain the way it is. That's what we have to do. We have to take these lots, they are in great demand right now, we have to do something with them. 214 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 And I am hoping that you would also be interested in doing this and working with the city and the community to do it. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me also add, if I can, is this property on Kern Street?
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: My staff, which is always on the ball, just e-mailed me. Do you know what you are paying in real estate taxes? Would $27 a year be accurate?
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All right. $27 a year. That's why we are in the trouble we are in in this city. Because not just this guy, anybody, they can sit on this for 20 years, and at that rate they will owe us 500 bucks in 20 years. There is no incentive to develop it. They wait for the windfall. And I don't mean that for you personally. It is nuts.
I am not allowed to get 215 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 a windfall. I am not allowed to be in a lucky position. I am not allowed to be in a good position. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No; you are allowed to be in that position. But what you are not supposed to do is let a property sit there blighted and not maintained, that's what you are not allowed to do.
Ma'am, did you want to testify? Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Vicki Donato, and my address is 2545 Kern Street. And we purchased it. My husband and I took a long time for us to get it together, and we purchased that house six years ago. Okay? And we lived in it with our children for the last five years. Now, we moved out a year ago. And, well, he got cancer and a whole lot of things, we were having financial problems. And I am -- I go to the house all the time, but I don't stay in it. Okay? And we are right on the edge. I 216 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 know what they are all talking about, because the three houses that were next to me when we moved in were abandoned, and the kids kept starting fires. We -- anyway, we ended up -- or I ended up being part of the help of getting them torn down when the city was tearing the houses down. And CDC came in, and they did a beautiful job on taking care on the land that's over there. They put, like, a parking lot next to my house. And my problem is, it took us so long to get it. We were trying to get that for my children, you know. And, I mean, we are behind and it doesn't look all that great right now, but it has only been in the last year that it has been like that, you know. And I just -- I agree with the bill, I agree with the thing that they want to do. I just kind of wish that you could just go one over, you know. I don't know.
You do understand that the Redevelopment Authority would pay the fair market value for the property? 217 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05
Well, my husband -- I don't even know how to say it. I wish he was here, but he was too sick to come today. Yes; but at the moment we happen to owe a little bit on it. I mean, I have paid a thousand on it in the last year, but I still owe --
I owe some money on it over the last couple of years, and I have paid some in the last year. But I guess he wants to keep it for our children, because we have nothing else to be able to give them, you know. So, I don't know.
Are you presently renting where you live? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Do you own where you live now or do you rent?
The house on Kern Street, we own. The house I live now, I am 218 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 renting. I am still if Philly; my husband is living with my mom. I mean, he is really sick, so he is not in Philly most of the time. I am there, like, every two days checking the mail. I know all the neighbors. I don't understand how I didn't know anything that was going on. They don't even know what the project is. Everybody on our street, nobody knew. We didn't know anything until ten days ago, when I got the letter. And all I got was a thing saying they wanted to acquire the property. So, you know, we are kind of in the dark here. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Did you ever consider rehabilitating the property, rehabbing it?
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And the reason you can't, because your husband is unemployed?
Well, no. We were living it in until a year ago. I mean, we put a new roof on it, we put -- before we moved into it, they put a new front on it. We put a 219 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 new roof on it on the top and on the back. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Then you moved into a house that you are now renting?
Yes. Well, we went through some problems because he got cancer and we were having marital problems. So he took -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I understand marital problems, I have been there.
And then the neighborhood is, sometimes bad kids in the block, they kind of bust out windows. And that's what most of my house only looks bad because of the windows. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's what this project plan is about, is making that neighborhood a better place.
Yes. I knew that. But at the time -- it gets personal from there, you know what I mean? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I understand that. And certainly I am not going to get in the middle of any marital issues.
The windows all got 220 BILL NO. 050381 - 6/6/05 busted up because my daughter wouldn't go out with the kids in the neighborhood, and we had to wait for them to either move or -- you replace it, they got done again. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: There may be some financial opportunities. If you would meet with Sandy, there are some homeowner low-interest loans and things you might want to look at maybe to improve the property and make it a better place. Because when they get done with their project, it is going to be a better place.
That's -- I know. We have been getting things asking us if we wanted to get another -- you know, more money to improve it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Work with Sandy Salzman, they are a good organization and they will try to help you out.
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? 221 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 Seeing no one, I would ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 4 050382.
Bill No. 050382, an Ordinance approving the thirteenth amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Cecil B. Moore Avenue Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by 15th Street on the east, Jefferson Street on the south, 19th Street on the west, and Montgomery Avenue on the north, including the thirteenth amendment to the urban renewal plan and the ninth amendment to the relocation plan which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately three properties for commercial and related uses, two properties for institutional and related uses, and four properties for residential and related uses.
Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and members of the committee. I am here to speak in support of Bill No. 050382, which is the thirteenth 222 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the thirteenth amendment of the urban renewal plan for the North Philadelphia Redevelopment Area and the Cecil B. Moore Avenue Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire three properties for commercial and related use, two properties for institutional and related use, and four properties for residential and related use. Cecil B. Moore Acquisition Zone. This area of North Philadelphia is bordered by North Broad Street on the east, North 21st Street on the west, Montgomery Avenue on the north, and Master Street on the south. It is an area that has been strategically selected due to the high vacancy rate and redevelopment potential. Previously in October 2002, approximately 700 lots within the acquisition loan were approved for acquisition. A total of one additional lot is being acquired by this request. 223 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 The acquisition costs for that lot is estimated at $54,000. There are a total of two properties, one vacant structure and one occupied structure, that will be acquired for commercial development. The parcels are to be acquired and land banked for future commercial development. The acquisition cost is estimated to be $170,050. The disposition price for this parcel would be at fair market value. There are two properties, one occupied structure and one vacant lot, that will be acquired on behalf of the Seventh Day Adventist Church for use as parking for their adjacent church facilities. The acquisition cost is estimated at $106,050, and the disposition will be at fair market value. Sydenham Phase II, there are a total of two properties, one vacant structure and one vacant lot, that will be acquired and land banked for future housing development. The acquisition cost is estimated at 75,800. The disposition price will be at fair market 224 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 value. Additionally, the Redevelopment Authority, at the request of Councilman Clark, has decided not to acquire 1512 and 1514 Montgomery Avenue, which were part of the original proposal. Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 050382 and would ask the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June 9, 2005.
Thank you. Mr. Wetzel, you state that the acquisitions of three properties for the commercial development will be land banked?
Yes. These are being acquired for the Commerce Department and to be offered for future development.
Will the church have to pay the fair market value for the lots 225 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 that they are interested in?
I'm sorry. And the acquisition cost is estimated to be $106,000?
Okay. May we hear from the witnesses at the table, please. Kindly identify yourself.
My name is Carol Toomer. I reside at 1610 West Cecil B. Moore Avenue. I need to know which -- because he mentioned them in a parcel, and not individually, and I was served an individual notice. And he said the reason for it, I 226 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 believe, was that these areas were targeted mainly because they were vacant properties. We have owned the property for several decades and have lived there since 1987.
Yes, 1608 and 1610 Cecil B. Moore Avenue are in this ordinance.
Now, I am not concerned about 1608. I reside at 1610 West Cecil B. Moore Avenue. We live there, we pay taxes there. To move would be injurious to us. We are willing to work with the city once we determine what it is that they need from us. Other than being a resident and tax-paying, I didn't know we had any other obligation.
And how long have you owned this property? 227 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05
We have owned it since the late 1970s, and we moved in in 1987.
The condition is continually being upgraded. What has happened to that area is that it has become very financially viable. And, so, you have people now who are speculators and investors even approaching us to buy our property. We did have an appraisal on our property. We are not interested in fair market value because we know we would be deprived of what the going rate would be for that current real estate. Temple has made a major investment in that area. And it just seems that now that the area is becoming economically viable, now they are looking to displace the people who have made the environment stable for the past 20 years, when no one was interested in it other than collecting taxes.
Thank you. May we 228 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 hear from the other witness, please.
Yes. My name is Virginia Taylor, and I have a house at 1862 North 23rd Street. Now, I heard him mention that this thing went up to 21st Street. That's what he said. It went from one street to 21st. But this is 23rd Street that they sent me a letter for.
I am seeing they have Project Homes in that area. My home is not a Project Home.
There was a development targeted for the 1800 block of North 23rd Street, but that's not a part of 229 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 this particular ordinance. So I don't know if you got a notice.
Also I would like to note, how was my property selected? It is not a vacant property.
I was actually going to ask you that. Good afternoon. 1610. First of all, let me ask the Redevelopment Authority. That they indicated that the property is occupied on the fax sheet that I got.
A survey indicated that -- evidenced that there was somebody living there.
It was always my understanding that the property was vacant. 230 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 I mean, do we have utility bills?
My name is Michael Koonce, Deputy Executive Director of Real Estate Services for the Redevelopment Authority. The reason it was listed on your sheets as occupied was because there is evidence -- it looked like it could have been occupied. We had no way -- we still don't know whether it was occupied.
You could always knock on the door, sir, or send us a letter.
Excuse me. Let the gentleman speak, and then you can address him.
And yesterday I was actually out there at the property, and I did knock on the door. There was a gentleman sitting in front at a card table, I believe, and looked like there were products for sale or something out front, around 3 o'clock in the afternoon. And no one indicated to me that this was occupied, but we still listed it as 231 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 occupied because it looked like there may have been -- there was a chance. And whenever that's the case, that's the way we list them.
May I respond? Just because you live at a property does not mean that you are there hours. We 8 were out shopping at the mall, if that's 9 permissible. 10
Let me ask the 11 question. 12 When we look at a property and then 13 there is some question about whether or not it 14 is occupied, do we pull utility bills? I 15 mean, there has to be some, I am assuming, 16 electric, gas, water, some evidence of 17 utilities. Do we do that? 18
No. We rely on our own 19 surveys, the surveys of other public entities. 20 And especially if it is a neighborhood-based 21 organization that is working with us, we make 22 an assumption. 23 And maybe we have to go further into 24 this. We make an assumption that the neighborhood group is probably the best eyes 232 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 and ears of anybody.
How difficult would it be to pull up on the computer the utilities?
The ones that would make sense would be if there is gas and electric usage. Water and sewer bills just keep flowing whether it is vacant or not vacant.
But there is usage. I mean, you get a bill regardless of whether or not you are using the water. But if there is certain usage associated with the water bill, you have some sense.
Are we able to pull up electric? Michael has indicated to me that --
I have that in my office. I am kind of surprised that you don't have that at the RDA.
That's probably because you are a part of city government, and we are 233 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 not.
Gas, we can pull gas. We have access to the University of Pennsylvania's system that you can pull gas up.
Would you need me to present you with gas and electric bills? Because we can do that.
Not now. Because of the uncertainty associated with this property, because I was told that it was vacant early on by the neighborhood, there is obviously some question. This lady here is saying she has occupied, that should be easy enough to prove. So why don't we agree to hold that particular bill, if that's okay with everyone. We want to hold 10.
I am going to ask that we hold 1610, given the uncertainty of the condition of the property.
Yes. And my assumption then is, this doesn't get passed until the fall, then?
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Howard Palmer, homeowner or property owner of 1621 West Oxford Street. And I understand that the Redevelopment Authority wants to acquire my property, and right now I am in the process of renovating it.
Are you doing the work yourself or do you have a contractor doing it? 235 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05
I contract work out, I do a lot of work myself. It is not much that needs to be done. I have a contractor doing the electric work, whatever it is I can't do.
And records would show that you have the necessary permits?
No, I don't have any permits for whatever it is I need done. I mean, I didn't need any permits as of right now.
This is what I would like to do, because I actually did see some evidence. And I may not want to say, I don't actually want to say what I have seen you do, since there is some question as to whether or not you have permits. So we will not put that on the record today. Because of the nature of this particular acquisition, and there is an interested party, Seventh Day Adventist Church 236 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 needs some parking in your area, and I believe that particular property is the only one in question on that entire block face, there is one other property on Oxford Street that is vacant, it is actually in somewhat disrepair, I think that's owned by the Housing Authority, and the rest of the parcel is vacant land, what I would like to do is to report the bill 10 out of committee and then have you sit down with the Redevelopment Authority and some representatives from Seventh Day Adventist as your neighbors and find out where we are first of all as relates to the renovation of your property, and secondly what ultimately if we can come to some sort of an agreement as it relates to what we end up doing on that block. But I did see some evidence of some movement in there, but I don't want to talk about the specifics of it today, if that's okay with you.
So I guess a member of the Redevelopment Authority will be -- if you can leave your information with 237 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 the Redevelopment Authority, we can contact you after the proceedings and set up a meeting. Okay?
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Rosalie Hamilton, and I am here in reference to the property located at 1736 North Sydenham Street. I am here on behalf of nine other sisters and brothers. That property has been in our family in excess of 45 years. My dad bought it roughly 40-some years ago. He is deceased now. My mom has since been deceased. The property is in a brother and a sister-in-law's name. And the main reason I am here is just to let the Council know that our entire family, ten children that remain from my dad, we are interested in that property. They did -- the property has been 238 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 vacant for, I am going to say, approximately two years. And at that time, when the property became vacant, they did start renovations in the property. We do intend to pay back taxes, like 300-some-odd dollars for 199 -- I mean, excuse me, 2003 and 2004, I believe it is.
Ma'am, let me get, my understanding is that the property is family property, it is owned by the family, you are saying?
Is in a brother and his wife's name, so it is my brother and my sister-in-law.
Roughly two years. I don't have an exact date on it. 239 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 Unfortunately, I tried to prepare myself as well as I could with the short time frame that I had to come down here. So I'm going to try to answer your questions as best to my knowledge.
Okay. All right. If it is okay with the committee, what we would like to do, also, is agree to report the bill out, but we would ask that before any action be taken by the Redevelopment Authority, that we will have a sit-down. You probably need to get in touch with your brother, if his name is listed on the deed, because he would be the individual that would have to discuss the property.
Actually, and I brought, too, I actually have the authority to speak for my brother, I have it in writing. I have the authority to speak for my brother's behalf in reference to 1736 North Sydenham Street. 240 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05
Okay. Whoever. It will probably be good if your brother is available.
That's fine. It is not a problem. The only issue, the only reason that one sibling sits here today is because we have to go through six states to gather nine other siblings to come to City Hall courtroom, you know, No. 400 at 10:00 a.m. today. So I am the closest to this location, this is the reason I am here to speak for this property.
Okay. That's fine. We will pass it out. I will ask RDA not to act on it until we get some -- have some discussion with either your brother or his power of attorney.
Not a problem. And one other issue, it is not an issue, it is just a point. The mail that comes from, say, for instance, the City of Philadelphia comes to my address. I live in Philadelphia, so it comes 241 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 to my address, so I receive everything in reference to 1756 North Sydenham Street.
That's fine. Before you leave, make sure that the representative of the Redevelopment Authority has a phone number.
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
My name is Robert Smith, two properties, 1608 and 1610. Those are the two properties that were requested for the institutional use. Four years ago Beach Interplex built a 9,000 square foot daycare 242 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 center on 16th Street. And the properties on Cecil B. Moore are -- basically, front the daycare center. So this was an opportunity to look at a vacant property and what we also thought was a second vacant property in order to take those properties down and expand the play area for the daycare center. It seems to be -- I don't know what happened in terms of the addresses or the mistake. It is quite possible that when we looked at the properties, we were looking at them from the rear, and from the rear of the property it seems evident that the property is vacant. When you go in the front of 1610, there are windows, it is closed most of the time during the day, so a mistake -- I would say the mistake is on the community's part in terms of identifying that property as vacant. So, I would just like to say that.
Thank you. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself. 243 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05
My name is Judith Robinson, and I am here to testify on Bill No. 050382. I want to preface my testimony by reading just briefly, I wish I could get each one of you Councilpeople a copy of this book called the Federal Bulldozer by Martin Anderson. "Virtually all urban renewal projects now in existence got there without the local citizens knowing very much about it, dimly aware that the proposed urban renewal program was somehow going to get rid of ugly old buildings and create new ones in their place. And being very busy with their own affairs, they casually condoned it. "Look, some people are always going to be hurt. That's just the way it is. The fact is that every intelligent, knowledgeable proponent of urban renewal is willing to deliberately hurt innocent people, most of them Negroes and poor, for the sake of contemplating and enjoying a few new bricks, a little grass, and some shiny glass." 244 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 I read this book that was written in 1964 because I am just saddened as I listened to several testimony about how, with all of that being said, we are in Year 2004 -- 2005, and we seem to not get it right. It almost seems as though that book was written today. So I am going to try to work on getting all of you all a copy of it, because this is not something that's brand-new. In that regard, I want to say that this is a public forum. No citizens should feel intimidated by coming to this forum and speaking. It is the law. Community participation is the law. You all are obligated as Councilpeople to hear testimony, so nobody should fear coming here and speaking -- (Applause.)
-- whatever it is about related to their property. I am a real estate broker for 20 years. Property rights are very important in America, and I just would encourage every citizen to stand up for your right. 245 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 (Applause.)
I would first like to ask, where are the list of properties to be taken? Were every property that is proposed to be taken in the newspaper?
The advertisements in the newspaper should contain all the properties that are in the ordinance.
I can surely find that. But I just want to be clear that community participation is the law per the Charter. Make sure, citizens, you know that you have every right to ask any question of your representative; that we're not in some foreign country where you don't have rights. And I just think, I want to encourage people to be clear on that. 246 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 Taking of property, especially in this very robust market that we are in, should be considered very carefully. So there is no 5 reason why a citizen should feel that they don't have rights. I really think it is not enough for Councilpeople to vote these ordinances out of committee and then not look at what happens when it get to Redevelopment Authority. Mr. Wetzel, I respect him very much. But it is a process with taking of people's property, that's the implementation process. I do go to Redevelopment Authority every second and fourth Tuesday, and I would encourage the citizens to come down to 1234 North Market Street -- 1234 Market Street every second and fourth Tuesday to watch how this process is implemented after this is voted on, then you will see all the juicy or gory details. People are not getting fair market value for their property. They have a right to get independent appraisals. That's not being done to the level that I think it should 247 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 be, even though we are prodding them along and they are listening. We are encouraged by that. But we should be real clear. In this market, I would encourage you to let the market work. I think it was a few testimony here today where people want to do their own market projects, they are not asking for any money. Let's try to save some money from these little resources that we have that are so limited. Let the market work. And when it does, you will include citizens, you will take on the best practices for real. For instance, I heard something about commercial corridors. There is a project that they want to put on a commercial corridor. New urbanism for those that are about the latest and best, is about making sure on a commercial corridor that you have commercial at the lower level facing the street, even if whatever you are going to build on top. 248 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 On a commercial corridor you should stick to that because that's what best practices is all about. It is about making sure that you have mixed use to make for the best use of the land. I hear, also, some questions about zoning. I think that definitely should be taken into consideration because zoning is about land use. When Councilpeople who are the end-all and the be-all about these projects, when they make decisions, what criterias are they using to make these decisions? Are they using cost/benefit analyses as businesspeople would? Are they using the best interest of the community for real? Are they using zoning land issues for real? Or what other criterias are they using, who's the person or entity that will give them the biggest campaign contribution? I ask you respectfully, what criterias are being used and are they transparent so that the citizens can understand too how this is going? 249 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 As I have attended Redevelopment Authority, I see something very strange happening. It appears that the average citizen cannot get land for projects that they want to do when they are not asking for subsidies. However, when there is money being asked for for a project that is requesting subsidy, is requesting payment for acquiring the land, then they seem to breeze through real quickly. We are monitoring that very closely. And we think there may be even some racism and bias in how this land is being distributed, and we are very much concerned about that. (Applause.)
In conclusion -- because I do come back to speak on the next ordinance -- I would just respectfully request that citizens get the opportunity to be included in this process from being able to get respect when they speak about keeping their homes, when there's neighborhood benefit 250 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 around the development that's being proposed, and that we have inclusion of African-American business and workers in these projects which 5 times out of 10 are right in the heart of some 6 of the poorest communities. 7 Thank you very much. 8 (Applause.) 9
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
David Feldman, I am a Project Manager for VDP Encore, which is requesting redeveloper for the Redevelopment Authority for the property at 1736 Sydenham and 1508 Oxford. And I do want to say, actually, I appreciate that the woman, the owner of 1736, came here today because I have personally been trying for two years to contact the owner. I have actually gone to the house, the address in Mt. Airy that's listed, which happens to be around the corner from where I 251 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 lived as a kid and my grandparents lived for years. And I have gone there several times 4 because I am in that neighborhood a lot. I 5 have written letters, tried to contact her, be 6 very willing to work with her directly. 7 But I respectfully request that this 8 stay on the list because we have been trying 9 for two years. Down the block, this was 10 called Phase II. 11 Phase I is a building that's 12 currently under construction on nine lots that 13 were acquired at fair market value from the 14 Redevelopment Authority last year, I believe, 15 last October, and the building is currently 16 under construction that's going to provide 17 housing for 90 people. 18 We are going to be doing Phase II of 19 that, which will have onsite management on the 20 block. And it is a collection of lots. Some 21 of them have been privately acquired from 22 owners when we have been able to contact them, 23 a few are PHA properties. 24 The property in question, from what 25 I saw from city records and BRT, has been tax 252 BILL NO. 050382 - 6/6/05 delinquent approximately 10 or 11 years, but I am not exactly sure. I haven't checked in the last few months the records. According to the BRT record, last transferred about years 6 ago. 7 And the property in November was 8 cited at imminently dangerous. Last month it 9 was upgraded to dangerous status. And in the 10 wintertime when I have been there, because I 11 am onsite frequently, have seen footprints and dog prints to the back windows of the house. It is completely exposed and unsecured. So I would be happy to meet with the owner, and hopefully we can actually do this without it going through Council. But in the absence of that, I would respectfully request it that it stay on the list in this current bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Councilman Clarke? Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Seeing no one, I would ask Ms. 253 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 3 050385.
Bill No. 050385, an Ordinance approving the thirty-third amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at the northwest corner of Front Street and Spring Garden Street, including the twenty-fifth amendment to the urban renewal plan and the twenty-fourth amendment to the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 29 properties for residential and related uses; the additional land acquisition of approximately two properties for commercial and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services as required by law; and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the project.
Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and members of the committee. I am here to speak in support of 254 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 Bill No. 050385, which is the thirty-third amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the twenty-fifth amendment of the urban renewal plan for the North Philadelphia Redevelopment Area and the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 29 properties, vacant lots, 10 vacant 11 structures, and 2 occupied structures, for 12 future residential development and two vacant 13 lots for future commercial development. 14 Madam Chairperson and members of the 15 committee, I respectfully request favorable 16 consideration of Bill No. 050385 and would ask 17 for the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June 9, 2005.
Mr. Wetzel, why would we take occupied residential properties for future residential development?
Council President, let me consult with staff and I will be right with you. It is for the Sharswood Home 255 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 Ownership, it is a new construction project. There are substantial other properties that are already in or could be in the public inventory as a result of previous ordinances that will be assembled. This is all new construction.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President and interested parties, this is a particular development, the second and third phases of which we have -- the first phase we have already built 72 units for low/moderate income individuals. The second and third phase, which will be both rental and home ownership, will incorporate, I think it will end up developing, approximately 82 properties. These two properties that are occupied are, frankly, I think they are actually the only occupied properties in the entire square block. And my understanding is that we 256 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 would be working on a relocation strategy. We have been pretty successful in our relocation. As a matter of fact, in the Homeownership Zone relocation, an overwhelming number of those individuals who chose to live in the same community actually ended up with a new house in Phase I of the home ownership zone. So we anticipate that these two individuals will be relocated, if they so choose, in this particular community in a reasonable condition.
Okay. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and committee members. My name is Dawn Tancredi, and I represent 413 Hope Mission. 413 Hope Mission's ministries is a nonprofit, faith-based organization that's committed to bringing development to the urban communities of Philadelphia. 413 Hope Missions is the current owner of 127 through 37 and also 139 Jefferson 257 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 Street; and 1505 through Mascher Street, which is in this bill. 413 Hope Mission acquired these properties in March of 2003 with plans to develop the property. Prior to 413 Hope Mission acquiring this property, it had been vacant for probably years. 9 Once my client acquired the 10 property, they obtained a survey, they went 11 out and obtained environmentals, they retained 12 Mr. Livingston, who is here, he is the 13 architect that had made plans for this 14 development. 15 And he can also show the panel a copy of the plans which have City Planning approval and color photos which are up on the easel before everyone. The first set of plans in this project contained 40 houses which were going to be sold at market rate. The plans on this property, which also included a new street -- the property location makes up pretty much an entire city block, except for one small corner where there 258 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 is a house. And it is vacant, it is fenced up, and it is being maintained. Taxes are also being paid on it. Mr. Livingston, the architect, came in and developed plans which also had a new street on it and a couple of easements. The first set of plans were approved by City Planning. The street, the proposed street, named Redner Street, was approved by the Streets Department. This project also needs the support of City Council because there is a new street. This had to go before Council as a whole, and we were hoping to gain Councilman Clarke's support for this project. My clients went to the CDC to gain their support. My clients met with L&I, they met with City Planning, they met with the Streets Department, they met with community groups, they have been working on this project since 2003. They have provided plans, they have provided color pictures to the community group. We have kept in continuous contact 259 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 through letters and phone calls with the community group trying to gain their support for this project. It is our understanding that the changes the CDC wanted in this project were immaterial; for example, they wanted changes in window designs, which would not be a problem. In November of 2004, 413 Hope Mission entered into an agreement of sale to sell this property and have this property developed by others. Council for the buyer is here; they have got an equitable interest in this property, as well. You can see that this project has been ongoing, there has been plenty of work being done, meetings with multiple departments, L&I, City Planning, Streets Department, the community group. There is private money that is developing this project. There is no need for this project, this land, to be condemned. We would respectfully request the removal of these properties from the 260 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 condemnation bill. Obviously no taxpayer money is needed for this project. The architect is here to answer any questions about the plans and also counsel for the buyer is here to answer any questions, as well. And Reverend John Wallace is here. He represents 413 Hope Mission. Thank you.
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Steven Barrett. I represent the equitable owner in the agreement of sale which Council referenced which was entered into in November of 2004. The equitable owner is a well-known developer in the city. In fact, the office, the longstanding office of this developer, is in this community, on the 1200 block of Front Street. The principals of this developer live in this community. These are not outside interests. The equitable owner is Silica Builders or Silica Investments. They actually not too far from this site, to show evidence 261 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 of their ability financially, as well with the wherewithal in the building and trade industry, recently purchased Mr. Joe Hand's, the boxing promoter's, gym on Howard Street. By way of a pattern, not too far from this site, the same principals and the same backing and financing, they settled on that property on April 1 and within two weeks they broke ground, and that project is well underway. For purposes of this Council's consideration of this plan, the equitable owner, as well as the title owner as of today, wants to assure Council and the RDA that this property is not sitting idly by on some plans that have been collecting dust. There has been active involvement throughout the entire process. This is strictly private money. Taxpayers' money is not at issue here. There is ample financing. And the plans and the development is clearly underway, as evidenced by this developer's standing and other projects within his very own community and 262 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 within Councilman Clarke's district. So the equitable owner just wishes to have this Council be aware that, unlike other situations you have heard here today, this property is not a blight, nor will it be, because it is actively under the process to beautify that area and these parcels that laid vacant for over years, enhance the 10 financial integrity and the aesthetic 11 integrity of this community which is well in 12 keeping with the public purpose for 13 acquisition publicly through condemnation. 14 Thank you. 15
Thank you. Our 16 next witness. Excuse me. I think that woman 17 has been up and down at least three times. I 18 think she should be next to testify. 19
What is the 20 property in question that you are concerned about?
I am concerned about the property that I have at 1862 North 23rd Street. I had received this letter, you 263 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 know, from this department. So I am here to find out, you know, just what is it all about.
This is a property that was -- it is in the ordinance, and it is being acquired for a Project Home project called St. Elizabeth's. It is homeownership. And it is listed as vacant.
I have heard about Project Homes and I know about St. Elizabeth and all of them. I have been asked before from them to give them this property.
Do you occupy the 264 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 property?
It is vacant right now, yes. And I chose at that time not to do it. So I just kept the property and I paid the taxes and all, you know. And this is the point that, as long as about a year ago, the people start tearing up the building and caused the building to go down. And what happened is that, once I had the building cleaned up, boarded up, and fixed up, now I get a letter from this department that, you know, they want the place for redevelopment. As long as that place a year it stayed being torn up, nobody said a word. But soon as it gets cleaned up and fixed up and boarded up and everything, then that was about four months ago, and now I hear from the city.
Thank you, Madam 265 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 President. Mr. Wetzel, my understanding, this is a part of a Homeownership Choice Development, it was funded by PHFA and the City of Philadelphia? Phase I.
Thank you. Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself for the record. Are you going to testify, sir?
I am the architect and I am here to answer any questions that you may have. If I can make a comment. As you notice, this presentation is totally unrehearsed, it is strictly from the heart. We are here and I am here to represent the client because we have been working on this site for the last four years. And it is a site that's zoned presently as G-2, industrial, and of course it has to go before the Zoning Board. 266 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 And in going before the Zoning Board, because of the system that we have here, we have to go before the CDC and get their approval. We have gone before the CDC a number of times. And, to our surprise, the CDC has been seeking us -- all the information that they could get from us regarding this site and the development, and now we find out they want to buy it, they want to take it. And that's the disturbing thing. And we are putting a lot of time. My firm has put in a lot of time and effort in the development of this site, as you can see the renderings there now. And I would be glad to answer any questions that you may have regarding that.
Members of the committee have any questions of this gentleman? Apparently not. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? 267 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05
Could I just ask you a question? I want to know, I mean, I want to know just what you intend to do with this letter that you sent me. You know, I mean, I am in here talking and nobody is saying anything to me.
Ma'am, what we are going to do, there is some concern because that particular property was submitted to Pennsylvania Housing & Finance Agency, along with a number of other properties, and it was funded based on the understanding that the city -- ma'am, let me finish, please -- that the city was going to acquire that property. It was funded as a result of the belief that that property would be a part of this development. Now, what I will do is to contact Project Home and get yourself involved in the talk about -- and I'm not sure if this can even be done -- if there can be potentially a replacement property for that property, if in fact you are going to proceed with developing that property. 268 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 But as of now, that property was a part of a package that was submitted for funding to both the city and the state. We were successful in getting the funding. And my understanding is that they are prepared to proceed with the rehabilitation of all properties in that first phase. So I am assuming -- and somebody can correct me if I am wrong -- in order to secure the funding, there would have to be a replacement property in order to satisfy the requirements based on the Pennsylvania Housing & Finance Agency and the City of Philadelphia. What I will do is make sure that we have some discussion with the developer, who is basically on 23rd Street, Project Home, and see if there can be some sort of arrangement worked out between the two of you. Ma'am, could you do me a favor, also, make sure Mr. Koonce has a phone number where we can contact you, please, before you leave.
Do we have anyone 269 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table, identify yourself for the record, and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. My name is Winifred Brooks. I am here about the property 2351 Harlan Street. I don't know whether it is listed as unoccupied, but it is occupied.
We have lived there for a number of years, it has been passed down in the family. And I don't live there, but my children live there. And they want to remain there. We have done some work on the house. It is a corner house. And they have more of an emotional tie to it than I do. It is only a building. But we want to keep it in the family. They like the neighborhood, the neighborhood has been good to us, and we want to stay there. My daughter has some things to 270 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 say about it, because she is the present occupant.
Good afternoon, City Council. I am Bonita Brooks. I am not against the bill as far as redeveloping the neighborhood of North Philadelphia. I am all for that. I myself have been one of the ones outside cleaning since I was the age of 13, so I have seen the neighborhood transform, and now I see it being revitalized. Now, my only request is, I am interested in staying in the neighborhood. I have already done research. I am interested in Cecil B. Moore Phase III. I have already talked to the developer. I am just wondering if condemning the home or what-have-you can be delayed at this time.
Let me understand. I want to make sure I am clear. You are potentially interested in purchasing a new unit in one of the new developments in this Homeownership Zone? 271 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05
You are currently in one of the properties that is on the list today to be acquired?
Yes. I would like to stay in the neighborhood, because right now location is very important to me. Working at 6th and Arch, I am going to school at Community, plan to transfer to Temple. I am also a frequent patient of University of Pennsylvania hospital, just being diagnosed with lupus. So coming, traveling into the city, would just be a hardship for me. And I understand individuals moving back into the city so they won't have to travel in and out, that's the reason mainly I want to stay in that part of the city.
It looks like that's the last phase. I went. Missed Phase I, Phase II. So recently I see Phase III is under NTI. 272 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05
Let me ask the RDA. Are there still units available in Phase II?
I don't believe so, Councilperson. We will check. I think they are all sold.
All right. Ma'am, I am not sure where we are. This is the Homeownership portion on Harlan Street? Is the developer ready to proceed? Because it was my understanding that Phase II was going to be done first, the rental development, then the Homeownership at a subsequent date. Okay. So, okay. I am hearing you. All right. I don't think that, based on my understanding of the schedule of the Homeownership portion of the development, it will not happen in the very near future, so there probably will not be any need for you to be relocated in the near future to accommodate that development. So, again, I would like for you all to talk with -- frankly speaking, I would like 273 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 to see you all in one of those new houses that we are going to build, similar to some of the other individuals who were in the Homeownership Zone. If we can get your name and number before you leave today.
Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill?
Good afternoon, Madam President, Council. My name is Scott Krisanda. I am the Executive Director of Kensington South CDC, Community Development Corporation, and I am very pleased to be here today to support this bill. It represents a four-year pursuit by our organization, since our very beginning of our organization in 2001, to acquire and to redevelop this large industrial property centered in our service area. For many reasons, the climate at the time, the city did not have funding to help 274 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 CDCs like ours acquire through assisted condemnation model, a nonassisted model was not viable because we didn't have the bond money to post. And also four years ago, as I have heard testified earlier today, it was hard to give away a property in our area. Kensington South, or Junogi as it has been termed, just north of Girard, is now a burgeoning area, it is a burgeoning real estate market; but four years ago, it was not. This neighborhood is unique because of its diversity, and diversity in many respects. One in particular relative to this bill is the diversity in its industrial and residential nature. Kensington South is interspersed with large parcels of G-2 industrial property; whereas, smaller scattered sites could be rehabbed not only by our organization, but by private investors. Those properties being developed, you know, straightaway, even in poor economic conditions, these larger abandoned, vacant, 275 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 blighted sites remained as hulking remnants of the former industrial age. We were committed from our orientation, our origination, to change that, to change the community in a big way, to plant the seed. So then our project, Howard's End, came into being. It was forged out of the community, just as our CDC was forged out of the community. And, as I have said, there was no 13 funding. We didn't have the funds at the time. But along came NTI bonds, and we were now funded -- had the possibility of being funded, rather, for our development. We did respond to a Request for Proposals put out by the Office of Housing and Community Development, and were awarded acquisition and development funding to build houses, 10 of which would be available to 22 moderate-income homeowners. 23 This is an important factor. But 24 because our diversity in our neighborhood is a strong point, it is what makes Kensington 276 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 South Kensington South, our strong motivation, our mission, and our development projects is to offer a diverse product in our development. Also with less density, with the subsidy, we are able to offer more green space, off-street parking, et cetera. However, there is a group here in opposition, the current owners. We are aware of who they are. We have met with them. We were approached to gain community support and to entertain the idea of a partnership in development, which we did not cast off readily. We did notify the group that they would have to talk to the Kensington South Neighborhood Advisory Council in order to arrange for a zoning committee meeting to get the public support. However, those meetings did end up being fruitless, and we weren't able to get the information to entertain any type of partnership; and, therefore, pursued the project that I have explained to you. So, again, I would like to offer my 277 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 support for this bill and thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill?
Excuse me, please. I am going to ask you to be as brief as possible. Because we do have other bills that are scheduled, and at 2 o'clock we were supposed to have a Committee of the Whole Public Hearing. So if you would be as brief as possible, I would permit you to again testify.
Yes. I am here to testify on Bill 050385. And, again, I want to refer to this book, if I can briefly, because it is very important. The key point to note in this data 278 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 is, the data that's used by federal government is that the termination of whether or not a dwelling is standard or substandard is left entirely in the hands of the local government. And I think sometimes there may even be a conflict of interest here, if we look closely. When people have to be relocated, I am very much concerned that, because I have watched the relocation process. So in this bill I am very much concerned about relocation. There is 29 properties. I want to know how many of them are occupied. Because I have watched them do relocation. They have left senior citizens' clothes and belongings still in the property. I don't know how many times has it happened before. But one in particular that I was very much involved with concerned me. So before you all run ahead and push to vote on this bill, I want you all to consider, when people have to be relocated, that they are treated with respect and 279 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 dignity. In addition, there is some myth that there is increase in taxes. When you are getting a ten-year tax abatement for all of this new development, I think this is really a misnomer. And if you were to really do cost/benefit analysis, you will see that in fact maybe there is no real increase in development. Once you consider -- in taxes, I should say. Once you consider the whole development, the cost of the land, the cost of relocating people, et cetera, et cetera, I just wonder, you know, how effective and cost-effective it truly is. I just want to say this in closing, because I respect all of you, but half of the time when we have these hearings, the public doesn't even come down here to participate because either the time of the hearings. So when those of us that come down here, I would respect if you all would respect us as we do you all. Because you all 280 BILL NO. 050385 - 6/6/05 represent us, and we want to make sure you understand what we want so you can represent us properly. I appreciate the time. Thank you very much.
I think every particular member has respected every witness. And we have been sitting here since 10 o'clock this morning listening to testimony, very patiently. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Kindly identify yourself for the record.
My name is Abdul Brooks, my mother and sister was just up here for the property 2351 Harlan Street. My sister wishes to relocate with the Phase III program. I wish to keep the property, that's why I am here.
Okay. You are going to have to work with the Redevelopment Authority and the District Councilperson.
Madam President, if the property is not acquired, then there is no 9 relocation.
What triggers the relocation benefit is the acquisition of the property.
The City Council has to approve this ordinance, the Mayor has to sign it, and the RDA Board has to make a determination to proceed with the acquisition.
The property is not vacant; it is lived in, it has been lived in. Still lived in to this day. Been there for 30-plus years.
I understand. I am 282 BILL NO. 050386 - 6/6/05 trying to answer his question. If his sister wants to relocate and he wants to stay, and if we don't acquire it, then she is not entitled to any relocation benefits. That's what I was trying to explain.
Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Seeing no one, I would ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of the final bill to be called, 050386.
Bill No. 050386, an Ordinance approving the third amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Brewerytown Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Oxford Avenue on the north, 30th Street on the east, Girard Avenue on the south, 33rd Street on the west, and the Amtrak railroad right-of-way on the northwest; including the third amendment to the urban renewal plan and the second amendment to the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, 283 BILL NO. 050386 - 6/6/05 for the expansion of the eastern boundary from 30th Street to Dover Street and 29th Street.
Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and members of the committee. I am here to speak in support of Bill No. 050386, which is the third amendment to the redevelopment proposal and the third urban renewal plan for the North Philadelphia Redevelopment Area and the Brewerytown Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the redevelopment to acquire 13 properties, 12 vacant structures and 1 vacant lot, to be acquired in the Brewerytown section of North Philadelphia. The parcels will be acquired and land banked for future affordable housing development. Acquisition costs for this project is estimated to be $187,075. This planned amendment also includes the expansion of the eastern boundary at the Brewerytown Urban Renewal Area from 30th Street to Dover Street and 29th Street, and 284 BILL NO. 050386 - 6/6/05 the expansion of the southern boundary from Girard Avenue to Harper Street and Poplar Street. Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 050386 and would also ask for a suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June 9, 2005. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Wetzel. How would this acquisition support other renewal going on in this area?
My understanding is that the intention is that these properties are going to be rehabilitated either under the Home Start Program or under HRP.
Thank you. Do we have anyone to testify on this? Please approach the witness table. Identify yourself for the record, 285 BILL NO. 050386 - 6/6/05 please.
My name is Jenny Parker and I own the property at 1519 North Myrtlewood Street. I also live at 29th and Oxford. I have a home there and I have a triplex across the street from me. The property in question, 1519 North Myrtlewood Street, is next-door to a redevelopment house that has been vacant for a number of years. The reason why my property is boarded up is because it was a nuisance to my family who was living next-door. For the past 10, 12 years, I have been contacting the Redevelopment Department, try to find out what they were going to do with that property so that I could rehab mine. I never got an answer. It was in such a bad state that military police had to come and board up the Redevelopment Housing Authority house. So, therefore, I never rehabbed mine. What good would it have done for me to rehab mine, when the one next-door was in 286 BILL NO. 050386 - 6/6/05 such disarray? So I am here today to find out what's going to happen to both of the properties, mine and the Redevelopment Department.
I will respond. Thank you, Madam President. Hello again. This was a part of a commitment to the community, the Brewerytown community, as a result of several meetings that were had for the new development at 31st and Master, the Western Development. There was a proposal to build 144 market-rate houses on a former industrial site. A part of the concern that was raised -- one of the concerns that were raised by the community is that the affordability of those proposed units at 31st and Master was not there. There was a commitment made by the 287 BILL NO. 050386 - 6/6/05 city that we would rehab or possibly construct new units in the existing neighborhood that would be affordable. There is going to be approximately 28 properties acquired, they will either be done through PHDC Home Start or they will be done through the HRP program using the Brewerytown Community Development. One of the things that we wanted to ensure, that the vacant properties, particularly on the stable blocks, were acquired, not be subject to speculation; people purchase them and sit on them and wait until the values drive up extremely high. So we actually had a neighborhood tour with all the CDC and some of the residents, and selected every vacant property on every stable block. We have a commitment from the Housing Authority to rehab the properties or turn them over to the local CDC for rehabilitation. At the time when we selected that particular property, we didn't know what the circumstances of that property were. 288 BILL NO. 050386 - 6/6/05 As a resident of that community, if it is your intention to proceed with the renovation of the property, it is clear that that's something that we will be supportive of. So we did not intend to take your property just for purposes of not giving you the opportunity. So we, obviously, will have some conversation with you. If you agree to proceed, it is clear that we will back off of that. Basically what we wanted to do was create a stable environment for the existing residents, you being one of them in that particular community. So as we proceed, we will be able to be in discussions with you and maybe even be of assistance to you, if you are interested in renovating that property.
I am maintaining two other properties at this particular time. Back then, I would have. But, like I said, this has been going on for, like, 10, 12 years. And I had 289 BILL NO. 050386 - 6/6/05 brand new windows, window guards. They broke in they took all that, they trashed it. They were sleeping in there and doing everything possible that they could do in there. So I just got distressed, you know, and I just kept it boarded up. But I do pay the taxes. I was paying the water bill up until three or four years ago. But then the city told me, why are you paying the water bill, nobody is there. So they shoed me how to fill out the forms so that they could cut the water off so that I wouldn't be charged water.
Make sure we have your name and phone number, ma'am, so we can get in touch with you.
I would just ask that the members of the Rules Committee please come down to the chambers. The Chair would like to recognize any other witnesses that want to testify on this bill. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your 290 BILL NO. 050386 - 6/6/05 testimony.
Good afternoon, ma'am. My name is James Kern. I am the homeowner of 1545 South Hollywood Street. And --
North Hollywood. And I am here today to see if I could get the house excluded from the RDA's list of acquisition.
You said you are the homeowner. Do you mean you are the property owner?
All right. Again, I ask that you give your name -- I am sorry. Did you want to have some additional testimony?
Can you make sure that you give your name to Mr. Koonce before we leave so we can have similar 291 BILL NO. 050386 - 6/6/05 discussion as I indicated to the lady.
I purchased the property in January from the sheriff, and I am currently in the middle of doing some renovations there. It is vacant, like you said.
Because this particular development was for the purpose of creating homeownership opportunities, affordable homeownership opportunity, because we were concerned of purchases of property, and then renting them out or selling them at values that are not affordable.
I was just going to evaluate everything at the end of the renovations. But if it is totally for resale, that's not a problem. If you wanted a homeowner in there, I wouldn't be opposed to it.
We purposely 292 BILL NO. 050386 - 6/6/05 proceeded with this acquisition because we want to create a stable environment.
How much would you say you have invested so far, ballpark figure?
And you would 293 BILL NO. 050386 - 6/6/05 like it excluded from the program. I would like to ask Mr. Wetzel, is this scattered site mostly the properties in this area?
Actually, 30th Street, Myrtlewood, Hollywood, Oxford. COMMISSIONER KELLY: I understand that. But I would like to ask Mr. Kern, your neighbors, the properties on each side of you, are they vacant or are they occupied?
So, in other words, this would be right in the middle of two occupied buildings? I don't know. Are they on the list? 294 BILL NO. 050386 - 6/6/05 Do you know if they are on the list?
So, in other words, those two properties are not on the list, but yours is.
Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KELLY: I would like to say that I would like to ask the Councilman if we could actually pass this bill, I would like to see it passed, but I would like to see something happen with Mr. Wetzel, if I have his approval, to work with Mr. Kern to see if we can possibly either delete that from the program.
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Seeing none. I believe this will conclude our Public Hearing. I would ask 295 Councilman Mariano and Councilwoman Brown. (Public Hearing adjourned.) - - - 296 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING of the COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Monday, June 6, 2005 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Rules, held in Room 400, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 050302, 050346, 050363, 050364, 050365, 050366, 050367, 050368, 050370, 050372, 050373, 050380, 050381, 050382, 050385, 050386, 050414 - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA, President COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER - - - 297 PUBLIC MEETING
We will now go into our public meeting. And the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 050302.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move that Bill 9 No. 050302 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and request for Rules suspension as to allow reading at the next second of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 050302 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair again recognizes 298 PUBLIC MEETING Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 050346.
Madam President, there is actually an amendment for this particular bill. It defines the corrected boundaries. It is being circulated now.
You want me to read the actual amendment, or read it --
The actual amendment, what we did in this particular amendment, it changes the definition from F to G, the area bounded on North Broad, north by Cecil B. Moore and south by Master Street, on the east by 9th, and the west by 11th. And that is adding Section G. Madam President, I move the adoption of the amendments of Bill No. 050346. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved add seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying 299 PUBLIC MEETING aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 050346 as amended be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for Rules suspension. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 050346 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation as amended, and that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will please indicate by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. The Chair again recognizes 300 PUBLIC MEETING Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 050363.
Make a motion that Bill 050363 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and request for suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 050363 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. Councilman Clarke, what is your position on Bill No. 050364.
Move that Bill 22 No. 050364 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and request for Rules suspension as to allow for reading at the next session of Council. 301 PUBLIC MEETING (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 050364 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 050365.
I move that Bill 17 No. 050365 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and request for Rules suspension as to allow first reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 050365 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the 302 PUBLIC MEETING Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown regarding Bill No. 050366.
I move that Bill No. 050366 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, suspension of Rules. (Duly seconded.)
And request for Rules suspension so as to allow hearing at the next regularly scheduled session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 050366 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. 303 PUBLIC MEETING All in favor will say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly regarding Bill No. 050367.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 050367 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, also ask for the suspension of the Rules so this may be heard at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 050367 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. Though opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. 304 PUBLIC MEETING The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller regarding Bill No. 050368.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 050368 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and further move that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading a our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 050368 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will please say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano regarding Bill No. 050370.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 050370 be 305 PUBLIC MEETING reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and suspension the Rules of Council for first reading. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 050370 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will please say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 050372.
I move that Bill 19 No. 050372 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and request a suspension of the Rules to allow first reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 050372 be reported 306 PUBLIC MEETING out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will please say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 050373.
I move that Bill 13 No. 050373 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for Rules suspension. (Duly seconded.)
Is there a second to table? There is not a second to table. It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 050373 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a 307 PUBLIC MEETING recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will please indicate by saying aye. Those opposed?
The ayes have it, the motion carries. The record will reflect that Councilman Cohen voted in the negative. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 050380.
I move that Bill 16 No. 050380 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and request for suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 050380 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. 308 PUBLIC MEETING All in favor will please indicate by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown regarding Bill No. 050381.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 050381 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and suspension of the Rules so as to allow hearing at the next scheduled session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 050381 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at the next session of Council. All in favor will please say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion 309 PUBLIC MEETING carries.
David, do you want to be recognized for a report out of committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly regarding Bill No. 050382.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 050382 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and will ask for a suspension of the Rules in order that this bill may be heard at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 050382 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion carries. 310 PUBLIC MEETING The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly regarding Bill No. 050386.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 050386 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also ask for the suspension of the Rules in order that this bill may be heard at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 050386 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will please say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 050414.
I move that Bill 24 No. 050414 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and request for 311 PUBLIC MEETING suspension of the Rules as to allow reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 050414 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will please indicate by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. That concludes our Public Hearing and Public Meeting of the Committee on Rules. (Public Meeting concluded at 3:40 p.m.) - - - 312 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Monday, June 6, 2005, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COMMITTEE ON RULES _________________________ DEBRA A. WHITEHEAD