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