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.