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.