Yes. Let me tell you what we're proceeding to do on this. The two ordinances before you today actually would have been heard last session or prior to Christmas. However, we had to create and make some changes in urban renewal areas to allow for these takings to move forward. We are not coming back with any additional ordinances, and we're in the process of providing to Council a plan for the notification of business owners and occupied properties that would be condemned as a result of this. Let me just tell you that the research we did indicates that we can expand significantly the notification process. It is only the minimum requirement that we advertise in city-wide circulation newspapers. That is only the minimum requirement. And we're working on a process to do direct notification of homeowners. 136 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733
But isn't the most simplest at least effort to send a letter to the homeowner?
That's going to be part of the plan we're going to present you.
This as a real contention portion of the last December testimony and Councilmembers were uniformly concerned and upset about that. Why could we not between December and now send a letter? I don't understand what the difficulty is in sending a letter. Now, if the letter doesn't get responded to or the person doesn't live in the area, that's fine. At least we've made some minimal effort. To me, I don't know why it would take so long to develop a plan. Even though these bills should have been done in December, they're being done now and it's almost February. I don't understand what the difficult part about sending a letter to a homeowner is.
It's not difficult. What we wanted to do is do the appropriate research, understand what we could do and not do, come back with a formal written plan. One of the questions that we looked at and one of the questions that was 137 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 raised is, do we send owners -- if you look at this particular taking, we would be delivering letters to 900 vacant lots. Or do we send letters to the occupied structures and the occupied businesses?
But without the prerequisite research, theoretically or hypothetically, if you send out the 900 letters and it went to a vacant lot, I mean, the Board of Revision taxes doesn't have any problems sending don't stuff to vacant lots. (Laughter.)
But at least you could say, "Look, while we're formulating this policy, we at least sent a letter out." And guess what, the vacant lots I don't care about. It's the people living in the house are going to get the letter. Even if it's only 30 of them out of 900 get a letter, those are the live people that need the letter. Now, the vacant lot I don't care about. Let them return it to us. As a matter of fact, the post office may be doing research for us by sending us back undeliverable mail that we can then record as being undeliverable. But in the meantime, the 30 or 40 business owners and homeowners, they get some 138 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 notification that, "By the way, we're thinking about taking your house." I mean, that's kind of a really nice thing to say to somebody, "Your house is possibly being taken by us and we have a hearing about it. May be you want to come."
Like I said, we are going to institute a policy that will provide written notification to occupied businesses and occupied structures. Our concern is --
Let me just continue on this one. There has been numerous -- in this particular case, there's an active community organization. The Councilwoman has been active in meetings. There has been full notification of everyone in that area. There have been meetings, flyers, and discussions prior to the Councilwoman's agreement to support this. So in essence --
Councilwoman Tasco is an extremely effective Councilperson. She's going to do her homework and her job. But the point is, is that with you're talking about taking somebody's home or business, you just need to send 139 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 them at least a letter.
Do you physically have people who walk the through the community to survey the community for identification purposes, vacant lots versus vacant buildings, occupied building?
Could you not, kind of following up on the Councilman's suggestion, have some sort of at least an initial letter that could literally be placed in someone's mailbox at the time of that walk-through, if you will. Kind of at least get it on the radar screen. Because, as you know, we all know that often times the occupant may not necessarily be the owner.
Where you have an occupied building. And a vacant building, it takes forever sometimes to find out who owns it, but at least in those cases where you have a building that is occupied some sort of notification just to -- and in this case, I understand there's a very active 140 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 community group. But there are some areas where there's no one. And people don't even know to call their elected officials in those cases. As they're walking through, just put some sort of a notice in the door.
I agree with you. I think one of the things that we've learned -- I accept the criticism of the Members.
It's a desire to improve government, and that's how I take it. I think up until NTI, all the acquisition work we did generally was the result of community support, Councilmanic support, where the developer was known and there were no surprises.
It's a learning process right not. We're growing. I understand.
Now, we're going into territory where there aren't necessarily community organizations and the mechanisms. And we wholeheartedly agree that there has to be a better notification process. It's unfair to suggest that a citizen should be only notified by a newspaper ad. 141 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 I agree with that, and we're going to change that.
Not to delay this hearing any longer than we have to, but my first experience with, I guess, a lack of proper notification, in my opinion, was in 1989 when I had formed a civic association we had requested then Councilmember Tiune to do a zoning change, a classification change. And I remember from that point going forward how people were very upset to find out that their properties were being deemed to be reclassified, rezoned. Notification for zoning, and I still think it probably is the same way today from the Planning Commission was a poster at intersections and some advertisement in a newspaper. Poster, advertisement in the paper, still, a lot of people were left. And I always asked that why couldn't they send something out with -- at the time I was suggesting getting to the department that send out their tax bills, but I have since learned that that may not be the best way either. So it's an ongoing problem, not just with NTI, with other ways which we are not properly notified, so...
I agree with you. We immediately started working on this, and it was 142 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 clear to me that all we were doing was meeting the minimum statutory requirement. That's not necessarily good government. It's legal, but it's not necessarily good government or the right thing to do. And we concur the right thing to do is for those people occupying buildings or occupying commercial structures to be formally notified in writing. The vacant lots is whole other story.
But those letters will come back and we'll know that it's a vacant lot if we don't know already. One other question relative to the general process. At our last hearing, again, in December, you explained that last June you solicited from each district councilperson their request for acquisitions and how you formed an intergovernmental committee to review each request on each property to ensure it was eligible. This committee was to finalize the different urban renewal package as to the first in an analyzed process in which we will be delivering ordinances twice a year for land assembly, correct?
So far we've had two 143 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 hearings. We've only covered half of the council districts, and my office is repeated asked why that's the case and what is the schedule for the other council district acquisitions.
What was the process for deciding which council district properties to acquire in December and which to acquire today and which to put off later?
There were a number of criteria that was used. One was there was the opportunity in a number of areas where there was significant -- if you remember the testimony about acquisition zones. The bulk of the properties in the condemnation packages that were previously approved, and as an example in this bill, were areas where there was a significant amount of vacant structures and vacant lots. That was one of the first criteria where we could put together a large 144 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 amount of real estate in a relative short period of time. The second was where there were really identifiable projects that could move forward in the very near term, within the next months. 7 So that's how we moved those forward. 8 Because of the shear volume of that sort of side 9 yards and other smaller requests were moved to the 10 spring schedule. So what we wanted to be able to do 11 is aggregate large-scale acquisitions where there 12 was the available land and then move on the assembly of land for which there was an identified developer and a project would potentially going into construction in the next 12 months.
What's the schedule for the additional acquisitions? I mean the stuff that we dealt with in December and are dealing with now we're generally aware of. But what's happening going forward?
But is there prior information as to -- we'll get the ordinances, of course, in May, but what do the ordinances entail? 145 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733
We'll share you with the pipeline. We have not gone through all the -- we've had additional requests through the end of December from District Councilpeople, so we're in the process of reviewing all those additional requests.
The Year One program statement acquisition budget was million. I had 12 asked previously but never received a response for 13 the percentage of that budget was spent -- for what 14 percentage of that budget was spent on the bills we passed in December and what percentage represents the bills before us today and what percentage remains for the acquisition of the other Council Districts?
I guess I'm including the bills today are actually the bills from December.
The ordinances that were approved in December represent 11.1 million; the 146 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 bills before you represent 2.396 million, for a total 13,545,000.
I would like, if you give me the opportunity -- it was very clear a couple of things, and in this case hindsight is really 20/20. Unlike other activities under NTI such as stabilization or demolition in which there was a Councilmanic allocation between and among various council districts, the land assembly did not have such an allocation. We opened the door and in came 40-plus million in requests. And in many ways, there were those at Councilpersons who were planing to use their money over a multi-year period, versus others who were very aggressive on the front end of this. We're going to come back with a resolution 18 for additional funding, because obviously we will have burned off of this year's budget except for 500,000, and we've got a lot of requests to meet. With a proposed allocation plan for each district .And then the Councilpersons can determine how they want to spend that money. In one year, four years or five years.
Councilman Nutter. 147 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Mr. Chairman, I was distracted when you were asking one question. I just heard the tail end of it which had to do with the pipeline and a earlier information request, and I think Mr. Wetzel indicated that that information had been sent, but --
My understanding of the answer, and correct me if I'm misinterpreting it, it is that the information for the first round of takings was provided but they have not provided the list and the schedule for the subsequent takings which were supposed to become as a request in May; is that correct?
Yes. We were accepting through the end of December requests from Councilpersons for land assembly. We had a cutoff date. Now what we're doing is budgeting each one of those requests to find out what is the scale of all of this. Does that answer the question?
That information that we request apparently is going to be represented in a May ordinance. 148 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733
But in the mean time, in the interim, we're requesting what the properties are and what the schedule is for their acquisition. It's coming in the May ordinance. Am I accurate?
I was trying to understand the response to the pipeline question and that a document had been sent to the Councilman but the Councilman didn't think that he had received it. Was a document sent that represents this pipeline?
No, the problem is, is that to get to the pipeline, we had to allow Councilpersons because we had an agreement to submit up through the end of December as a cutoff date for the spring. And we're going through each of those requests, budgeting them, and then as a result of that, we will have what is the pipeline.
So we're forming the 149 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 pipeline.
Well, all the requests are in. Now we're budgeting those requests, and then we can then produce the pipeline.
How much in advance prior to the submission of the May ordinance do you think you'll have that information available.
Councilman Nutter, we will know at least six weeks in advance of any ordinances coming here what the pipeline looks like, have it fully budgeted.
And when you use the term "budgeted," are you using that in a context of property X, we believe it will cost Y to acquire it and then that goes on the list and that becomes a part of the budget? Is that how you're using that term?
That's partly how I'm using the term. What we're looking at is, somebody might have a list of 45 properties, 45 vacant lots. We have a market study says the vacant lots in that area are worth 2,000 a piece, that's the easy one. Then it gets more complicated as we move up the scale. 150 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 But to have a rational discussion about what can and can't be done within budgetary constraints, we have to estimate the cost of each one of these requests. I think that's what I'm trying to say, if that makes any sense.
Now, I think this is the first time that I heard that there was going to be a May ordinance. I'd been under the impression from last year that there were going to be these two rounds, but that one come in the fall. Is that sometime in the October-November time period did we deal with those?
And that one was coming in the winter is what I thought I heard back at that time.
Because I never thought May 1st qualified as any part of the winter.
That's what the almanac says, anyway. Whey does it take so long -- and I think the cutoff date was December 27th. Why does it take 151 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 so long from that point to then get an ordinance on May 1st.
Well, I think there's a number of things. One is we've got to do the budgeting process, and we've had a lot of requests for land assembly. We have to do the budgeting. Then what we're going to have to do -- part of this process has been the continuous engagement with District Councilpeople and their staff as we move forward through this.
Right. I got that. But hold on for a second. I'm assuming that or at least I would like to think that the way you're going to do this -- we also have a Year 2 NTI budget to approve, which I don't know when that's going to happen or I don't know whether there was a NTI bill 18 that was a part of the 13 bills that was introduced yesterday or not. But it seems to me that the NTI budget for, I guess, it's FY 04 would have to match up with all of these requests. I'm, again, under the impression that NTI is now going to be dealt with in the course of our normal budget process, I could be wrong about that, which usually has us taking action somewhere in the March-April time 152 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 period. Don't all of these requests and what, in your use of the term "and the budget" for the acquisitions have to match up with what the acquisition budget will be in the FY '04 NTI program and statement? And how can we approve the one without knowing what the other one is?
It was a clear as a result of opening this door that the demand for acquisition was tremendous; and rightfully so, because it generally can lead to something. What we heard at the hearings was two things: One was clearly about notification and doing that in a much superior way than we've done it in the past, and we're addressing it. The second one was a rational distribution of the NTI acquisition dollars between and among council districts. We're going to come 153 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 back in the very near future to Council with a proposal for this rational distribution. That will result in a different view of acquisitions because someone may be asking for two times what their allocation is and, therefore, will have to make decisions about out of this list of acquisitions they are proposing, what is most important to move forward. And we need to engage in that process which is two steps. One is proposing a rational allocation that is acceptable to Council, and then analyzing the request within the context of that allocation. And so the first step of this -- while we're doing the budgets, while we're taking in all the requests, we're going to come back in the near future with a proposed allocation plan that then will frame the decision-making process because left with the door open, the request just never -- they're not going to stop and they're going to exceed what we rationally can do.
I understand that. Somebody's got to be door keeper and you might not want to leave the door open too long. Let me tell you where I'm coming from. This program or this idea or this 154 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 concept has been under discussion now in one way, shape, or form, and it didn't always have the NTI name attached to it. It was Blight Elimination Program when it was proposed in March of 1999. From January 2000, it continued to be discussed. I believe in April of 2001, a document which was actually a more of a bond offering document, not a program, no statement, and very little explanation of what the program was about, was sent over here, in April of 2001. It is now January which of 2003. In the last budget that was approved, there was one lot listed in that budget for acquisition in the 4th District. I believe the dollar amount was $22,000. I didn't ask for that lot. I didn't ask for anybody to acquire that lot. But I ended up with something that I didn't even ask for. And now you're saying that an ordinance will come over on or about May 1, 2003, which will basically be the first time that any substantive component of the NTI program other than, I guess, the vacant lot cleanup activity which was citywide will have touched the district. I know things have not moved along as quickly as people would like, and the Mayor articulated that even yesterday. I know you had to 155 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 extend the deadline. I dealt with the fact that there was basically no activity in the 4th in the first round. You had all these other places. The door was wide open. People jumped in. Maybe I was a little slow that day. I don't know what the case may be, but there had certainly been discussions, and I'll come through the door a lot quicker in the future. An ordinance comes over in May. May is going to be, I don't know, a fairly active month for a few people around here. So I'm trying to figure out when we'll actually do it. I'm sure we'll get it finished before we leave whatever the last day is in June, mid-June, third week of June, whatever the case is. But it seems to me, and it's certainly my request, that to the extent that the list can be put to together in a timely fashion, you can call it pipeline --
Wish list, you can go wireless, you can do it anyway you want. There should be something put together that says "This is what's happening in these districts. This is the list properties that we're trying to take a look 156 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 at," and give people some idea as soon as possible what their bottom line is for the moment. You'll look at the properties, you'll try to figure out budgets and the like. But I'd certainly like to see something that's going to translate into an ordinance sometime before May 1st, as we're now in the fourth year of this discussion. And I don't think that's unreasonable.
We can provide the list without a budget. I'm assuming you would prefer a budget, but we can provide the list of requests that are in the system without budgets at this point in time as a first cut. And then when the budgets are put in, then that could be the second cut.
How long do you thing it will take to -- I mean, obviously, I've not done this so I don't know how you figure out what it's going to cost to acquire property X versus property Y. Although I was left with the impression in the first go-round of this that you were pretty much -- and obviously the vacant lot situation is a lot simpler, but I was left with the impression that you were pretty much anticipating a certain dollar amount per property unless, I guess, you ran into 157 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 some unusual situation or some mansion somewhere or something like that. But, I mean, your average row house property in Philadelphia is -- it's to 5 feet wide, it's so many feet deep, it's or stories. I mean, they're all pretty much the same, to some extent. They vary neighborhood by neighborhood, I understand that. But you can start allocating some ranges based on neighborhood of what these properties are going to cost to put them in a package and put them together. You want to refine it, you want to have the deeper details, but it just seems to me that May 1st, from what we came out of last year, now the heightened interest, people have clicked in that there's actually going on out there and now they want to know when is it going to happen.
My staff indicates that we can first deliver you the list of addresses. Secondly, that we will have the budgeting complete by the end of February, the first week of March that we could deliver the budgets and that will get you to that point.
Once you've got the addresses and you've got a budget, I think those are 158 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 the fundamental elements of an ordinance, right?
Yes, but I do think what we have to do is to come to common ground on an allocation system within which then decisions are made if somebody is asking for more acquisition than they're allocated. And then they're going to have to decide which is more important. That will not be the case for you because you haven't asked for a lot at this point in time. I know we have a series of requests, but not nearly --
That's part of my problem, I don't ask for enough, notwithstanding what people think.
I just want to make one comment. Yes, this has been discussed for four years, but I would like to say that there has not been budget authority to do land assembly until the ordinance passed and we could issue the bonds.
And I do want to compliment the hard-working folks at the Redevelopment Authority. This represents -- 300 condemnations was a good year; 500 was an extraordinary year over the last 20 years. They've been able to put together, 159 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 the first set was over 2,500. This is another set. They are working as hard and as efficiently as possible. This is new territory in many ways. So in a period of less than six months from the passage of the budget authority, we have done five times the condemnations that we've done in any one year over the last years. And, yeah, we're learning as we 9 do this, too, because we're really pushing the 10 limit, but folks have really stepped up. 11
I fully appreciate 12 your comments. And if I even left a hint of an 13 impression that there was a lack of appreciation and 14 understanding for the amount of work involved, I 15 mean, I'm man enough to say I apologize for that. I 16 know the folks are working very hard. And again, 17 never having done this myself, I am willing to also 18 acknowledge that I don't know all the intricate 19 details that are involved in trying to make these 20 kinds of things happen. But as you have your 21 burdens and responsibilities, we have ours. And as 22 you are pushed and pulled in a variety of directions 23 get certain things done, we are as well. And so 24 there is a sensitivity on both sides of this table 25 about who's doing what, hopefully, with whom, not to 160 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 whom. But we have a need to get some things done. You're trying to do the best that you can under limited and extraordinary circumstances, and I'm just trying to convey a certain sense of frustration because there's another group of people, most of whom are not in this room, who are sitting out in the neighborhoods somewhere trying to figure out what in the world all of us are doing and we're all on the payroll and they don't really care about our day-to-day issues or problems. What they know is, "I got this raggedy place next to me, I keep hearing these stories. I'm in the pipeline. I got a hotline. Someone's got another line. All I know is no one's doing anything for me." They don't want to hear about any of the process and procedure or who can send a notice or who can't or we're getting a legal opinion about, you know, whatever we're trying to find out about on that different day. And that's the real world that all of us function in.
And I don't disagree with that. I think what I was trying to say was if we had had budget authority for four years and this is all we'd done, you should run me out of this room. But we've only had budget authority for a little 161 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 over seven months. And what I'm trying to articulate is people have really stepped up in this government to move this forward. That's what I'm trying to say. If we had had that authority for four years, you should run me out of this room, but we haven't. We've only had it for seven months and I think people have done an extraordinary job in that seven month-period. Are there things that need to improve? Absolutely. We're going to make changes in the notification because of the comments that we heard from you. Was there a need for a rational allocation plan? Obviously. And we're going to come back with one because it's the only fair way we can do business. Some people want to use their NTI acquisition resources over multiple years, where others want to do something right now. And we have to respect that and we're going to come back with a plan that respects that.
Well, I do unfortunately, lastly, have to say -- and it's only in the realm of the notion of opening doors and you did open a particular one. I understand about how long you've had budgetary authority to do certain 162 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 things. My only response back to you on that particular issue is, that budgetary authority probably could have happened at an earlier point this time if those of us who are responsible for giving that authority had the kind of information in a timely fashion that would have allowed us to make rational, reasonable, responsible decisions in a timely fashion. Short of that, at least for myself, if I don't understand what's going on, I'm not giving anybody authority to do anything, even if ultimately it's for my benefit because if I can't explain it, I'm not supporting. So we don't need to continue that back and forth. But all of this could have probably happened at an earlier point in time if there had been a more open process and a sharing of information and less hide the ball and if you don't ask the right question you don't find out what's going on. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Richard Redding, Acting Director, Community Planning Division at the Philadelphia Planning Commission, testifying today on Bill No. 020812. 163 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 The bill approves the redevelopment proposal for the Logan Urban Renewal Area located near 9th and Wyoming. The bill authorizes acquisition of approximately 985 properties proposed for redevelopment and neighborhood revitalization. The Planning Commission approved this at its November meeting of 2002. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions for this witness? (No response.)
Good afternoon. My name is Niane Catia O'Leary, now living at 6391 Sherwood Road in Overbrook Farms. In April 1997 I purchased a half duplex on 4717 North Marshall Street, which is now in famous Logan Triangle. At the time of purchase, neither my Realtor or anyone inform me of the 164 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 engineering study and the single home programs. The other half of the duplex in 4715 in Marshall Street was bought by the City sometime in 2000. Eventually, the vandals and druggies came in and pulled out stuff and vandalized the placed, pulled out the pipes. One of my two tenants became fearful of his safety and the left, and the other tenant had threatened to do so, leaving me with property providing no income but expense, insurances and taxes to pay and utilities and maintenance of the home. My sorry plight is the direct result of the City buying and condemning the half of the duplex next to me and not buying and condemning my half. If my half of the duplex could now be purchased and condemned, the City is free to demolish the building and my problems would be solved. I anxiously await a response. Thank you very much. And the reason I'm here today, I received this from the mail. This is a thing from the Inquirer. That's the only thing I received. That's why I'm here today.
I appreciate you coming in. What I'd like you to do is if someone 165 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 from RDA could talk specifically about this, whether or not this can be resolved, it will be helpful. One of those gentlemen there will. Mr. Lipschultz, please.
Good evening. Thank you for allowing me to testify today. My name is Harry T. Lipschultz, and I have been a resident of Logan and owner of Lipschultz Family Pharmacy, Incorporated, in the Logan Triangle from 1957 until 1997. For 60 years, from 1937 until 1997, our family pharmacy served the Logan community with a wide-ranging level of healthcare-related products and health information services, in addition to providing general needs, as one would expect of full-service commercial concern. Before the term "Logan Triangle" became synonymous with urban decay, desolation, and destruction, our pharmacy located at the corner of 10th and Courtland Streets or 4545 North 10th Street, was open 7 days a week and 365 days a year. For those not familiar with the Logan Triangle situation, allow a brief history lesson. In 1906, the financial house of Wolf Brothers purchased 80 acres of land, including what is now 166 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 known as the Logan Triangle. Clarence Wolf was the financial advisor to then Mayor Reyburn of Philadelphia. In 1907, the Chief of the Bureau of Highways and Street Cleaning, William Benson, and the director of Public Works, George Stearns, who both had previously worked for Clarence Wolf, directed that all future rubbish and ash picked up in the Central District, or what is now known as Center City, be hauled away and dumped in the Wolf tract, in an area constituting the Logan Triangle. In the early '20s, housing was constructed on top of soil brought in and placed on top of the ash, cinder, and rubbish landfill. The organic material used as fill beneath the soil and houses came in contact with water and decayed as a result. The properties build upon this ground slowly began to shift and sink into the unsupported ground. The sinking homes of Logan became widely known to City officials in the late '70s as a result of an engineering study performed by Lippincott Engineers at the behest of the City of Philadelphia. In 1986, a natural gas line disruption caused an explosion in a dwelling in the 4600 block of North 10th Street. It was at this point in time 167 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 that the subsidence problems of the area due to the aforementioned activities of the 1900s became widely known. An organization known as the Logan Assistance Corporation or LAC was created by the Wilson Goode administration to assist residents of Logan in a relocation program designed to compensate owner-occupied property owners for their homes and relocate them with assistance to comparable housing throughout the City. In addition, non-home owning tenants of the area occupying rental units were allocated assistance in locating new housing and benefits in the form of compensation for moving expenses to relocate out of the affected area. I won't speak to the record of LAC in this endeavor. That story is for another time. The total compensation received by Logan Triangle owner-occupied residents was usually in excess of the then current equity values for comparable housing within the City. In other words, residents of the affected area were able to make the best of a bad situation with the assistance of the City via its LAC mechanism. As we discovered later, the compensation offered to residents utilized a mix of City, State, and Federal Housing and Urban 168 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 Development or HUD funds with the City making their own rules with respect to the HUD funding allocations since HUD regulations plainly state that if a governmental entity uses HUD funds to assist and relocate identified affected residents, they are obligated to render the same assistance to any businesses within the given affected area. Many may be familiar with a similar situation that occurred in upstate Pennsylvania where the town of Centralia was evacuated over a period of may years due to an underground fire.
In Centralia, the local agency charged with relocation and compensation duties assisted and compensated businesses as well as residents, as fairness would surely dictate. In Logan, however, the City under the auspices of LAC clearly did not follow either HUD regulations nor any such fairness doctrine, as at no 20 time was any assistance or compensation tendered to our pharmacy. As the years progressed throughout the early '90s, more and more residents were relocated from the area to the extent that where you once had a thriving neighborhood pharmacy concern descended 169 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 into the throes of insolvency. Simply put, you cannot expect to conduct the business of a neighborhood pharmacy or any business which depends on daily consumer traffic to survive in an area devoid of neighbors. In 1997, the Lipschultz Family Pharmacy was forced to close. Despite repeated requests to various then Rendell administration officials, including Chief of Staff David Cohen and Redevelopment Authority Director Noel Eisenstat, our pleas for help went unanswered. Despite repeated requests in writing for definitive word on our status, nothing was ever offered. In short, we could not get anyone in authority to put in writing the rationale for not assisting us as everyone else in Logan had been. Plausible deniability is the terminology I've heard used in cases such as this. Don't put anything in writing which may come back to haunt you. Not being litigious by nature, but feeling as if we had been unjustly treated, we pursued the matter via our legal system. And I say legal system as opposed to justice system due to the fact that in our case we observed precious little 170 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 justice. After numerous years in Commonwealth and Federal Court jurisdictions, we were ultimately told we should have known back in 1987 that the City was not going to assist us, and as such, our case was dismissed as time-barred. In hindsight, we should have been clairvoyant and known the City would not be held accountable to meet its obligations to us as defined by the aforementioned HUD regulations. We also found it interesting that Bennett Levin, former head of Licenses and Inspections for the Rendell administration, upon deposition stated that had we donated funds to the election campaign for Mr. Rendell, he doubted we would have had any difficulty securing assistance for relocation and compensation. I suppose there's little precedent for that opinion based on our history. What was it about us that was different? We served the Logan community for 60 years, continuing to assist our neighbors after all other commercial operations say the Medical Center had fled the area. Essentially, we were punished for remaining loyal to the rapidly diminishing number of Logan community residents. The question has been put to me with respect not to why we ultimately were 171 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 forced to close in 1997, but how were we able to manage to stay as long as we did. Vendors and sales people had for many years refused to patronize us, as we were perceived to be a dangerous situation in so many different ways. Basic municipal services such as police, sanitation, and fire acted as if we no longer existed. The 35th District Police Captain was astounded to hear at a Town Watch meeting in 1994 that we were still in, as he put it, that no-man's land. I ought to know, I attended many such local community meetings with well-meaning but powerless low level officials. Unless the media was present to report on the usual pre-election posturing, the authorities that could make a difference never seemed to show up.
Throughout the mid-'90s, the constant battle with vandals who would strip our siding, the crack addicted squatters probing for ways to burglarize our facility, the lack of patrons, the ever-receding number of structures, the dumping of discarded appliances and vehicles, and the general despair associated with living and working under such conditions took its toll. Hours would pass before another patron would enter the store. We 172 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 truly found ourselves in that no-man's land. In July of 1997, the pharmacy ceased operations. In August of 1997, we contacted Mr. Eisenstat of the RDA and pleaded with him to exert any influence he might possess to have the building at 4545 North 10th Street, which housed the pharmacy and living quarters, demolished to prevent the vandalism and desolation that had occurred elsewhere as a consequence when Logan residents were forced to vacate their properties. Despite our request, the building was allowed to stand for many years after, to be picked apart by the local pillage and plunder set that frequented the area. If you've ever had your home burglarized or your possessions stolen from you, you can understand what I mean. If you recall the helplessness you felt. If not, try to imagine your home or business vandalized and destroyed, pipes, furnishings, and fixtures ripped out and sold as if they had no value other than to pay for the next fix. Try to relate to the feeling one has when your property and possessions are taken, with you powerless to intervene. " I also recall Mr. Eisenstat's comment in early '97 that he was happy L&I had not condemned us, otherwise he would have been forced to compensate us. It's quite convenient how things work out if you how to manipulate the system. And so I look forward to the implementation of the ordinance we now see before us, Bill No. 020812 that speaks to the eagerly anticipated and long overdue redevelopment of the Logan Triangle. " I would also like to call attention to Section 4 that states that the plan adequately provides for assistance to aid in relocation and to minimize the displacement of business concerns which are to be displaced. I trust there will be equal thought and consideration regarding business concerns that, through no fault of their own, have already been displaced. Thank you.
Don turner. I'm the occupant of the only remaining business there or the only remaining eligible business there. First I wanted to give out -- besides being the only eligible business remaining, I'm also on the LAC Board, so I wear two hats. First I'd like to speak a few minutes about the ineligibles. And Ms. O'Leary, I believe 175 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 was up speaking. The first page I gave you was really -- I guess I wanted to tell her, she didn't Logan, Logan landed right on her. And if you take a look from the Bennet Levin memorandum which is the first one, you see his idea was all you needed to do was put a uniquely colored notice on each zoning or material so that no house could be sold, and guess what, you wouldn't have any ineligibles. What they're trying to do now is pay the ineligibles less than the eligibles. I kind of think there's an amount of code negligence on the part of the City that it was nobody's job to put a color on a file so nobody could buy their house. The lady would have never been in that position if somebody would have done that. Also, I noticed -- I wanted to say that the City basically caused the ineligibles by letting them buy the property, they made their own ineligibles. And even if they pay the ineligibles less, they would have had to pay the eligibles who would have been there the same amount anyway. So they should still pay them the same amount. Not only that as a reason why they should pay them the same amount, they had to live in an area where 176 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 there's no code. Now, if you take a look at the Philadelphia Planning Commission on the second page, it takes a look at the picture they got. My office is in the far ground. This is the picture they happen to use. Now, that's really an understatement what the area looked like. I think they had to go find hard ways because now it looks good. If you notice in the Hutchinson Street, the first two blocks near my office are nearly perfect. But if you look at what the office looked like most of the time, this is the area -- the area now looks much better than it ever did. So to look at it now and make a comparison really isn't fair. But if you look at the picture of my office where the tires are, it doesn't look that way, now but this is what we had to live through. And the Redevelopment Authority, as Mr. Wetzel said, always did the legal thing, not the right thing. You're exactly right. You did the legal think and you were able to catch Mr. Lipschultz on the statue of limitations that we should have known we had to sue you. Instead of doing the right thing and at least calling us up on 177 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 the phone, saying, "If you have no money," or whatever you want to do, and that way we could have made at least plans years ago. 5 If you notice down the street, there's 6 always some property that was being torn down. They 7 didn't tear them down all at once. And since 8 there's no codes, there's no streets, there's no 9 snow removal, it's a nice way for her to raise her 10 children. 11 Also, we had -- the next page of that 12 shows the Logan Assistance bylaws. " Also to coordinate the public safety. 17 Well, on the last page when I would bring this up at a board meeting, I was trying to tell everybody it has our exception to indemnification. Now, the exception to indemnification I have underlined as gross negligence, willful misconduct, or criminal neglect or criminal behavior. And what happened it seems because we're on the board and we're a quasi-governmental agency that you would then all 178 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 give us protection in case something happened to somebody. And I wanted us to move the ineligible residents out as fast and as equitable as we could. That was from me as an LAC Board member. The next thing I wanted to talk on is as an occupant myself. If someone wants to help me pass these out.
I'm in favor of the legislation with the idea that those people who have been taken advantage OF by the legal system from the, I guess you'd call them the City Solicitor's who did the legal thing but not the right thing, I'm in favor of the legislation with the idea that those people who have been taken unfair advantage can get mediation, mediation from the City, not anything else. It's a great story unless it happens to you.
I'm the last building remaining as you come up to the medical center.
What are you giving us here? 179 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733
I apologize. I'm just totally lost. I don't where we're going. These papers are showing us what?
Why we've -- I guess my story for why we're here. I'm here as the only building in the first acres. I'm the only 10 remaining building that's left. 11
My building -- I will be 14 told once you approve it. Since you haven't 15 approved it, they're not allowed to really tell me 16 that right now; because in case you don't approve 17 it, they won't take. 18
I want mediation and compensation. 180 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733
I want mediation so when it comes time to compensate, we can get fair mediation. That's what I've always asked for.
Based on what they should have -- the first letter on the first page, the first 100 people got letters that my block, that person is --
Yeah, that's when they got the letter. I got mine when Mr. Lipschultz sued everybody.
I understand. I want to give as much as time as possible. But the issue -- we're going over information that -- I mean, some of us weren't in Council then. I want to deal with what the purpose of the hearing is to talk about the legislation that's before us now and whether you're in favor of it or against and what changes you'd like to see. It's just so much information, I can't -- 181 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733
Okay, then the only thing that I will say then is that in 1994 when I went to the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, they asked for ideas. My idea was a whole commercial center with a vocational training center above so that people could go for job trainings to jobs to their own business a nd thought maybe some of them may become either rich democrats or poor republicans.
I just don't how that information pertains to what we're talking about now. If there are specific things you want to see changed in the legislation or added to the legislation, that's what we're here to hear. That's why we're here to listen to that. I think it's been a terrible history. Dont' get me wrong. I think the history's been absolutely disgraceful, but I don't know how it applies to this.
I just wanted to reiterate part of the salient portions of that and maybe that would help when it comes up for a vote for you to state that there's people who should have been taken a lot earlier get some type of mediation and not 182 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 depend on the goodwill of the Redevelopment Authority. Thank you very much.
That's fine. Thank you. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 020811, which is an Ordinance 11 approving the redevelopment proposal of the Redevelopment authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the Kingsessing Urban Renewal Area being the area generally bounded by Chester Avenue on the north, South 52nd Street on the east, the AMTRAK right-of-way line on the south and South 61st Street and 62nd Street on the west; approving the urban renewal plan and determining that such plan and redevelopment proposal conform to the general locality plan and make adequate provisions for individuals, business concerns and families who are displaced; determining the necessity for changes in and for zoning, streets, alleys, public ways, street patterns, location and relocation of public utilities; determining that the 183 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 urban renewal plan and redevelopment proposal meet all non-discrimination requirements of Federal, State and Local Laws and the regulations and policies promulgated with respect thereto; declaring that certain expressly designated and provided for condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project; and declaring the redevelopment undertakings in the Project to be an important part of the City's program to remove and prevent the spread of urban blight. Please identify yourself for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. My name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia.
You know what, we're going to have to hold you there. The stenographer needs a few minutes. We'll be right back. (Brief recess.)
Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 020811. The amendment to the southwest Schuylkill redevelopment proposal and the establishment of the Kingsessing Urban Renewal Plan 184 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 for the southwest Schuylkill Redevelopment Area and the Kingsessing Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 56 properties. These properties will be developed by the Board of City Trust, Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation, and Presby Homes and Services. All 56 structures are vacant and blighted and will be fully rehabilitated or newly constructed to be sold low and moderate income individuals. This project will promote the elimination of blight and result in expanded housing authorities for low and moderate income individuals and restore properties to the tax role. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 020811 and would ask for the suspension of Rules of Council to allow for first reading on February 6, 2003.
Thank you. Is it safe to assume that the City Planning Commission is in favor of this?
The PHDC is here, 185 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 and you're also in favor. Mr. Paone is here to support it also, correct?
Mike Wurster, Board of City Trusts is also in favor. And representative of Presbyterian Homes is here and everyone's in favor of it. Is there anyone in the room that's not in favor of this bill? (No response.)
Is there anything else you think need on this record to describe what the bill does? You think it's pretty clear?
Anyone else to testify on this bill? Please identify yourself for the record.
Council President Verna has really -- I'm Kathleen Murray, Special Assistant to Council President Verna. She has spearheaded this initiative, and would like to note the one component of it is the link for education where each one of the 90 homes that are sold, the Board of City Trusts 186 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 will make available scholarships to eligible children of the home buyers.
Thank you for your testimony. No one else to testify on this bill. We will now take the following bills in order, 020495, which is an Ordinance amending Title of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and 10 Planning," by increasing the permissible height for 11 fences located on the front lot line of certain 12 properties in residential districts; by prohibiting 13 the use of barbed/razor/concertina wire or any 14 similar type of wire on residentially-zoned property; and by permitting certain architectural embellishments on fences; all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 020649, which is an Ordinance 19 to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Norris Street, Broad Street, Diamond street and 15th Street. And Bill No. 020733, which is an Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of 187 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 land located within an area generally bounded by Annsbury Street, H Street, Ramona Street and G Street. I would ask that the Planning Commission and Licenses and Inspections testify on each of the bills read, whether they're in favor or opposed to those bills. I appreciate it.
Good day, Councilman Kenney, Members of the Committee. My name is Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative of Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. In the interest of time, Councilman Kenney, I would just submit my written testimony and to indicate that the Department supports Bill 16 No. 020495, with any amendments that might be offered.
Councilman Kenney, good afternoon. Bill Kramer, Philadelphia City Planning Commission. With reference to all three bills, the Planning Commission will be formally considering these bills at its meeting of February 18th of 2003. All three will be presented to the commission with a staff recommendation of approval. 188 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733
Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify on these bills? (No response.)
Seeing none, that will conclude the business of the public hearing. The committee on Rules will now convene a public meeting -- first, the Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion to offer amendments to Bill No. 020495. Mr. Haigler could you please take the Chair again?
Mr. Chairman, I was going to offer amendment that delete the portion that references barbed wire where there's actually some confusion. One of my colleagues, Councilman DiCicco, believed that to be law prior to the submission of this particular bill?
No, it's not law. We had a legal advisory from the Law Department on it, but it's nothing in the Code to prohibit that. There is no prohibition in the Code that we have. We've been acting on it since 1995 as policy to deal with that from some sort of safety perspective. I have a copy of that legal advisory here. I'd be glad to show it 189 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 to you.
-- would not prohibit you to continue to do it as a matter of policy?
And then if we wanted to have broader discussion on the legislation we can revisit it.
Well, they apparently had the wherewithal to enforce this issue as a matter of policy.
So it's no need for us to have it in the legislative form so I'm just going to delete it out of the bill with the 190 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 amendment.
That will conclude the public hearing. - - - 191 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Rules, held in Room 696, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 020760, 020689, 020495, 020649, 020733, 020811, 020812. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, Chairman COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER
COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ - - - 192 1/29/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
Let's now enter into a public meeting. I first recognize Councilman DiCicco for a motion to amend Bill No. 020760.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe my legislative assistant has either handed our or he's in the process of handing out a amendment to Bill No. 020760. I want to thank you all of you in your participation in this morning's hearings. We have worked out an amendment that is what he agreement of all the parties, the developer and the civic association, Old City Civic Association as well. For the record, I will read into the record the proposed changes for the amendment.
The Chair will rule that we will submit the proposed amendment which has been circulated to all Members of Council.
Move for the adoption of the amendment to Bill No. 020760. (Duly seconded.)
It's moved and seconded. All in favor on the amendment? 193 1/29/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING (Aye.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020760 will be amended according. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco on a motion on the amended bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill No. 020760, as amended be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended.
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020760, as amended, will be reported out of this committee favorably. We have a request for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke on a motion on Bill 020689.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that Bill No. 020689 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the 194 1/29/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING rules. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020689 will reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. A request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke on a motion, I think, to amend Bill 020495.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as circulated, I'd like to offer the proposed amendments to Bill No. 020495 at this time. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. The amendment to Bill No. 020495 has been approved and the bill will be amended 195 1/29/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING accordingly. Reported out of this Committee favorably. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion on the amended Bill 020495.
Mr. Chairman, as a result of very recent discussions with the Members of this Committee, I'm going to ask that we hold this particular bill.
That will be done. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 020649.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020649 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020649 will reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. A request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. 196 1/29/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke on a motion on Bill No. 020733.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that Bill No. 020733 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020733 will be reported out of this Committee favorably. A request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco for a motion on Bill 020811.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020811 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.) 197 1/29/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020811 will reported out of this Committee favorably. A request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco on a motion on Bill 020812.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill No. 020812 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020812 will reported out of this Committee favorably. A request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. 198 1/29/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING If there's nothing else, that will conclude the business of the Rules Committee today. We appreciate your time and patience. I believe the Committee on Licenses and Inspections will be convening shortly. Thank you. (Council adjourned at 2:15 p.m.) - - - 199 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of January 29, 2003, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON RULES ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public