Sounds like a plan to me, Councilman. I think that, as I said last week and I said again today, and I think what Mr. Fader said was your excellent suggestion. This is a critical time. This is a moment in time where certain things can change and we can grasp it and do it. And I think we should. But it can't happen unless everybody that you mentioned, including City Council, sits at that table and with good will, attempts to rectify the situation.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The commercial property reassessments are 268 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING going out this week?
I believe they are. Let me just double-check. Yes. I'd say within seven to days. 6
Do you have any 7 knowledge as to what the value of those 8 reassessments will be, notwithstanding any appeals? 9 Ballpark it. 10
I'd like to. To the Chair, please. Is it reasonable to say, though, that we anticipate an increase in revenue as a result of those reassessments?
In addition to the 35 million that are as a result of the recent residential property reassessments, notwithstanding any appeals?
So go back to my colleague, Councilman Nutter's, questions -- line of questioning earlier to the Revenue Commissioner about the million versus the 35 million. We may 6 have 40 million, 45 million, whatever the number 7 may be? 8
But it's safe to 11 say that we expect an increase and not a decrease as 12 a result of the commercial notices that will be sent 13 out? 14
I will tell you the 15 notices we're sending out for commercial/industrial 16 properties are not decreases. 17
They're not 18 decreases. So in effect we will be generating more 19 revenue than the 35 million that we will be 20 generating with the residential. So for our 21 purposes in Council, based on the line of 22 questioning that Councilman Nutter was presenting 23 earlier, there is additional discussion as to 24 possible roll backs, whatever it is. My last question is really to the 270 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Revenue Commissioner and Mr. Fader. And I promise that will be my last -- I shouldn't promise that, but I will promise this is my last question. To the Revenue Commissioner: If the Mayor should decide to do something that I had suggested by way of Bill 490 and 491, notwithstanding his public relations person, Mr. Keel's (ph) suggestion that it was stupid and absurd, but should the Mayor decide to instruct the Revenue Department to ignore temporarily, at least for this year, the recommendations that are being sent over on recent reassessments for residential properties by way of the BRT, what would you do?
I'm assuming if I got that direction it would also have the direction and blessing of the City Solicitor because, basically, we do have that internal issue and concern here in terms of what I can legally implement.
Okay. So -- I guess your answer kind of leads into my next question to Mr. Fader. If that were the case where the Mayor were to do, in Mr. Keel's words, stupid and absurd, and advise the Revenue Department not to send out notices, the recent reassessment notices, 271 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING would you then defend the Mayor's position as the City Solicitor -- the Office of the City Solicitor?
Councilman, the Solicitor is not here, but I feel fairly comfortable telling you that the Solicitor's advice will be the same as what you read in our --
Notwithstanding his advice. Going back to the questions that Councilman Nutter posed earlier -- and there was a former Mayor who I never supported and really didn't think too highly of his fiscal responsibilities. But the one thing I always admired him saying, don't tell me what I can't do. Figure out something that I can do. Don't you think that the City Solicitor would be in the position then to try to find a solution to this problem and to figure out a way in which we can make that recommendation legal?
I think the City Solicitor, as Councilman Nutter suggested and as you're suggesting, certainly should work with all the interested parties to try to come up with ways to solve the problems that you're all very seriously addressing. 272 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING
I would take one -- I would hope this will not be more than five minutes. Mr. Glancey, I received some -- I don't normally do this, but it's actually quite enlightening and somewhat instructive. You know, naturally we're getting a lot of calls, letters and a wide variety of things from people. Some of them are quite compelling. And I'll just give them to you. But with regard to some of the proposals that are around -- and I think this was your testimony earlier, but I want to make sure, as we hopefully move into this sense of trying to get something done collectively. Your primary concern is that any action we take does not negatively impact on your ability to deliver legitimate assessments?
And what the other parts of the government end up doing by way of 273 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING collections is an entirely separate matter. And other than in your role as citizen and the rest of the Board, you don't really care what we do?
It allows us to do what we're mandated to do by Commonwealth. And it doesn't impact on that boundary, what the other branches of government, whether they cap taxes or whatever, that's fine with us. That's fine. What we want to do is to be able to do what we do. And, quite frankly, Councilman, there's more ways than one to skin a cat. I mean, there are ways to look at millage rates, as we're probably going to look at, when we talked about 100 percent 274 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING value, various things like that. Sure. The answer is yes, I'm just trying to make sure I don't say I don't care about that.
I understand that. That was a bad question. It's late in the day. Last question to you, and you may have answered this last week, but that was a long time ago. The outrage that you and the staff and the Board are getting, the complaints about regular increases, but of a small amount some people have experienced. And I know in parts of my district people are almost regularly expecting some amount of increase, but it's not at a level that kind of flips them out, if you will. And then all of a sudden they get the big one. What's your basic response to that? And it started happening. You starting getting the outrage. Now we've started these hearings and a lot of ideas and discussion is floating around. What, if any of this, has changed, if it's changed your view at all? Can you tell us what that may be? Do you think it is fair to have a system where people either on the one hand are getting regular increases where we're kind of nickel 275 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING and diming them to death, but they're dealing with it and then all of a sudden you get a large one? Or as I shared with you earlier, nothing over a significant period of time and then the big one, whether it's 40, 80, 100 percent? I mean, what kind of system is that?
We would agree with you. And I think it was something we have done in the past. And, again, without shirking responsibility, I think the reason that this one came was because there was large increases on certain types of housing this year came for two reasons. One, run up that we haven't seen in values of those types of houses. And two, we did have a substantial lack of information last year from the '98 sales that we could have worked with to alleviate what we did for 2003. However, having said that, we believe in the principles of gradualism. The principles of gradualism, I think, are the best way to go when you do this. Now, having said that --
Do we have that, in your view? 276 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING
I think in prior to 2003 -- let me rephrase that. Yes, we do. But for maybe 20,000 properties, 25,000 properties that were increased in 2003, about 25,000 received increases of 30 percent or more. I think that is probably not gradual for those folks.
One last suggestion -- and I know you're trying to streamline your form, probably not so you could put additional information on it, but quite honestly -- and I don't think I could have even gotten this on-line, but I got it from the folks in the office. It would probably help many people -- it's either going to help them or give them more of a headache -- if they could see on that notice actually a bit of history as to what their assessment has been over some three- to five-year period of time, what the actual tax rate was over that same period of time so that they can see a sense of gradualism. Do they really have a complaint? Is their memory fading about what the bill was last year, and so now they've either, you know, embellished the pain or the hurt. Or is it possible to put somewhere on that sheet of paper a box -- and it already has a lot of stuff on it, I 277 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING understand -- that shows you over the last, as I said, three- to five-year period of time, what's been going on with your property?
We will work on that. I think that's a good suggestion. As you know, we show prior year and current year. So what you're asking for -- what you're suggesting is a couple of more years on there. I think that's a good suggestion.
Thank you. Let the record note that reinforcements, although he was doing quite well on his own, reinforcements have arrived from the Law Department. We've now been blessed by the presence of the Solicitor and the top aide, and I guess they want to now come to the table and engage in some legal jousting. If you gentlemen are prepared, I'm certainly prepared, but you let me know what you want to do. Thank you, Mr. Glancey.
You're welcome. Madam Chairman, if it's okay with you, could I give, like two, three minutes to wrap up, unless you have some further questions for me?
There was one point that I 278 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING would like to make, and I'd like to make it now, and it has to do with the relationship of the Board of Revision of Taxes, with the Budget Department, with the Finance Department, with the Mayor's Office. We give testimony to City Council every year, roughly February. In that Council testimony, I try to give you a sense of what the market of the City of Philadelphia looks like. Based on that testimony, I then go to the PICA Board in March. The very first -- the PICA board. I go to the PICA Board in March. For the very first time the Budget Director, maybe the Revenue Commissioner, if she's there, but certainly the budget director and anybody at the City Controllers and folks who sit around that table, for the very first time are hearing -- unless they are at that testimony at Council -- are hearing what our projections are for -- and I don't give them numbers. I just say what the market happens to be. So it's really information that I forward to City Council in January, which I guess will be January, February of this coming year. That's the basis for the market value projections that we use that come out in the summertime for the 279 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING most part. Now, it's very vague, I understand that. It just talks to you about what's going on within the markets. It is not supposed to be number specific at that point because we don't have the numbers at that time. But I just wanted to say that because it was part of the resolution, Councilman, that we didn't really get into very much, that what is the inter-relationship between all of these various agencies? Again, the proverbial stack of bibles. I can tell you that I have never been asked by a Mayor, I have never been asked by a Finance Director, I have never been asked by a Budget Director, I have never been asked by a President of City Council to raise money to lower millage -- to lower values, to raise values. I've never been asked to do anything. It is my responsibility to give them a heads up, as I give you heads up when I send my reports to you folks in July, the very same time I send it to the Mayor, to the Budget Department, to the Finance Director. So as far as what we do, as far as I have been chairman and what we do, we are independent from the budget process and from the 280 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Mayor's Office. But again, being independent is good, but being cooperative while being independent is better. And as I say, this is a moment in time where I think we can effect some change. So I thank you very much, Madam Chair, for allowing me to get that off my chest.
Thank you very much. And thank you for your patience these days and all these hours. Thank You.
Thank you, Ms. Kammerdeiner, as well. We have two people, Judy Cerrone and Sandy Junker (ph), who would like to testify. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to testify? All right. We know this is Judy Cerrone and we ask you to welcome. Identify yourself for the record and you can begin your testimony.
My name is Judy Cerrone. I'm president of the Stadium Community Council Corporation. I'm also the legally elected director of District One of the Sports Complex Special Services District, and I'm here representing them. 281 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING I felt sick when I got up this morning, and was in bed until one o'clock. But after listening to Mr. Glancey, I feel very sick, because a lot of things he says are not true at all. And as a taxpayer and a homeowner, I know it's not true. First of all, I'll give you my own taxes, so you know that I'm speaking from the heart. I do not care about the percentages. I don't care about the technicalities. I don't even understand them. But we're a neighborhood that will be 50 next year. Our homes -- we'll have a 50th anniversary of the building of our neighborhood in 1953. And we have over 75 percent original homeowners. We have several people on my street that are in their 90s. They're widows and live alone. My parents live six doors away. My mother is 84. She's bedridden with Alzheimer's. And my father is 88. My son is having a baby in three weeks. They will be living with me. And it will be four generations in one neighborhood. So we didn't leave the City. Not yet. I have my own tax bills here. I figured if we're going to talk dollars I may as well talk -- at least know something. In 1957 -- In 1996 I was paying -- I'm 282 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING going to go only by what I pay because that's what counts to me, not the percentage rate -- was $1,547.02. We got raised in 1997 to $1,631.64. We didn't get a raise again for four years until 2001 when it went up $61, and now again, $400. I have a 16-foot row house. I'm in the shadow of the Vet. I will now be paying $1,700. I can't afford it. Nobody in our neighborhood can. They have to remember, which has us really, really angry, is that your house is only worth the reassessment if you sell it. We're being penalized to stay, is the way we feel. I mean, if some fool wants to come in and give me $300,000 for my house, terrific, but they should know then they're going to be paying taxes on $300,000 for my house. But if I don't intend to move, why should I penalized to stay in the City? I know tax abatements are popular and I'm not going to bug Councilman DiCicco on that, what he said, but my neighborhood completely opposes them. We're going to have a new development go up six blocks from us and they get a 10-year abatement. My neighborhood is furious. We have 225 residences; 210 actual homes, some are duplexes. 283 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING When you go to buy a new home in this development you will start at at least $185. When you buy a house from $185, you know you're going to be paying high tax. They're going to go up to over $300,000. That's high tax. But they know that when they buy it. We're being penalized for staying in our neighborhood. If somebody wants to fix up their home, they're being penalized for fixing up their home. None of that to us makes any sense. It may make sense to the Board of Revision, but it certainly does not make any sense to us. To switch the topic, quickly, I was asked by several more knowledgeable people in my neighborhood than me about Mr. Glancey. And we were told he is appointed by the Board of Judges, which consists of five men. I asked my assessor, Mr. Johnson -- Ms. Johnson -- they told me five. I'm not sure myself -- for the names of the five judges because the neighbors wanted to know. Ms. Johnson said she had no idea, and even if she did, she couldn't tell me. And I told her we have a right to know under the Freedom of Information Act. So first of all, I'd like to find out from someone who the five people were who appointed him. He is not 284 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING elected. He is appointed. Also his staff, the assessors themselves -- I'm sorry.
I'm sorry. As best as I can understand, there are seven members of the Board of Revision of Taxes. They are appointed by the Board of Judges of the Court of Common Pleas. There are probably close to a hundred judges who are on the Board of Judges of the Court of Common Pleas. Names are put forward. They have a vote, however they vote, and then that person is appointed to the term on the Board of Revision of Taxes.
I believe Mr. Glancey has been on the Board since 1983.
Well, the people who are employed under him, the assessors, they don't even need a college degree. They don't have an accounting degree, nothing. They're trained how to assess. I find that kind of strange.
That I don't know. I don't know what their qualifications are.
I asked my assessor. And she said they don't need it, but I think they do. 285 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING A few other points I want to make. Our neighborhood is right next to Veterans Stadium. We are the only neighborhood in the country, actually, that's going to have four stadiums right on top of us. The closest home is 150 feet from the Vet. We are in a construction site. We met for six days with the Mayor in his office, practically holding us hostage without any food, to come up with a matrix, which I have here, signed by the City on December 8, 2000, which gives things to the neighborhood in exchange for sticking four stadiums down our throat. As of now, none of these things have been adhered to. None. Two things -- I'll make a statement just to show you. One is that we would have bathing of the sewers for rats. The Phillies are doing it. The City didn't. The sewers would be cleaned. Never happened. We went through a whole summer, our streets were not washed once in one of the hottest summers in history. We are covered in dirt, and this City did nothing. Regarding a traffic study because -- we will, there was a study done by the teams that was shelved from the year 2000 in August. We were 286 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING supposed to have a traffic study that the Mayor signed onto that would be done immediately. That was on December 8, 2000. Nothing was done. We have gotten no services. m. in the morning until the end of 7 the day through the whole summer and spring, and it continues for the new Phillies ballpark. The Mayor called this Ground Zero, which I hate to use because of New York. But he called it Ground Zero. It is Ground Zero. We are in the middle of a construction and demolition site. When that Vet comes down, whether by implosion or a wrecking ball, we don't know if we're going to be standing. So we don't know where Mr. Glancey has the gall to raise our taxes at a time like this when we're worried if we're even going to be there or whether our sewer system is going to be able to withstand the jolt that's it's going to get. Our sewer system is old and we've had problems with it before. It was redone in '89 and there's still problems with it. We are in a filthy mess. We have rats, water bugs, cats all over. Filth, dirt, noise, traffic. It's not a normal circumstance. We do not deserve this. We are being penalized to stay 287 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING in South Philadelphia. A couple other issues. We had a meeting at Stella Maris, which is our school hall in our neighborhood, on September 11th, which Council President Verna attended, along with Councilman Frank Rizzo and a representative for Councilman Cohen. We wanted to make sure it was non-partisan. And we also sent a fax, I did, to the Mayor requesting that he attend, since the Mayor is the one that made all the promises to our neighborhood and has not kept one. Not only did I not get a response, I didn't get an e-mail, I didn't get a fax, I didn't get a phone call, I didn't get a letter. This also states that if he couldn't attend, if he could please give us a meeting as soon as possible. It's dated September 3rd. As of today, I have not heard one word. Now, I know a lot of money is needed by the City for his Safe Streets program, the towing of the car program. The schools. We want to know where that money is going. The Mayor will not answer to the press and he certainly hasn't answered to the people. Nor did City Council. Where is all the money going? 60 percent of our real estate 288 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING taxes go for public school system. And they're complaining that they don't have any books. Where is the money going? It is not going to the City. Nothing that we can see. I even found out recently that North Philadelphia gets two trash pick-ups a week. And it's not new. They have been getting two trash pick-ups. South Philadelphia, including my neighborhood, gets one. We have the mess. We have four stadiums.
Last week we had Little Bow Wow and the Rolling Stones on the same night with no police. Our neighborhood was a zoo. The same week we had the Rolling Stones in an outdoor concert that shot fireworks at midnight. I heard "Get No 17 Satisfaction" at 11:30 in my living room so loud that nobody in my neighborhood went to bed. We are being punished for living in a sports complex, but we're being taxed by the Board of Revisions when they have no clue about our neighborhood. They say that they look at the properties. That is a lie. My front steps have crumbled. We have always been reassessed on my street at the same amount. There are four houses on 289 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING my street that have built-out back decks who got the same bill as me. When I asked Ms. Northern (ph), the assessor, why, she said they're computer generated. That means nobody ever came down and took a look. Why should I pay the same for a house that can sell for way more than mine? I'm not saying I want their taxes raised, but we got the same amount. That is absolutely ludicrous, in my opinion. I have an original kitchen, which is 50 years old. I have an original basement, which is 50 years old. It's just not fair. The senior citizens are on a fixed income. I am on a fixed income. The Mayor talks about a payment plan monthly. That's been existence for years. That is not new. I want a 12-month payment plan myself. I cannot pay another $400. My father has asked me and my son to move in with him and sell my house because I won't be able to keep it, as will the senior citizens in my neighborhood. That is really, really unfair. I don't know where Mr. Glancey and his people think they have the right, but I think City Council represents us, not the Board of Revision. And I think City Council owes it to its constituents to stop him. I don't know how. I don't know the 290 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING legality. And they claim that it's all based on Harrisburg. We will, Harrisburg keeps giving the schools more money, which is real estate tax money, and the schools are still screaming they don't have any money, so it's going somewhere. But it's not going into the pockets of the citizens of Philadelphia. And I know you're trying to bring new people into the City by doing abatements. There are no jobs out there to get, so I don't know why they would want to come back. If you want to work at McDonald's, you can find a job. But I have people on my own street that have given me resumes to give to the sports teams to try to get them a job. They're like 45, 50. Their places have closed down or moved out of town. They can't find a job anywhere. So if you're going to bring people in for a $300,000 house and you can't give them a job, why would they come? You have to take care of the people who are here now who want to stay. I think the Board of Revision is so far off base they're living on another planet, in my own opinion. And another thing. As far as I read in 291 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING the Inquirer, it states -- and I could be wrong, but this is what it states in the Inquirer, that when you raise assessments the entire county must be raised. Now, Girard Estate was not raised. Girard Estate is a beautiful area and I don't want them to get a raise. But if you live on Shunk Street and have a twin home that is three times the size of mine, you're paying $2,200 a year. And I will be paying $2,100 a year. Tell me where the Board of Revision gets their numbers from. They didn't see a thing. Mr. Glancey lives in a closet. He does not understand what's going out on the street. And what he said about people not coming into the homes, that's a lie. Because I went to two hearings where we had appeals, and the neighborhood went together. And my mother was we will then. And I signed a paper for them to come into my home to see it and so did my mother, twice. They never, ever showed up. And when we called, they didn't even respond. And that is the truth. So Mr.
Glancey is lying to City Council. I hope they know that. I hope they see it. The people have to come first. You're driving us out of 292 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING town. I have a sorority of girls from high school. 12 live in New Jersey. I am the only one left in Philadelphia. And to be honest, if my parents were not up the street and so old and sick, I'd be in Ocean City, New Jersey right now permanently. I wouldn't stay here anymore either, especially with venue that's coming up with the two new stadiums on top of us. I think our neighborhood is a special circumstance. I think he has to get down there and look at the properties. The neighbors on Broad Street got a $733 raise. That takes them over $3,300 a year. Some of them have three kids in parochial school. There's no way in the world they can afford it. He talks about senior citizens. They're not the only ones that are hurting. When you have three kids -- you can't go to the public schools where we live unless you want to go with a machine gun. It is that dangerous. As a parent I wouldn't have sent my son there either, if I had to make a bank loan. People don't understand the living conditions unless you're in the neighborhoods. They sit in their offices and they tell us what we have to pay. My neighborhood will 293 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING never accept the increase that we got. We were promised by the Mayor -- if you read the letter that I gave out, the Mayor told us -- we don't have it in the matrix. It's not in writing, so he's going to deny it I'm sure. We asked him for a 30-year freeze for the length of the leases, which we knew he would laugh at. Then we threw out an abatement, which we knew he also would laugh at. But then we told him if he could consider us during construction and demolition, which goes to 2005. He said he would take care of us. Well, he took care of us, all right.
Did he begin -- when he said that, did he just leave it at that or did he amplify that? How did he mean he would take care of you?
We told him we would like not to pay any increase in taxes. And he said, don't worry about it. I'll care of it. We took him at his word.
He explicitly said that? You questioned him? You put that in a very explicit manner?
And he explicitly made that promise? MS CERRONE: Yes. But it's not in the matrix, so there's nothing in writing. But he also said a lot of other things that haven't happened too, so he's going to deny that he ever said them. But we were all there. Council President was at the table too. So were the City attorneys --
I don't remember him ever saying anything like that, Judy. I have to be very honest. I never remember the Mayor saying anything like that.
I remember him saying, Judy, it would be illegal for me to attempt to do anything like that.
To put on a freeze or an abatement. But he said he would take care of us. How is he taking care of us, when he won't even give us a street cleaning in nine months? I mean, they haven't done one thing that's in that matrix, Anne. They have not addressed one of the concerns in the matrix. Not one. 295 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING
I think your group, also, has to get on the job and do what they're supposed to do to get things moving.
The District has been meeting -- we've been meeting. And we did review 70 --
You've been meeting and nothing has been accomplished.
So until you accomplish something, nothing is going to get done in the area.
We shouldn't need to have an executive director for the sports district to have the things that are in the matrix implemented. That was not part of the deal. I mean, these things should be done anyway.
And weren't they all supposed to be implemented after the construction?
No. During. Because a lot of these things say, during construction.
Well, I don't think this is the forum to be talking about that. I 296 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING think you should be talking about the reassessments.
No. But what I'm trying to say is that we haven't gotten services, but we've gotten a real estate increase. $2,100. I can't afford it. There's no way. $3,300 on Broad and $3,000 on 13th Street. I mean, the people are getting hit so bad two years in a row. Two years in a row we got an increase. To me, I mean, if we have to get an attorney, so be it. They say you can't. It doesn't matter if you have an attorney, that the Board of Revision has the right to override any attorney. I don't know. All I'm telling you is that we're depending on our City Council to make sure we're taken care of. We're depending on our City Council to make sure our taxes in our neighborhood, since we're in the middle of the construction site, that we don't get a raise. You're going to price everybody right out of our neighborhood. Unless that's what the City plans to do so that they can use it for a parking lot, which they desperately need. It's maybe an underhanded way of getting us out of town. But other than that, I mean -- I don't know what else to say. 297 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING
Thank you. Well, we've heard between the 25th and today, we've kind of heard from people all over the City, so we understand. We do thank you for coming too.
I appreciate you listening, and I thank you. And I know you'll help us.
Thank you, Ms. Cerrone. Sandy Junker, please identify yourself for the record and begin your testimony.
My name is Sandy Junker and I wanted to come here today to let you know how I feel about the tax issue, the increase. I'm not very good at public speaking. I grew up in the suburbs in Cincinnati, Ohio and I moved here seven years ago with my husband for a job that he got here. And it was quite an adjustment to move here. The quality of life in the City is a struggle compared to living in the suburbs. The City services that I've 298 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING experienced here -- wait a minute. I'm sorry. The City services I've experienced are unfair and unjust, and raising my taxes seems just as unfair and unjust. And I'll explain that. The City services that I've experienced here including the garbage pick up, the police when you have a complaint about different things and the school system is just horrific. I'm going to start with the garbage issue. On my street there are slumlords who leave garbage out -- my garbage day is Friday. And on Saturday there's all kinds of garbage all over the street. There's all kinds of vagrants that come along with knives and slit the garbage bags. There's garbage all over the street all the time. Whenever I call to complain, nobody comes out to ticket these people. Appliances are sitting out there for months and months. No one does anything. And I have worked very hard with the tenants who live in those buildings to come to an agreement so that I can live on my street without having to look at a lot of just garbage and appliances all over the place. But that should have been dealt with by the Streets Department. It wasn't. They do nothing 299 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING when I call. I know of at least other people in the street who have called and they do absolutely nothing. When I call them to find out to follow-up on things, they tell me that they didn't have time they had other more urgent issues. This to me is unacceptable. About a year ago a woman was raped and almost murdered two blocks from my house. When I called the police -- it was about a year later, I was walking down the street maybe a half a block from where it happened and I saw the person -- I'm pretty sure I saw the person who did it. He walked past me and I felt immediately that I recognized him from all of the signs that were up all over the place. I went home as quickly as possible. I called the police and I asked them to please come out and do something to try and get the guy. They told me I didn't have a good enough description. The first thing they said was, what rape? We don't know of a rape that happened in Fairmount. Then when I did describe the man, they told me I didn't have a good enough description of the man for anyone to bother to come out and follow-up on that. To me, that is inexcusable. And I found it so upsetting 300 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING that the morning after it happened, I got up from my bed and passed out. These kind of things should not happen. And I was almost a hundred percent sure that the man that I saw was the same man that was drawn by the woman that was raped. Another example is the school system, the school system that the kids have to go to every day is unsafe and it's horrific. I have friends who work in it and the things they tell me are just so sad. I can't even tell you how sad. So I'm just saying that, unfortunately, this is not just about laws, this is about what people have worked for all their lives, the time and the commitment that they've put into building their communities. They're feeling connected with others in their communities. And a system like this that allows people like this to be forced out of their communities, the communities that they created and supported over many years. So this system ignores the human element, and that is what we are all about. We put our hearts into our homes here. We put our hearts into our communities.
When the stadium issue came up, I fought so hard to get that stadium out of our neighborhood 301 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING and from what I heard from the last person --
Yeah. I'm damn glad I spent all that time doing it, but back to the issue at hand.
Not to coerce you, but we're assuming that you've been reassessed. By how much?
Yes. I filed an appeal last night. I just wanted to finish. When I moved here I was warned by people that lived near me not to move on the street that I moved onto. They said it was a ghetto street. And I've worked very hard to turn that around, and it has been a lot of work. It's been all of my time and a hell of a lot of effort on my part. So the house fronts look terrible on my street. There are problems with trash everywhere. There were problems with slumlords and people who care nothing about their property. Through a lot of 302 10/01/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING work and over the five years I've been here, I've been able to help turn that around. The City itself was not helpful, as per the examples that I gave. I am testifying to help with this for the long run. The people who have been here and who have put a lot of time and commitment into the community are being run out. These senior citizens should not be treated this way. I, too, will be a senior citizen one day. And by taking a stand today, I hope to be able to stay in the home I have made for myself. You need to think about incentives to make people want to stay, though, because the enormous amount of work that I have had to go through over the last seven years just shouldn't be a part of my everyday life. The quality of life here should be much better, and I do hope that you will work to improve that.
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here who would like to testify? We thank you very much. I believe that this will end the stated hearing with regard to these tax bills. - - - COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 303 PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE - - - October 1, 2002 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Finance, held in Room 696, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 020490, 020491, 020493, 020537, 020538, 020577 - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL, Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK J. DICICCO COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA - - - 304 10/1/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now enter public meeting. If the committee is prepared, we can report out all Bills and Resolutions, with the exception of Bill No. 010746 at the response of the Bill sponsor, Councilman Clarke. And Bill No. 8 020579 at the response of that Bill's sponsor, Councilman Rizzo. If the committee is prepared, then we can report these bills out, if that is okay. All right. The Chair will entertain a motion with regard to -- we'll go back to maybe September 25th's hearing first. The Chair will entertain a motion to report out Bill No. 020490. This is from September 25th. Councilman DiCicco, this is your Bill.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 020490 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 020490 be reported out with a favorable recommendation. 305 10/1/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING All in favor? (Aye.)
The ayes have it. And so this Bill is reported out. Councilman DiCicco, would you also give me a motion to report out Bill No. 020491?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 020491 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 020491 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor? (Aye.)
Thank you. Councilman Clarke is not here. Councilman Nutter, would you give me a motion to report out Bill No. 020493? 306 10/1/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING
Yes. That is not -- Councilman Clarke had two Bills. Bill 746 we're holding, 010746. This is another Bill. It has been moved that Bill No. 020493 be reported out of Committee. Do I get a second? (Duly seconded.)
The ayes have it. And so that Bill is reported out of committee. Councilman Nutter, would you entertain a motion with regard to Bill No. 020537.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 020537 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It's moved and seconded that Bill No. 020537 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. 307 10/1/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING All in favor? (Aye.)
The ayes have it. And so the Bill reported is out. Councilman Nutter, Bill No. 020538.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 020538 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 020538 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor? (Aye.)
The ayes have it. And so that Bill is also reported out. Councilman O'Neill, would you give me a motion with regard to Bill No. 020577?
Madam Chair, I move Bill No. 020577 be reported out of the Committee 308 10/1/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It's moved and seconded that Bill No. 020577 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor? (Aye.)
The ayes have it. And so that Bill is reported out. Councilman Nutter, would you give me a motion with regard to Resolution 020585. All right. We've heard testimony with regard to that Resolution and, as we know, we don't have to go further on Resolutions. Again, Bill No. 010740 -- 010746, 020579, both Bills are being held at the request of the sponsors. I think that is it. We have done our duty. Let me thank everyone. This hearing and meeting are adjourned and let me thank all of you for your patience and hard work. Thank you all. 309 10/1/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING (Council adjourned at 4:15 p.m.) - - - 310 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 October 1, 2002, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public