Committee Hearing, June 9, 2004

CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, June 9, 2004 10:45 a.m. - - - - - - Bill Nos. 040327, 040424, 040426, 040427, 040429, 040430, 040433, 040434, 040462, 040466, 040498, 040500, 040506, 040520, 040521, 040566, 040336, 040616 PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN JUAN F. RAMOS COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing

Good morning, everyone. I'm sorry for the delay. We did have another public hearing scheduled. This is the public hearing of the Committee of the Rules. I would like to establish a quorum. A quorum is established. Councilman Clarke, Councilman Mariano to my left; to my far right is Councilwoman Miller and Councilman Brian O'Neill. At this time I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 040506.

Bill 040506, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Sanger Street, Tacony Street, Devereaux Street and the Delaware River.

Good morning, Mr. Chapman. Do we have copies of your testimony?

Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. They were sent over last week.

I believe I 3 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing was just given a copy of it. Please proceed with your testimony. Identify yourself and proceed with your testimony.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Thomas Chapman. I'm the director of the development planning division for the City Planning Commission, and I'm here today to testify on Bill 10 No. 040506. Councilwoman Krajewski introduced this bill on May of this year. This bill would rezone 13 a number of industrial properties near the north Delaware River waterfront. This bill concerns the area bounded by Sanger Street or parts of the area bounded by Sanger Street, Tacony Street, Devereaux Street, and the Delaware River. The parties interested in this rezoning action are Newman & Company, Incorporated and Dietz & Watson. Both firms have been long-standing active members of the business community and have expressed the desire to both remain in the city and expand their operations. The properties where these businesses are located would be rezoned from partly G to general industrial, partially LR, lease 4 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing restricted, industrial and partly class recreational to a single designation of lease restricted industrial. The land where the zoning will be changed is approximately acres. Both 6 businesses -- 7

I'm sorry. 8 Would you repeat your last sentence? I think you 9 said something about 14 neighbors? 10

Yes; the land involved -- 11 the land where the actual zoning is going to change 12 is approximately 14 acres. 13

Oh, acres. 14

Both businesses are long-term members of the community. In fact, Newman Paper has been in business in the city for about 85 years and at their present location on Tacony Street for, I believe, over 50 years. Dietz & Watson has been at their location on Tacony Street for, again, the best of my knowledge, over 30 years. Both businesses have expanded on a number of occasions. Newman Paper, in fact, expanded within the last three years I believe. And this rezoning would facilitate future business expansion. Hundreds of people are employed by both of these companies and, 5 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing to the best of my knowledge, many of those people, if not most of those people, are residents of the City of Philadelphia. The City Planning Commission is scheduled to consider this amendment to the zoning maps on June 15, 2004, and at that time I would expect that the Commission would recommend approval. If I may, we received a late inquiry from Dietz & Watson, and I would like to offer an amendment to this bill. It changes a small part of the area that's to be rezoned, a small property along Tacony Street right near Homestead Street.

Do you have copies of the amendments?

Yes, I do.

May we have a copy, please? And has this been discussed with Councilwoman Krajewski.

Yes, it has.

And she is in favor of the amendment?

Yes, she is, Madam President. Yes, she is. 6 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do you have language for the amendment?

No, Madam President, I don't. It's a change in the map.

You will make sure that the chief clerk's office has a copy of it.

Yes, I will.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from members of the committee? Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Seeing none, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 040521.

An ordinance amending Section 14-201.1 of The Philadelphia Code relating to R-1-A residential district by changing the width of side yards.

Mr. Chapman.

Good morning once again, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. 7 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing My name is Thomas Chapman. I am the director of the development planning division for the City Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 040521. This bill was introduced by Councilman O'Neill on May of this year. This bill would 7 amend the Philadelphia Zoning Code by changing the 8 side yard requirements of the R-1-A residential 9 zoning classification. 10 Currently, each side yard must be a 11 minimum of 15 feet in width, and this bill would 12 reduce that requirement to a minimum width of 10 13 feet. Once again, the Planning Commission is scheduled to consider this amendment to the zoning code at its meeting of June 15, 2004. That concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions of the committee.

Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee?

I just want to comment. This allows a larger house on the same frontage, and it was actually the intent originally to have it be a 10-foot side yard, so somehow it got to be 15. Thank you. 8 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing

Thank you. Do we have anyone to testify on this bill? Seeing none, I would again ask Mr. McPherson to read the title of Bill No. 040336.

An ordinance amending Section 14-305 of The Philadelphia Code relating to C-4 commercial and C-5 commercial districts by requiring that prior to the issuance of certain permits a zoning board of adjustment certificate be obtained.

Mr. Chapman.

Madam President and members of the Rules Committee, my testimony was read into the record on this bill at the previous hearing on May 26. I could do that again if you would like.

I don't think that's necessary. I believe that the Planning Commission voted not to recommend the approval of this bill and their staff testified to that?

That's correct.

They feel that the number of hearings that would be required if the 9 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing bill is enacted would hinder development in Center City. Is there any additional testimony on this bill? I think that the sponsor -- yes, please approach the witness table. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Good morning, Council President. My name is Michael Sklaroff. I'm a lawyer with Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, and with me is Joanne Phillips, who is my partner at Ballard Spahr. And we are here representing ourselves as people who are invested in the city as business people.

Do you mind pulling the microphone closer to you?

I'm sorry. We are here representing ourselves as people who are invested in business in the City of Philadelphia. We are here on behalf of several of our clients who are part of the development community and we are here as lawyers who practice before the Zoning Board of Adjustment and who are 10 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing involved in projects, small, medium and large, in the City of Philadelphia. Essentially, as we understand it, this bill would require solely in districts which are C-4 and C-5 all permits which were heretofore available over-the-counter; that is, all permits to which landowners would be entitled only in these districts to go all to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Now, members of Council will remember some will -- some were here and some weren't -- this bill or this ordinance, the Center City controls which apply in the C-4/C-5 district were put into law on October 31, 1991 after five years of discussions which were hosted by the Philadelphia Planning Commission. Those discussions included discussions which became part of the plan for Center City, which is one of the most recent comprehensive plans for this city, which was passed in 1988. Representatives of the community, representatives of the business community, representatives of the Bar Association, architects, planners and city officials worked for five years to present to this Council the bill which Mayor Goode signed into law on October 31, 1991. 11 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing This is the most intense commercial development, but encompasses a broad range of uses including residential, office, commercial, little stores, little shops, houses, apartment houses, hotels and major office buildings and mixed use projects. These are very rigorous requirements and they are -- probably the most rigorous and most complicated focused on making Center City vibrant and effective. Now, what this bill would do would mean that property owners that complied with all the aspects of that law and all the requirements would now be forced to go to a procedure before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I would ask Joanne Phillips to talk a little bit about what that means practically in terms of increasing the cost of business, and then I would like to go to some of the other issues.

One of our concerns is that although it may seem simple to go to the Zoning Board, what it really entails is when you are working so hard to reduce the cost of doing business and save business people and residents tax money in the city that, in fact, it puts an additional fee 12 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing and cost that is attributed to doing business in Center City or in other areas that are zoned C4-C5. In addition to the normal fees that you would have for filing with L & I, which would be the hundred dollars for an application, and, if you wanted it expedited, to move quicker, would be another $420, which, in fact, is reasonable to get the amount of work they have to do to get these permits out. If you would have to go to the board, you need to file an appeal to the board, which is an additional $200, and if you wanted to have an expedited appeal in order to meet some kind of time frame which you may need for financing or for a lease or a purchase of a property, you are talking about an additional $500. If you are a corporation that owns a business, it could be a small business, a jewelry store or a bookstore, you now must hire an attorney to go to the board because that's one of the rules that you cannot represent yourself. You need to have an attorney. So now have you an additional cost of an attorney that has to prepare and appear at the hearing. You also have the additional costs to 13 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing actually put on your case at the board. Just to say to go to the board for a certificate, there are requirements under the code that may call for other experts, a planner, some traffic testimony, so now you have added probably several thousands of dollars of costs just to appear before the board to carry the burden of your case. This is appropriate when it is a certificate case under the code now, and there are many things that require you to go to the board, but for many uses, just to change the use of a building from a jewelry store to a book store or to get a sign that is accessory or to put an awning on, all of these types of permits actually run through L & I and you would be sending them all to the board at a great expense to the business people and residents as well. If they were doing something to their house, they will have the same issue if they are in a C-4/C-5. So we see it as something that really puts a damper on people wanting to do business. Additionally, there would be an appeal period that would be implicated by this. People that are trying to buy houses or buy properties 14 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing would have to deal with that as well in connection with their financing. So going from something that could be certain, where you could tell a client, yes, you could come in to here and you can open your store, now we would have to tell council people yes, you can come in here. You can get the permit, but we have to go through this process to get it for you. And we are talking about a fair amount of time as well. This won't be done quickly.

I would like you to elaborate on an issue that I think Council members would I guess better understand. As the law stands and it has for many years, uses that comply with the Zoning Code are as a right.

That's correct.

Give us an example, please.

An example would be --

You purchase a property.

You purchase a retail store on Walnut Street and you need to comply with 15 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing some zoning overlays but say a jewelry store because I'm pretty sure that one is as a right. You would go to L & I. You would make an application for your use to change the store, a vacant store to a jewelry store.

And that would be over-the-counter certificate.

They would look at the code and say this use complies, this sign complies. They are entitled to a permit. For the payment of a fee, they would then issue you the permit. That permit would allow you to get a building permit, and it is basically the gatekeeper to uses and construction in the city. So that would be as a right and you would be entitled to that. And that's what is considered over-the-counter or as a right.

Now, this bill 19 proposes?

This bill proposes to do away with the over-the-counter or as a right permit. There would be nothing as a right. Every permit would have to be reviewed by the Zoning Board of Adjustment first, and that's the rub, although many already have to do that. There are many that 16 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing already need to go to the board for special use permit or for a certificate or for a variance. They will always be going to the board, but this is all the other uses that were already permitted as a right.

And what happens, if I may add, is that before the board -- on its certificate there are issues which are very subjective, and those issues include whether the project is harmful to the public health, welfare and safety. In our city any one person has the power to delay a project, as they have for two and three years, if they are willing to take it through the courts. So this means that small projects, medium projects, and even large projects which comply with all the requirements that City Council put into this very complicated ordinance, they could be delayed up to three years before the courts finally say, you know, enough is enough. And those people can file 22 those appeals, just one of them, just by virtue of being a taxpayer. They don't even have to be a neighbor. So the result of this is it's going to 17 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing make it difficult for people to make important changes and help rebuild their properties, which all go to help rebuild the city. It is going to encourage some people not to bother trying to get permits that they are entitled to because they don't want to get into the system because they know how expensive it is. Think about it. You might have a sign that cost a thousand dollars, complies with all the requirements, and now you have to go to the Zoning Board. If you are a corporation, it could cost you $5000 to put up a thousand dollar sign. Contrarywise, if you have a major project which is going to potentially employ a lot of construction workers for a long period of time and let's assume you have an argument with the competitor, which happens, or a taxpayer or some disgruntled neighbor, even though you have a right under City Council's ordinance, you could be delayed one two or three years. Well, we need to rebuild this city. We need to get cranes back in the city and we need small jobs and medium jobs and larger jobs for our workers. And this puts all of that in jeopardy. It is also a bad sign to people from outside of the 18 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing city who want to build and create jobs in the city. So all in all this is something which sends the wrong signal, is expensive and too expensive for average people, and also it puts an incredible burden on the Zoning Board of Adjustment. It could have hundreds of cases a year, which they are not -- they really don't have the capacity to handle. So thank you for your attention. Joanne, anything else?

Thank you.

I was going to say it puts a big burden on L & I as well. Instead of writing up permits, they have this additional step of writing up referrals and then ultimately writing up permits. And all of this takes time, and a lot of time when businesses are coming in, there is a real time element to getting into your store and getting open.

I want to say one word about L & I. Sometimes we agree with L & I and sometimes we don't, but there is no group of people that's more dedicated, that is more overworked than they are and not entirely well compensated. They do 19 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing a great job, even though we don't always agree with them.

We agree with your last statement. The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano.

Thank you, Madam President. For either one of you at the table, I want to open up a water ice stand. It's only good from May until October at the latest. How soon do I have to go to L & I now before this happens if it happens and not to have an expedited hearing to get a water ice stand? Are we talking two, three months?

Absolutely.

So I have to be thinking in January for the water ice stand?

You would have to be planning in December or January.

So if you start thinking about the water ice stand about May, about Memorial Day, you would never get that?

And if you had any construction in that too, you would have to build 20 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing that into it as well. Just to open an existing store, you are going to be talking January. If you were actually going to be building out something, you are even behind that.

So the guy with very low-income operations, opens a water ice stand, he's going to cross his fingers and hope he doesn't get caught, and maybe makes it to August or September.

Right, because then you could be in some type of enforcement action and you might do better under the enforcement action than you would trying to come in under your own permit.

What is the wait now without an expedited hearing? Two months?

I believe it is six to eight weeks, and actually our Zoning Board too, to their credit, when you tell people from out of town that our board meets every week, that's an impressive thing to be able to tell people. They are meeting every week several times a week, so even with that you are still talking out about six to eight weeks I believe. And with an expedited hearing, for the additional $500 you may be able to 21 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing go three to five weeks depending on their calendar.

Thank you.

I would ask, if you don't mind, for both of you to remain here. It is my understanding that Councilman Clarke, who is the sponsor of the bill, would like to be present for, I guess, questioning or for discussion on this bill. He should be arriving shortly. I would also ask that Mr. Chapman remain in the event that there are questions that he may be required to answer. So if you don't mind, I would ask you to remain in the chamber.

We would be happy to, Madam President. Thank you.

Do we have any other witnesses on this bill to testify? I would ask Mr. McPherson to read the title of Bill No. 040327.

An ordinance approving the second amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the 45th and Sansom Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Market Street on the north, South 44th Street on the east, Walnut Street 22 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing on the south and Farragut Street on the west, including the second amendment to the urban renewal plan and the first amendment to the relocation plan which provides, inter alia, for the expansion of the northern boundary of the urban renewal area from Chestnut Street to Market Street between 44th Street and Farragut Street for the additional land acquisition of approximately properties for 10 commercial and related uses. 11

Good morning. 12 Please identify yourself for the record and proceed 13 with your testimony. 14

My name is Herbert Wetzel, executive director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia.

Please proceed with your testimony.

Madam President and members of the committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 040327, which would authorize the second amended redevelopment proposal and urban renewal plan for the 45th and Sansom urban renewal area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to expand the 45th and 23 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing Sansom urban renewal area boundaries to include the blocks bounded by Chestnut Street, 44th Street, Market Street and Farragut Street. In addition, the bill would authorize or provide for the acquisition of vacant properties 7 on behalf of Orens Brothers Real Estate, Inc., which 8 plans to develop a new parking lot to serve the 9 adjacent health club at 4415 Chestnut Street. 10 Properties are located on the 4400 block 11 of Ludlow Street and on South 44th Street between 12 Chestnut Street and Market Streets. 13 Passage of this bill would help to 14 foster commercial activity in West Philadelphia by eliminating blight and providing safe and convenient parking for patrons of a new health club. Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 040327 and would ask for the suspension of Council rules to allow for a first reading on June 10, 2004.

Thank you. Mr. Wetzel, did I understand you to say that the 14 properties in question are all vacant?

Yes. There is one 24 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing structure and the remaining are vacant lots.

Thank you. Any questions from members of the committee? Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill?

Yes, Madam President.

Please identify yourself for the record.

Good morning, Madam President and members of the committee. I'm Richard Redding, deputy director of community planning of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 040327. This is the second amendment of the redevelopment proposal for 45th and Sansom involving acquisition of 14 properties for commercial and related use. The Planning Commission approved it in January of '04. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions from members of the committee? Seeing none, do we have anyone else to 25 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.

My name is Kevin Wright, and I own 32 South 44th Street and I believe that is part of their development. You have to excuse me because I'm not used to talking in public.

Just take your time.

I own that property and I have plans to put a two-story building there, a residential property, a residential building there, so I oppose his plans.

Mr. Wetzel, can you address this issue, or should he go in to talk to the district councilperson?

Yes; my suggestion is that he talk to Councilwoman Blackwell regarding this. Just for the record, all the properties on either side are vacant lots as well.

Correct.

And the concept here is to provide these lots and the demolition of the 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing structure, one of the structures on Ludlow Street.

I'm sorry. I'm having difficulty hearing you. Is there only one structure in this entire block?

On 44th Street the properties that are being condemned, through 46, 9 are all vacant lots. 10

And your 11 address, sir? 12

32 South 44th Street. It 13 is a vacant lot. 14

Oh. 15

But I propose to build a 16 house there. 17

Well, sir, I 18 would suggest that you go in to discuss this with Councilwoman Blackwell. Her office is right down the corridor here. And perhaps she and you could come to some determination before the conclusion of this hearing.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. 27 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing

I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 4 040424.

An ordinance approving the first amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the 44th and Aspen Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Lancaster Avenue, Belmont Avenue, Pennsgrove Street, 42nd Street, Haverford Avenue, 44th Street, Fairmount Avenue and 47th Street including the first amendment to the urban renewal plan and the relocation plan which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately four properties for residential and related uses.

Mr. Wetzel.

Madam President and members of the Rules Committee, I am Herbert Wetzel, executive director of the Redevelopment Authority, and I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 040424, which is the first amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the first amendment urban renewal plan for the 44th Aspen urban renewal area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire four vacant lots. 28 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing The Philadelphia Housing Authority has requested the acquisition of these four vacant lots in support of the Mill Creek HOPE VI project. Under the development plans for Mill Creek HOPE VI, PHA will substantially rehabilitate and newly construct approximately 120 affordable residential units, both rental and homeownership. The properties to be acquired under this plan are within the project footprint and will be used for residential and related development. Mill Creek HOPE VI project is expected to cost approximately $102 million to complete and will leverage close to $10 million in private funds through the sale of low-income hosing tax credits. Madam President and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 040424 and would also ask for the suspension of Council rules to allow a first reading on June 10, 2004.

Thank you.

Good morning again. Richard Redding from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved this at its May meeting and it is consistent with the 44th 29 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing and Aspen redevelopment area plan. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there questions from members of the committee? Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Seeing none, I would just like to announce that Bill No. 040466 introduced by Councilman Mariano is being held at his request. Mr. McPherson, would you please read the title of Bill No. 040426?

An ordinance approving the first amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Frankford Creek urban renewal area, being the area generally bounded by Orthodox Street on the north, Adams Avenue on the east, Frankford Avenue on the south, East Hunting Park Avenue, O Street, Cayuga Street and Castor Avenue on the west, including the first amendment to the urban renewal plan and the first amendment to the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the establishment of a residential and related land reuse category, the additional land acquisition of approximately three properties for residential and related uses, 30 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing changing the land use for the block bounded by Wingohocking Street, Frankford Creek, Cayuga Street and Castor Avenue to residential and related.

Mr. Wetzel.

Madam President and members of the Rules Committee, I'm Herbert Wetzel, executive director of the Redevelopment Authority, and I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 040426, the first amended redevelopment proposal and first amended urban renewal plan for the Frankford Creek redevelopment area and the Frankford Creek urban renewal area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire three occupied commercial properties, to support the Frankford Creek Town Homes residential development being undertaken by the Frankford Community Development Corporation. Most of the properties for this project were approved by Council last spring under Bill No. 030290. This bill is needed to consolidate and expand the project site. This bill will also allow for the establishment of a residential and related land use for the project area of the Frankford Creek Town 31 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing Home site, which is bounded by Wingohocking Street on the north, Frankford Creek on the east, Cayuga Street on the south and Castor Avenue on the west. Frankford CDC proposes to construct 54 new homes in the Juniata Park section of the city. The new homes are being supported with financing from the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency's Homeownership Choice Program, which provides funding for large-scale homeownership developments that contribute to the transformation of neighborhoods. Passage of this bill would promote the elimination of blight and provide for new homeownership opportunities in the City of Philadelphia. Madam President and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 040426 and would ask for the suspension of Council rules to allow first reading on June 10, 2004.

Can I hear from City Planning?

Yes. Good morning. Richard Reading from City Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved this at 32 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing its May meeting this year and it is consistent with the Frankford Creek redevelopment area plan for purposes of residential development. Thank you.

Mr. Wetzel, for the record, your testimony indicates that this bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire three occupied commercial properties. Have there been agreements made with the owners of those properties? Are they vacant? Are they occupied?

No; these are occupied commercial properties that would be acquired. We would have to provide under the Uniform Relocation Act the benefits that businesses are entitled to to assist them in relocating.

And I can assume from your testimony that there has been ongoing discussions with the property owners?

No. 21

Oh, there hasn't been?

No. With the ones from the previous ordinance, yes.

Could you explain 33 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing to us why that is, Mr. Wetzel, the three commercial property owners? Because originally the plan was different and you expanded it, is that correct?

Yeah; the City of Philadelphia Office of Housing and the Frankford CDC have been working together on this particular project, and, as you know, they applied to the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency for this special funding source. And in their working together, they made a decision in January to expand the overall site for this particular project.

Are we adding more homes here, or are we just expanding the actual perimeters of this?

It is an expansion of the overall site itself. And I believe Steve Culbertson is here from Frankford CDC who could best define the rationale for that activity.

Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? Seeing none, do we have any witnesses to testify? Please approach the witness table. Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record. 34 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing

My name is Tracy Hughes.

Please sit down.

My name is Tracy Hughes. I'm from Juniata Park Civic Association, and I'm here to represent the people of Juniata. We had one meeting on this project, and that was in September. We had approximately 77 people who were there in attendance, and the meeting became a total mess because we weren't informed properly about these homes being built. And we also had tried to have a meeting with Frankford CDC to become better informed about the project, but we had no luck there. No questions have been clearly answered to this community's satisfaction; therefore, we would like a continuance of our site proposal. Who exactly is making up the difference in the funding? Who is paying for the EPA cleanup, since this site -- due to the fact that it has been used up to the present date as a salvage yard for cars? It has also been an industrial land. Will the contractors who are bidding on the sites be open for the viewing of the people who live in the neighborhood? And who 35 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing checked the blighted certificate for the community? Does that not feel that we are blighted? We only have two homes boarded up, Madam, on Castor Avenue. One is a mortgage foreclosure and one was a fire. We are a community that needs a new school. We have been told that we will be receiving a new school at G and Hunting Park that will be -- that will hold 800-plus students. We are busing more than that out now. We have been told that the school is already filled, so we were expected to educate this new group of children coming in. At our civic meeting last night the questions have been raised by many of the neighbors concerning this development. Unfortunately, there are the people that have to work every day. Again we are asking for a postponement. What kind of structural guaranty are the people receiving due to the fact that the homes are being built on a creek bed? We do not want another Osage Avenue that would cost the City more money. We, the people who make up the tax base of this city and who have stayed despite the flight of many of our former residents, feel that our 36 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing feelings should be taken into consideration. And I also have maps and surveys here to prove that our area is not a blighted area. There is a business there with Verizon. It has a contract for two years. A towing company was leasing off of Romano's and six family members lost their job due to that.

Thank you. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.

Good morning.

Good morning.

I'm unclear based on your testimony what your essential or principal unhappiness is with this proposed ordinance.

My issue is that the community wasn't informed, number one. Number two, Juniata is built on a creek, a bed creek. It is ashland. And they are only guaranteeing the homes for one year.

They are guaranteeing which homes?

The homes that they want to 37 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing put up on the several sites of the maps, and these pictures that they are saying are blighted area are from Frankford, not Juniata.

You said you were not adequately informed. What does that mean?

That we were not informed by no one from the community, as our representatives did not inform us. I read in the Juniata News yesterday -- Tommy O'Donnell is also here and brought it to my attention that he wrote an article and found it in the legal notices.

Procedurally what should have happened with regard to notification.

There should have been a community meeting with our Council people and with our representatives.

With your Council persons and representatives?

Yes. That's what the residents are complaining at the Civic Association.

Point of information, Councilwoman. As Miss Hughes knows, there were a 38 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing number of meetings with the community, about three or four of them.

I have them on record.

Excuse me. I have the floor. See, I get to talk. Then you talk. That's how it works. You talked. Now I'm going to tell you what really happened. There were meetings. You were not happy with the meetings. You were not happy with the outcome of the meetings, your civic group. What's your position in the civic group? You are the president of the civic group?

I'm the secretary and treasurer.

Were you elected to that position?

I was appointed.

You weren't elected, right?

I was appointed.

That is the difference between us. I was elected by the people in my district, just so you know. I still have the floor. I can sit here 39 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing and listen to you lie, but Steve Culbertson is here from the Frankford Community Development Corporation or whatever it is. I think Culbertson should get to testify next. There was a number of meetings, and at one of those meetings -- were you at every one of those meetings?

I was not invited because no one informed us. That was your job as a councilman to inform the residents, Mr. Mariano.

I did. Excuse me. I still have the floor.

You asked me a question and I'm answering.

Were you at the meeting when they told Mr. Culbertson they didn't want any blacks in the neighborhood, or did you miss that one?

I was not invited to that because you did not inform our community. Are you a resident in Juniata?

Yes, I am.

Then why don't you attend our civic meetings and inform our residents? 40 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing (Applause.)

Why I don't go to your civic meetings? Because your civic meeting is nothing but a political forum.

You make it that way.

I don't make it that way.

Councilman, yes, you do.

Excuse me. This isn't about that. This is about --

You brought it up.

Excuse me. I'm speaking. The rules are I get to speak and you listen and then you get to speak .

You asked me a question and I'm answering you.

But I'm speaking now.

Fine.

This is a good project. This is going to make everybody happy. I see two or three people here and they certainly can testify, but I'm not going to let you sit here and lie to say this is a bad plan. 41 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing

That's not my job.

You are doing a good job at it.

I must have learned it from you.

You're lying. You are sitting there lying. Why don't you let the guy from Frankford Community Development Corporation speak.

Mr. Mariano --

It is Councilman Mariano, and I live in Juniata, and I live four blocks away from this, and I grew up across the street from this site, okay, and I'm going to tell you something: This is one of the best things that will ever happen to this neighborhood because the group that is doing it has an outstanding track record. Excuse me. I'm still speaking. You will get your chance, but when I am done. So let's be fair and not get down here and tell falsities and lies that no one here really cares about or has any way to tell what is right. Now, the Councilwoman asked you a 42 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing question. What's your main problem? You were not notified? You were notified because my chief of staff, Walter True, is in the room, and he talked to you about four or five times. There was four meetings with the elected leadership of the Juniata Park Civic Association. That's why I don't go to your meetings no more. It's a forum for you and your girlfriends to bash people. I am a busy person and I have things to do. Check out the meetings. There was one last night. Go and see. See what's true. That is what is happening here. So why don't we let Culbertson talk and he will tell you the real truth and you can go back to doing whatever your next problem is going to be. It is on something every year, Tracy. Come on.

It is Miss Hughes. It is Miss Hughes, Mr. Mariano.

It is Councilman Mariano.

Councilman Mariano, it is Miss Hughes.

Okay, Miss Hughes. 43 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing It's Councilman Mariano. I'll send it back to Councilwoman Brown.

No problem. To get back to answering your question --

My questions are answered. You haven't answered Councilwoman Brown's question.

You asked me a question and now it is my turn to answer back to you.

You have to answer her question first.

You interrupted her question, and I have to readdress her question.

It's a parliamentary point or order, which I'm skilled at doing, and that's what I did.

Madam Chair, may I --

I believe that Councilwoman Brown has another question that you could respond to.

I would like to hear your question again since we were rudely interrupted. This is my first Council meeting here. Go ahead with your question. 44 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing

The decision for the postponement of this action this morning, that was determined or arrived at how? Was there a vote taken amongst the membership of your organization to recommend a postponement?

Yes, that they did not -- they were not aware of this meeting today and no one could take off from work. It popped up, and we came down, who was able to come down, and just ask for a continuance so that we could have a meeting. Yes, there has been several meetings. There was one meeting back at our civic association. There was an attendance of over 77 people November 9.

I'm confused because you said there were no meetings and now you are telling me there were meetings.

There were meetings I was invited to by the Councilman Mariano had addressed to me. I attended one meeting, and that was all. Nobody in the residents of Juniata was notified about these homes.

Juniata meaning the association you represent or Juniata, the community? 45 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing

The community. We are the civic association for Juniata community, Juniata Park. We are the civic association for that community.

So you are going on the record to say at no time over the past many months the association received any mail or had any correspondence with Councilman Rick Mariano's office or his staff regarding this matter? You are going on record saying that?

Correct.

Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. Please identify yourself for the record.

Good morning, President Verna and members of Council. I am Joe Clerkin, vice president of James J. Clerkin Incorporated, a general building contractor, one of the three properties mentioned in this proposal. The first notice we received about this 46 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing was June 2 by copy of a form letter from the Redevelopment Authority. To go back further, we had rumors of this proposal last August, August of 2003. A phone call to the Frankford Community Development, Steve Culbertson, he assured me absolutely that our property was not involved in this plan. We took him at his word, and we continued to operate. A week ago we get a notice that the Redevelopment Authority is going to take our property and turn it over to a developer to develop houses in the area with no notice whatsoever. We have been in Frankford for 86 years as a general building contractor. We build schools, city schools, churches, recreation departments, police departments. We have been at the present location for 54 years. To contradict the Frankford Community Development Corporation's own mission statement, it says one of their proposals is to develop stable businesses in the community. Well, we have been in Frankford 86 years, 54 at the same location, and now we are being run out of town on a week's notice. I would have to say we are in opposition 47 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing to this ordinance.

Thank you. Any questions from members of the committee of this witness? Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify? I'm sorry. The gentleman that just spoke, could you come back to the witness table? Councilwoman Brown has a question to ask you.

Please forgive my delayed thinking. Good morning.

Good morning.

Your principal concern for having problems with this project is because of?

Why we oppose it?

Yes.

Notification. We have been at the same location. I feel for our business to continue to thrive we have to stay at that location. Our subcontractor following knows us. We have been at that same location 54 years. We have had the same phone number for over 65 years at that same location.

So I clearly 48 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing understand, one of the properties in question is currently owned by you?

Correct.

And you were informed, in your view, late by RDA, correct? I just want to be clear on my facts.

We were informed seven days ago by the Redevelopment Authority by form letter that there was a bill introduced which would affect our property. That's all we received, was a notice saying there is an ordinance proposed to City Council which could have an effect on your property giving the Redevelopment Authority the power to acquire our property. However, eight months prior to that, we were informed by phone by the developer that they had no interest in our project whatsoever, or our property.

Councilwoman, if I may, can we get -- is Mr. Wetzel still here? Could you ask Mr. Wetzel to come here and answer why he heard the other day because he called me the day he heard. What did you find out? You called me Monday and you found out Saturday or Friday, right? 49 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing

I'm Jim Clerkin and I'm the one that called you.

You called me the day after you heard?

Exactly.

Mr. Wetzel, do you mind sitting at Councilman O'Neill's desk and respond to this, please?

Yes. My name is Herbert Wetzel, executive director of the Redevelopment Authority. The eminent domain statutes that the Redevelopment Authority operates under requires us to run advertisements, if there is an ordinance 16 being introduced, three consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. That's the statutory requirement. We agreed with Council last year that we would also then send a letter to each individual property owner notifying them beyond the added --

Mr. Wetzel, on that, so we can clarify this a little, because I think I know where you are going, this was a project at that point and I did an ordinance then that did not involve Mr. Clerkin's property? 50 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing

That's correct.

So he did not need to be notified for that?

That's correct.

So that brings truth to what he said that he talked for Frankford Community Development Corporation, and he said your property was not involved, and that was last year sometime?

Yes.

Now it changes?

Yes.

And you are saying, for us nonlegal minds, that eminent domain process says you have to advertise, but do you have to tell him?

What we added to that -- the advertisement satisfies the state statute. Council asked us to add an additional notification process, which we have done, which is to send individual notices to the individuals.

Mr. Wetzel, if I may still, Council President and Councilwoman, when did you advertise this? 51 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing

This was advertised three weeks prior to this hearing, each week prior to this hearing.

And Mr. Clerkin didn't get a letter until two weeks after that? I mean, it is hard enough you are doing this stuff because they think we are stealing something anyway. I never met him, never heard from him, lived across the street from Clerkin for 49 years, around that area, never met any of these guys, don't know them, know who you are, but it is disturbing that he finds that out a couple days before he has to be here. I mean we have the other people coming lying and we have him coming saying that it looks like -- that makes us look bad. I'm not blaming you, but you are the head of the Authority, so the bucks stops there.

That's correct.

Is that how we do business?

We can change the way we do business. Also, we require -- and I think what is important is that you said there were community meetings and other meetings about this particular 52 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing project site. We can further in advance of the advertising send out these particular notices. So if would you like us to do it 30 or 60 days in advance --

You can cover the legal statute, but on a personal note the Clerkins should have known.

As a 86-year business in Frankford and 54 --

You don't look that old.

-- and 54 in the same location, our letter is addressed to property owner, 1512 Wingohocking, but the amendments and everything reference us by name. I would think we are owed a little courtesy.

I think you are too and that is going to change. It is not going to help you but in the future. But I think when the guy from Frankford gets up here, Culbertson, you and I -- your brother and I had this conversation. Culbertson told me that in this business there is a lot of speculation. I knew that they were looking at your property, but I didn't know it was finished 53 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing yet. I knew this was bill was here and, to be frank, I really didn't read it totally through, could it affect you. I figured, and that was my mistake, that they were talking to. I apologize to the Clerkin business that you didn't know. I should have told you that. The other people know. You should have known. Nino knew, the people that own the LA&P, the old Army Reserve Center, they know. I grew up at 4300 O Street. When all of them trucks were leaving those places all those years, I lived there, so I know what went on there. This is a good project. I understand you being mad, but the condemnation process gets you somewhere. Maybe he can explain a little bit. Do you understand the whole condemnation?

It's not the property. It is the business. That's our business. We are five minutes from I-95. We are five minutes from the Boulevard. Our subcontractors know us. Our suppliers know us. For us to pick up and go, we may not survive.

Has anyone else from the City like PIDC spoken to you -- 54 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing

No one has contacted me.

-- about relocating somewhere else?

That is exactly the problem. No one has contacted us. If the Redevelopment Authority was interested in our property, come and talk to us. You don't condemn our property and say there is a hearing in one week.

I'm not a lawyer. There may be legal reasons why that was done.

Councilman, it was because somebody --

As a district councilman, I should have talked to you. I don't know you. I should know you. We live across the street from each other. Frankly, I didn't know -- I knew you were still in business, but there is not a lot going on there. The guy in front of you is closed up, so...

Not to get sidetracked, but the 1500 block of Wingohocking Street is thriving compared to what it was 15 years ago. We have Romano's across the street, which is a 55 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing thriving catering business. Next door to us we have Verizon, who is an excellent tenant who took over an abandoned A & P. CVS just bought the property on the corner directly across from us. It is a thriving commercial block from Frankford Creek to Castor Avenue, and to consider that blighted when there are so many other areas in the city that need help is absolutely ridiculous.

Thank you, Mr. Clerkin. (Applause.)

Councilman DiCicco.

Thank you, Madam President. I am not a member of this committee, but I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question. You are a construction company?

Yes, general contractors.

What is your facility, the location where you are located? What do you have there?

We have a two-story building. The second story of the building is our 56 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing offices. It is approximately a 2500 square foot office. The lower level is our shop, the carpentry shop. We have a 25,000 square foot property which is our storage yard where we keep lumber, materials, trailers, and we also have an open shed area for storage. It is our headquarters. It is our business. It is our only location.

I understand that. I think what needs to be done is -- I mean I'm familiar with many condemnations that have taken place in my district over the last several years and it's always a painful experience when you have to, in the interest of trying to develop or redevelop a community, when you have to look to relocate people. And most of mine were residential relocations, not too many commercial, but 25,000 square feet I think in that general vicinity, I'm a little bit familiar with it, may not be that difficult a place to relocate to. And I know you want to stay where you are, but there may be some actual benefit to look at alternative sites, working with the District Councilperson and the Redevelopment Authority, where your business can not only thrive and be still part of that community, but may be able to enhance 57 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing because you may have some growing pains going forward possibly and the 25,000 feet, which is good enough for you today, accommodates you today, but you may want to look at something else and for the same dollar value. And I'm not suggesting you have anything, but I think you really need to sit down with the District Councilperson and Mr. Wetzel's department to look at some possible alternative option sites within the general vicinity of where you have been for all these years. Certainly none of us want to see you leave the community, because if you leave the community, my guess is you will probably leave the city.

With seven days' notice --

We understand that. I think that can be worked out now that you have made that part of the public record, and not to be too light about it, but if you don't find anything, if at the end of the day it still is that you will have to be relocated, you can call me because I can certainly find you a place in my district close to I-95 because I have Aramingo Avenue and the 25th Ward. 58 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing And I don't mean that sarcastically. I mean that as an offer. If I could find you a place in my district that could accommodate your needs, I would be willing to work with the District Councilperson. Thank you, Madam President.

We hope that the Council would vote against this. We view it as very unfair and unnecessary.

Thank you. Are there any questions or comments?

To Mr. Herb Wetzel, for clarity purposes, for my own clear understanding of this, citizens, by statute, are required to be given how many days or weeks' advertising notice, relocation notice?

No; the notices that an ordinance and a hearing is being held three consecutive weeks prior to the hearing itself.

Three consecutive weeks.

Yes.

And that advertisement can take place by way of newspaper? 59 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing

It's newspaper advertisement.

Thank you again.

You're welcome.

Thank you. Any further questions or comments by members of the committee? Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table.

Hi, Council people. How we doing today?

Fine. Thank you. Kindly identify yourself for the record.

My name is Tom, Tom O'Donnell. I'm a lifelong resident of Junianta.

Tom, Tom, please pull the microphone closer to you.

My name is Thomas O'Donnell. I'm a lifelong resident of Juniata. I first noticed this was going on -- again, I have a habit of reading the legal notices, but there are a few concerns I have on this. I don't know if I am for it or I'm against it. Let me read the letter I wrote to the Juniata News. Maybe 60 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing that will clarify. You know, the residents of the community affected should attend and have our input heard regarding this urban renewal area. After all, it is our money, it is our community and it is our government. I, for one, would like to know that we do have any input regarding this. Do we have any input, or are we just dictated to what is going to happen? What is the total cost of the project? What is the total cost of the project and what is that total divided by the number of units? It's our money. And will they be build with union labor providing us with good jobs? I just heard that it is going to be guaranteed for one year? You know, it is our city. What is the sales price?

Mr. Wetzel, again I would ask you to please occupy Councilman O'Neill desk, and, if you don't mind, can you please give this gentleman the information that he is seeking?

I would actually ask Steve Culbertson from Frankford CDC, who is the developer, who has the details, to provide that for him.

Is he here? 61 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing

Can I finish reading this then?

Please, but, if you don't mind, try to consolidate it.

I'll be quick. Just what is the sales price of the unit and who is eligible to buy them? Are there income limits? Just exactly how many subsidized low-income and high-income recipients? I make 30 to 40 grand a year, and I don't feel like subsidizing -- I don't feel it's right that I'm subsidizing someone that makes three or four times my salary and I don't think it's right that I'm paying for a free home for someone what is low income, Section 8 or however you want to put it, you know, giving them $150,000 home which is actually costing $200,000. If my taxes paid for this, you know, if my taxes paid for this, if I'm paying for the dinner, the people -- I'm working class. The people in this city are working class. The people are getting up in arms. I have a lot of immigrants in my community, and they are upset by this. They are upset if they are working for a living and I'm paying for a $200,000 home which we are selling for 62 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing 130,000 -- and I know the reply is going to be it's subsidized, there is no such thing as a government subsidy. All government subsidy is taxpayers. I pay taxes. Half my paycheck goes into taxes. I want a $200,000 home and I want to pay subsidized rent for it, but I'm not entitled to it. If I'm the one growing the food, cultivating it, harvesting it, cooking it, and putting it on the plate and putting it on the table and paying for everything, don't people who pay the bills be entitled to a plate? That's it.

I would like someone to respond to the questions that have been asked. Who is here to respond to the questions?

In the meantime, Councilwoman Miller.

Sir, I believe that those people that will ultimately become the homeowner are also working people that pay taxes too. These homes are not given away free.

I know. The income requirement says you make at least $10,000 a year, but I still feel that the people who paid for it, pay for the meals, should be the ones entitled to 63 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing eat the meal. If I chip in a time, I shouldn't be able to get a steak dinner when somebody paying for the dinner gets crumbs.

Mr. Culbertson, I think you have information that could be very enlightening here. Would you mind sharing it with us?

I have no problem sharing it with you, Council President. My name is Steve Culbertson. I'm the executive director of the Frankford Community Development Corporation. The project is called the Twin Homes at Frankford Creek. It is a 50-unit twin development on land that is blighted in the Juniata section of Philadelphia right across the Frankford Creek from Frankford section, which is the area that I work in. The homes are three- and four-bedroom homes with two baths and a garage. The suggested sales price is $130,000 per house.

What would be the income requirements on that?

Let me testify, sir. The income requirements are, in fact, that 40 of the units will be available without 64 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing restriction up to 115 percent of median. There is a reason for that. And ten of the units, of the 50 units, would be available that are affordable to low-income people so that is at 80 percent of median.

I think the witness is getting somewhat --

I don't know what medium income is and what 80 percent is.

That is what I was going to ask be explained. Can you explain, please?

I don't actually know median income for an individual. I know median income for a family of four -- 80 percent of median income for a family of four is around $50,000 for a family of four. That's low income. That is what we define as low income in Philadelphia. So a lot of folks who feel like they are not low income, in fact are in the range of being able to afford those ten units, and then the additional 40 are open. They could sell to a low-income person or somebody who is moderate, maybe a lower middle class individual. The ability for someone to buy these 65 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing houses is open. They will be on the market just like any house in the City of Philadelphia. Most likely, they will be represented by a realtor and be sold through realtors. We cannot designate how the houses will be sold ahead of time. That's illegal.

Very definitely.

Can I ask a few questions?

Can I ask a question? Mr. Culbertson, did you have community meetings? It is kind of strange -- we all do development and have been doing it for years -- that he -- I think someone said, the other lady said, that there were no community meetings to inform people, and I just have a hard time understanding that.

I understand that. I am very involved as a part of my work in the East Frankford Civic Association. I talked to the Juniata Civic Association. They are right. I did not talk to them prior to the hearing last year. That is absolutely correct. But I did talk to them 66 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing after the hearing last year at their request. I met with the leadership of the Juniata Civic Association and again at their request I came to a community meeting that they sponsored, their meeting, to talk about this project -- that is a community meeting -- and attempted to explain the project, and it was a difficult meeting.

I have been to those.

How many times did you meet with representatives of the Juniata Civic Association, more than once or once?

I met twice with representatives from the Juniata --

Twice? Wow.

And I know Walt has met a couple of times.

Was the first meeting a fiasco?

Yes, sir.

Which would be very kind. Can you explain to us what went on at the first meeting without being too politically correct but without using certain words that you are not 67 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing comfortable using.

I guess it was a very difficult meeting with the leadership of Juniata Civic. I tried to explain what the project was about, to try and basically revitalize the community. The purpose is to try and raise property values in the neighborhood, to have housing that is available across income groups, a mixed income development. Most of the time what community development corporations do is affordable housing, all affordable housing. That's not this project. We worked hard so that it would not be; it could be mixed. And so to answer your question, Councilman, it was a very hard meeting with the leadership. One of the major issues was that I was coming from Frankford and bringing Frankford residents from me -- with me over to Juniata, and we don't want those Frankford folks in Juniata.

I think your questions have been answered, sir?

No, they haven't.

Be more specific with your question, please, and maybe we 68 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing can get you an answer. We have any number of people that are waiting here --

I will be quick.

-- and I would like you to consider them also.

I would like to request a continuance on this. Obviously there are still questions and issues. By what definition are you saying that Juniata is blighted? I did a Town Watch in Juniata and there are about two or three abandoned houses. What is exactly the definition of blighted? And Frankford CDC, exactly how many people are you? And, also, there's a few people like who don't want to leave. I'm just curious on -- the houses cost about $230,000 grand total. You are selling them for 130. Who is making up the difference? Who is making up the difference?

I'm certainly willing to meet with you and talk about these issues.

Actually, the community at large should be given this.

Sir, I met with the community in September and gave out this information. 69 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing

I'm wondering if it would be too much to ask --

Not at all.

-- to get it put into the Juniata News and then let us discuss it. Look, I think it is great we are building new houses. The city needs new development and new houses, but the thing is I want to make sure that it goes to the people that work, the people that pay the taxes. I know everybody works. They are only eligible to people that work, but it drives me and the other neighbors --

I think you made a comment earlier that as long as somebody is making 10,000 a year they are eligible to purchase the property. Is that so, Mr. Culbertson?

There is not a -- you can't say that. It's open.

It says it in the paperwork.

Sir, it has to be open. You can sell to anybody. They have to meet the requirements to be able to pay a mortgage to buy this house. These are homes. We are selling these 70 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing homes.

Exactly.

What are you giving away?

What are we giving away?

There is a thing that you are giving houses to people that really can't afford them.

Exactly how many?

We are not giving anything away.

How many are going to low income?

Ten, ten.

Mr. Culbertson, the low-income thing that Mr. O'Connell is concerned about, that's what you talked about the median?

Right.

So a Philadelphia policeman that comes out of the police academy, a recruit, makes $24,000 as soon as he gets out of the academy. So if he is married and has two children, he would be eligible to move here as low income; am 71 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing I correct about that?

Absolutely.

Maybe this will help too. Your group, Frankford Community Development Corporation, as I know -- maybe you can explain it to Mr. O'Connell and some of the people here -- some of the stuff you have done before near Frankford. How many projects? This isn't your first project?

No. 12

And you have done some really decent stuff in Frankford that has been touted not just in Frankford but different parts of Philly as cutting edge.

We have done five new construction homeownership projects in Frankford. That is about 50 units of housing that we sold that has all been subsidized heavily by the City of Philadelphia so that is all for low-income people at 80 of median and below. We have rehabilitated over 50 houses in the Frankford community. We have seen property values turn around because of what we are doing. We work on Frankford Avenue. We have helped businesses on Frankford Avenue. 72 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing I actually would make a note of apology to the Clerkins for what has transpired here and over the last two weeks. They are absolutely right. They should have received more notice and we should figure out how we deal with that in the future. I felt that I was following the policies as they're set out under urban renewal and that I had to be quiet about it, about what was transpiring, and so I can only apologize to them.

So the reason you are saying you didn't call the Clerkins is because --

I didn't think I could.

You didn't think you were allowed through your dealings with the RDA, and if I could be so bold to say -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- there are speculators that are involved here too, which is probably why the RDA is concerned about this, you telling them and them selling it to somebody real quick and all of a sudden.

Yes, yes.

Is that part of it?

That is exactly right. 73 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing

When we have a legal notice like this, instead of putting it in the Inquirer or the Daily News, can we put it in the Juniata News, the local newspaper, so the residents know? Most people don't read the legal notices in the paper.

And I agree and, Mr. Wetzel, I think that is something that the Redevelopment Authority certainly should be addressing.

And the Juniata News would love to have the RDA paying for ads in the Juniata News once a week. They would love that. They could use the business. What I will say to you, since you have been trying to work with us here, we can meet in my office after this if you want to, Tom, with whoever you want, and we can try to discuss what is going on.

I just feel I'm paying for the dinner and I'm not getting the plate, or people that work like me.

But there is nothing to prohibit you from buying one of these 74 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing homes.

You can buy it, pal.

There is nothing prohibiting you from buying. Please state your name for the record.

My name is Debbie Munoz. I'm the new kid on the block. I own the property on the corner of Castor and Wingohocking and Cayuga. My husband and I purchased the business, buildings, goodwill and real estate in August 2001, and within a short few months we were presented by a customer with one of the architect's plans for the Frankford Twins which indicated two double homes on our property. From that point on we constantly were getting customers griping about how we were no 18 longer going to be there any longer. I would just like to say I beg to differ. I have contacted, researched absolutely everything regarding the Frankford Twins from the initiation at the 1999 Northern Delaware River project, everyone who has funded everything and been involved. I have also been in touch with HUD regarding my situation because shortly after I 75 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing purchased my business my husband became sick. At that point in time I realized he would not be able to operate the business anymore and I listed the property for sale and found out I was unable to sell the property because of the Frankford Twins. So, therefore, a business and a property that I purchased using my home as equity for, I am now losing my business and I'm losing my home and myself and my husband and my three children will be homeless as a result of this project, which I support. I would just like to sell my business and get out.

Can I ask you a question? Your property is Nino's?

That is correct.

I don't know how much you paid for it, but you paid a lot of money to Nino's for it?

Yes, I did, and five years of his tax records indicated that that was the correct amount that should be paid. We also did demographics. My husband is Hispanic. We came into a community where when you get a business it takes a lot of money to keep your business going and develop 76 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing it and we were going to be developing a business more towards the community that we had moved into, but after spending a lot of money fixing the place up, we discover that we aren't going to be there any longer and why keep on spending money, putting in 7 hours a days seven days a week, when you aren't 8 going to have a future in that community? 9

Let me ask a 10 question of Mr. Wetzel. 11 What happens with her property now? If 12 you take her property away, you have to give her so 13 much money for this property, right?

And for relocation.

And for relocation.

We are required to pay just compensation or fair market value for the property.

Fair market value.

Right.

How long have you had this property?

Unfortunately, fair market, I understand from the laws of eminent domain, which I cannot obtain any in the State of Pennsylvania, 77 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing but I did obtain the booklet from the State of New Jersey, where I'm a residence, indicates that there are three different fair market values. One is real estate. One is the business and the real estate, and there is no information being published at all about owning a business, only a residence.

I don't want to ask what you paid for it because that is none of our business, but let's say you paid a million dollars for it.

Good guess.

A million dollars. Did I guess right?

That's correct.

Because I'm going to guess his weight next if I'm correct. If you bought that a year ago --

Three years ago, August of '01.

Mr. Wetzel, I don't want you to tell me what you are going to pay her for her property. She just bought it three years ago. It has to be worth a million dollars if she paid a million. 78 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing

When you purchase a business -- excuse me for interrupting you -- it includes real estate value, business appointment and buildings, and goodwill. Everything has a price. It's broken down. I paid one price for real estate, and another price is designated as the buildings that are on the real estate, and another price is based on the goodwill of the business, of the business that exists itself.

The goodwill of the person before you who stuck --

Actually, you look at his income tax records and think, "Geez, I'm getting a really good deal here."

I'm trying to help you here, but you are not helping. So you paid a million dollars?

Yes, I did.

And I don't want to know that, but I'm saying a million. If she paid a million three years ago, it has to be worth at least a million, right?

Not necessarily.

Explain to us not 79 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing necessarily because this is the kind of stuff that makes us all look stupid.

As she explained -- unless you can correct me on this -- you paid a million dollars that included goodwill, property and buildings and machinery and equipment.

Yes.

And cans of food and stuff?

Stock, yes, inventory.

And our obligation is to pay the fair market value for the real estate and to have any machinery and equipment valued and pay for that as well.

Let's say the machinery is worth a hundred thousand dollars. Subtract that out because she can sell that technically.

Or if she doesn't, we have to purchase it and try to sell it ourselves.

Is she going to get anywhere near her million dollars, Herb?

I don't know the specifics of this case. 80 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing

No, I am not getting anywhere near my million dollars. This is very upsetting for me to be here. I'm not a good public speaker, but I want you all to see my face because my husband and I and our three children are going to be homeless, period. His tax records were rock solid for us to take that -- purchase that business. It made every bit of sense, and then to go there and have this come before us was devastating, absolutely devastating, to the point my husband became ill. On my counsel's advice I have closed that business and walked away.

I have to tell you it is heart-wrenching for us that someone else sold you this place -- do you mind? If you don't like it, then leave. I'm talking to her. You have nothing to do with this. This is ridiculous. Sergeant-at-arms, could you ask her to behave herself.

Please.

This woman is bleeding here and we want to hear it. Maybe you have a preconceived notion of how this Council runs, but that is not the way it works. This is fair for 81 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing everyone, and we just want to hear it. This is the first time I met you. I met your husband when it first happened.

Yes, that's correct.

I haven't heard from you, didn't know it was closed, which I did.

Actually, Mr. Mariano, I have called you on numerous occasions. You never returned my call. I have been in touch with John Taylor, and I have been in touch with other people. (Applause.)

Now that you are going there, if you called my office, I live two blocks away. My phone number is listed, so you really didn't call real hard. If you call my office, give me the times and dates and who you spoke to in my office.

Actually, I worked in the New Jersey Superior Court for 13 years, and I document everyone I speak to and the time and when I make the phone call.

Did you call my office?

Yes, I did, sir. 82 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing

Because I'm trying to help you here. If I wanted to get you or Mr. Munoz or anybody --

I just find it so frustrating.

If I wanted to get somebody and it was ruining my life, I would stand outside their house. I live two blocks away.

But you can't do that when your husband is ill and you are working seven days a week hours a day. 13

You said you called my office and nobody responded. That's great to say at a meeting like this. You either want help or you don't. You didn't contact me and you should have. And we're trying to help.

Any questions or comments from members of the committee? Thank you both very much. Do we have any other witnesses on this particular bill? Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.

Good morning, Madam 83 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing President and members of the committee. My name is Warren Nelson. I'm a realtor with Weichert Realtors Dunphy Sales, and I'm here representing over 5 clients that are interested in purchasing properties 6 in the new development. 7 I'm basically here for my clients today 8 to try to get clarity on where we stand as far as 9 the zoning and how soon agreements of sale can be 10 written on the new properties in Frankford Creek 11 Development Corporation. That is basically what I'm 12 here for today, representing my clients in order to 13 try to get clarity. If the zoning has been 14 approved, does the Frankford CDC now own the land 15 and, if so, how soon can agreements of sale be 16 written on the properties? And that is basically 17 what I'm trying to do here for my clients today. 18

Please specify who 19 your clients are. What does that mean? 20

My clients are different members -- most of my clients are current members of Juniata. They live in Juniata and would like to move into the new development. Most of my clients are all from different branches, different avenues. They are not related in any way, but basically what 84 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing they are trying to do is because of the fliers that have been passed out in Juniata telling them that the property value has been climbing in Juniata because of the new development, I have gotten a lot of interest on -- and it has been a year almost with the same clients that are continually interested in purchasing properties. So I'm trying to find out today if Frankford CDC does own the land, if the zoning has been approved, and how soon can I start representing my clients in agreements of sale for the CDC.

You said that you received fliers or there was a distribution of fliers.

There was a distribution of fliers that I passed out for my business trying to get listings and telling people in the Juniata area that the property value has continued to climb because of two things basically: The Frankford Creek Development Corporation's plans for the 50 new homes and also charter schools that have been developed in the areas and their schools that are proposed to be developed in the area. Plus we have a lot of commercial properties that are starting to 85 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing show interest in the area. So I'm basically, after about seven or eight months now, still trying to figure out for my clients if we can proceed, if there are no more interruptions, and basically where do we stand as far as zoning for Frankford CDC. I'm happy to see that Steve Culbertson is here today, so I can address him personally, but I basically wanted to find out for my clients where we stood on that.

Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Culbertson.

Thank you, Council President. The outcome of this hearing today will have an impact on when this project actually happens or does not happen. We have the financing in place for the project from the various sources to the subsidies and we are really waiting on the land and then we are going to need zoning because it is zoned industrial and commercial right now. So we hope, if 86 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing it goes all right and we are able to come to agreements with some of the folks who are here today, that we will be able to get the land in the course of the fall and go to construction in the spring with hopefully sales beginning as soon as we go to construction. I don't want to sell houses to people and then have them wait, as the gentleman has been saying, years and years.

Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify? Councilman DiCicco?

Thank you. What's the average price of the sale of these homes?

The market value that we have estimated for sales of these homes based on homes that are very close in Northwood --

How much are you selling them for?

130,000 apiece, but it may be higher than that depending on the market.

130,000 for a three-bedroom? 87 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing

Three and four bedrooms, two baths with a garage.

Same price for both?

No, the price will vary.

What's the acquisition? What is it costing you to build these homes including acquisition on a per-home basis?

Somewhere around 230 to $250,000.