And as long as there's nothing illegal about it, it's fine. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President. In spite of Councilman Clarke's and Councilman Jim Kenney's questioning to help us understand how we start at 800,000 and get to 2.5 million, I failed to see the connect. Are there any numbers broken down in your testimony that would illustrate how one goes from 800,000 to 2.5 million?
Thank you, 66 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. Councilwoman. The exact budget, the acquisition budget that breaks down the cost, is not in with the testimony, but I'd be happy to provide that to the Committee.
I would ask that you submit to Madam President all of the numbers breakdown that show us how we get from 800,000 to 2.5 million.
Secondly, you indicated in your testimony that this is intended for a non-profit purpose. Elaborate on that.
We've been in preliminary discussions with a developer to do affordable senior citizen housing, and it's a partnership between a developer that has expertise in doing affordable housing and the local St. Marons CDC that's been formed.
And the developer would be? 67 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC.
I don't have the exact -- the name of the developer. It's St. Marons. I don't know the legal entity that's been formed or if in fact one has even been formed yet. It's still been preliminary.
It being preliminary, are you in discussions with just this particular developer on just this non-profit or are there other possible scenarios, alternatives for the ultimate use?
There has been no 15 selection by our Board of Directors for a developer, so we could entertain other options.
And would those options be purely non-profit or for some other use?
Within the urban renewal controls, we could look at any different scenario of developments or developers.
I thank 68 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. you for your testimony.
Gentlemen, the use of this, you say it's going to be for what?
They're apartments, they're not condos, in other words?
Right now it looks like they would be apartments where they would pay a monthly rent that is below the market rate. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of order, if I may.
Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I believe that under the tax credits that are going to be provided to the project, that it's mandatory that they're rental. The only 69 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. portion that may be -- and I'm not all that familiar -- that may be condo'd out might be the retail on the ground floor, but the residential units must remain rental.
It seems to me -- is this currently vacant, this building?
The developer has stated that they would do 51 apartment units, and then on the ground floor there would be -- you could work a couple different scenarios for retail space, one 70 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. up to maybe five retail spaces on the ground floor of the building.
The building now consists of what? Does it have apartments?
No, it doesn't, Mr. Kelly. It's an -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's an empty warehouse.
The first floor used to have some commercial units. The rest of the building is --
My client was telling me somewhere in the early 1990s was the last time there were tenants on 71 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. the street level, but it's been vacant probably before that on the upper levels. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: 40 years.
So it's been vacant for 40 years and now all the sudden, there seems to be an interest. I find it -- I don't know. I find it very questionable that due to the market itself, the way it was really escalating over the last five or six years, that there wouldn't be an interest in redeveloping this property before this, but all the sudden now, we seem to, since the RDA wants to take this over, that everyone is starting to climb on board. I just don't know the reason or the rationale behind it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Councilman Kelly. Real briefly, I want to follow up on the line of questioning, the skeptical issue aspect of this debate. The 2.5 offer that -- 72 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC.
2.25. Traditionally in a real estate transaction of that magnitude and actually for a simple row home, there's normally a lender involved, and even when there's not a lender, I suspect that someone would have gotten an appraisal to determine whether or not that was a reasonable offer. Is there an appraisal that justifies the 2.25?
Because that's relatively important, because the City's appraiser has said it's 800,000 and now you have an offer of 2.25, and I'm trying to understand why the level of disparity between that offer and the City's appraised value is so wide.
I don't know if there's an appraisal done by -- the buyer just signed the document on the 23rd and I wasn't -- as I said, unfortunately, I don't have the benefit of having been 73 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. involved in the transaction, nor was any other attorney in my office involved in putting this together, so I couldn't have picked the brain of anybody to tell me if there's anything like that. I don't know if Councilman DiCicco knows anything about the adjacent property, which is the 804 Washington, if he's heard anything about a purchase price.
The appraisal is traditionally based on comps, and I guess separate and aside from that particular property and that offer, are there any comps in that area?
Well, that's what I was saying. I mean, I've heard -- again, I don't have anything concrete, but I've heard that the price for the adjacent parcel may be in the vicinity of what this offer is. That's the vacant parking lot and the building that wraps around this. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The recent 74 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. sale of 804 Washington is actually multiple properties as well. It is an active -- the corner of 9th and Washington Avenue, which is the southeast corner, is a restaurant, Anastasia's Seafood Restaurant, that is operating. So there's rental income. And there are two or three adjacent properties going south on 9th that abut with the 1109 property that are also active retail establishments. To the rear of 1109 is an active parking lot. It's a parking lot that's used for customers who shop on 9th Street. So the value of that would certainly be higher as a result of the fact that there's income.
You have an active business. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That sold for somewhere around 3 million, I am told. I don't have any documents to back that up. But what I'd like to also point out is that the 1109 through 33 property, 75 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. the property in question today, had been on the market for about two years, maybe even longer. The asking price, the asking price, was somewhere between 800,000 and $1.2 million, but we wind up with a buyer two days ago that's going to double that price. One point two was the maximum number, I think -- the lowest number he was willing to accept, the buyer, from what I understand. It was listed with a realtor.
And that's a comparable site? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I would suggest probably. I actually thought that was a high number, given the fact that it's an empty building that can't be salvaged. You have to -- demolition people were out there and looked at the building. You need to demolish the building. It's just ready to go anyway. So you have to demolish the building. Taking that demolition cost into consideration, which runs somewhere 76 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. between 300,000 and 500,000, the cost would probably -- if you paid 800, you'd be at the 1.2, 1.3, which was the asking price. But somehow miraculously two days ago, a buyer comes up with an Agreement of Sale for 2.5.
I just want to just clarify for the record, I know Councilman Kenney asked me about could you make an arrangement where you would get paid some sort of commission if there was a deal struck and you got some money from the Redevelopment Authority. Under the terms of this agreement, which is pretty standard, the purchaser could get out of this agreement if the property gets taken by eminent domain or they could take the property and "if the purchaser does not elect, the seller shall convey title and assign any award for such taking to the purchaser." So the agreement and the arrangement are that either they could 77 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. get out or they could take the property as is and they would succeed to the award.
Thank you. Any other questions of these witnesses? (No response.)
Mr. McPherson, any other witnesses? MR. McPHERSON: Yes. The next witness is Domenic Vitiello.
Does the Committee want to have a copy of the Agreement of Sale? We'll offer into the record a copy of the Agreement of Sale dated April 23.
Good morning, 78 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. Councilmembers, Councilman DiCicco. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify about Bill 070168. I teach in the Urban Studies and City Planning programs at the University of Pennsylvania and I'm a Board member of a South Philadelphia community group called Juntos/Casa de los Soles, which works with Latin American immigrants in South Philadelphia, including some of the business owners and operators on South 9th Street within this redevelopment area and proposed urban renewal area. I've been doing two things lately. I'm writing a book about community development in immigrant communities in the Delaware Valley and I work with colleagues at Penn on something we call the Philadelphia Migration Project studying immigration to the region. And I'm here both as a researcher and a city planner, as well as a Board member of Juntos, and I want to 79 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. say, first of all, that Juntos has nothing to do with whatever the letter is that Councilman DiCicco has been discussing. We didn't know of it before this morning, and so we have no 7 association with that. We have really two concerns as an organization. The first is about the process here. The merchants that we work with on South 9th Street really, until we approached them over the last week, had no idea that this was happening, and secondly is with the creation of this urban renewal area based on certain assessments of vacancy and a blight certification done in the year 2000 that we feel and that I feel as a professional are no longer accurate. I will say that we as an organization and I personally wholeheartedly support the development of affordable seniors housing in this area and the redevelopment in particular of that one blighted property at 1109 to 80 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. 1133 South 9th Street. However, we feel that the rest of the area is really no 4 longer blighted. As a planner, I understand that urban renewal areas, their designation and blight certification are really standard tools for effecting the sort of redevelopment project. However, I also know that designation of an urban renewal area makes it easier and removes certain steps for public takings and redevelopment in the future beyond the proposed project today. My central concern is this: I wish to make it clear in the public record that the blight certification of this broader area no longer really accurately reflects the actual conditions on this block, with the exception of this one property at 1109 to 33 South 9th. I realize that this bill under consideration today is to take that single property, but I want the record to show that the urban renewal area to be 81 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. approved is, again, based on outdated and inaccurate information about vacancy and blight. So I'd like to share a very little bit of my recent research with you and submit into the record both a letter and a brief report that I have. And I'll read just the first page and a half or so of that report. My research assistants and I have spent the past several months, since January, surveying Latin-American commercial and economic development in South Philadelphia from about Broad to the Delaware south of Christian. Our research is supported by the Penn Institute for Urban Research and it's part of my larger book project on community and economic development in immigrant neighborhoods of the greater Philadelphia region. We have performed a detailed survey of both buildings and businesses, including extensive interviews with 82 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. business owners and property owners along 9th Street, as well as surrounding areas of South Philadelphia, and we have also used the City's neighborhood information system to track data on real estate and L&I, everything that I imagine you know is in the City's database.
We have partnered with Juntos and Casa de los Soles and with the Empowerment Group, which is an economic and small business development intermediary, in our research, and Juntos has requested that we summarize the findings of our research pertaining to commercial development in the 9th and Ellsworth Redevelopment Area, with specific reference to the blight certification, vacancy and land-use patterns reported in the redevelopment proposal for the area and its supporting documents, and that's what this report that I'll submit does. I'll just read one more page of it that summarizes our findings. 83 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. The blight certification for the 9th and Ellsworth Redevelopment Area was effected seven years ago, in 2000, at a time when there was considerable vacancy in this area. The occupancy rates, physical conditions and commercial activity in the area have really changed significantly since then. Our research finds that today the properties in this area, with the exception of the property again at 1109 to 33 South 9th Street, are no longer blighted. Over the past seven years, entrepreneurs from Latin America, Asia, the United States and Europe -- and I hope I'm not leaving anyone out -- have renovated and reopened the great majority of storefronts in this area. This renovation and business activity has developed organically, driven by private individuals' and companies' decisions in the marketplace, without the aid of City programs or taxpayer dollars. We have interviewed the proprietors of ten of the 84 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. Latin-American-run businesses in the 9th and Ellsworth area and our interviews have turned up not a single business that relied on public sector assistance for its start-up and development. Some of these businesses actually constitute foreign investment in our neighborhood-based economic development in Philadelphia, something I think we should be proud of. The reinvestment and revival of these blocks by a diverse group of entrepreneurs from immigrant and receiving communities has made the Italian Market area one of Philadelphia's most ethnically diverse commercial districts. Indeed, the 9th and Ellsworth area was the subject of a tour during the American Planning Association's National Conference in Philadelphia last week, which was focused on -- the tour focused on best practices of small-scale commercial revitalization in immigrant neighborhoods. 85 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. Renovation and business development are proceeding at a rapid pace along South 9th Street between Washington Avenue and Federal Street. The Latin-American businesses in these blocks, which until recently were limited to restaurants and grocery stores, have begun to diversify, now including a sporting goods store, barber shop, party supply store, music and DVD shop. In short, a more mature commercial mix that serves a great variety of consumer needs both within the neighborhood and within the broader region, as the Italian Market, as you know, is really a regional destination. Several new stores have opened up just in the past few months, making the City's January 2007 land-use map no 21 longer accurate in its assessment of vacancy on these blocks. This land-use map, which accompanies the redevelopment proposal, lists 15 properties as vacant structures, and of these 15 properties on 86 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. the land-use map, today three are operating businesses, eight are presently being renovated, at least four of which have engaged commercial tenants that expect to open new stores in the summer of 2007, so in the coming months. Three are renovated and for sale or rent and one is vacant with no apparent activity at the property, and that one is, as I'm sure you know by now, at 1109 to 1133 South 9th Street.
In conclusion, I'd like to reiterate that really no accurate assessment of the current conditions on these blocks could reasonably conclude that the properties and the broader 9th and Ellsworth area, again, with the exception of this one property, the Ice House, are blighted. And the rest of the report shows pictures of each and every property that is listed as vacant in the redevelopment proposal and shows their renovation, the stores that are there and lists their current conditions. 87 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC.
Thank you. One quick question. And I'm happy that the majority, if not virtually all, of that particular Model Cities Area or urban renewal area has been developed over the period since 2000 when it was designated. Real briefly, do you know if in that Models City Area there were any new construction or conversions?
There were certainly conversions. I don't think they were quite shell conversions. There has been and there continues to be a great deal of investment and rehab of existing buildings, but I know of no 20 demolition or new construction.
With the exception, sorry, of one building that is built within the parking lot along 9th 88 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. Street that is the grocery store, sort of partner of the Veracruzana Restaurant.
But you know there are certain abatements for certain conversion and new construction and there are government subsidies, although people don't like to characterize it that way?
No, I was not aware of that, but that should show up in my BRT maps, right?
Just somehow this whole abatement issue -- and I know it's probably not the appropriate time to have this level of discussion, but this tax abatement issue somehow is characterized as the government not being involved at giving people subsidies.
No. And I was not aware of that and so I wouldn't have characterized it in that way. 89 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC.
I don't know. I just know that in substantial parts of the City there's a lot of new construction, and a lot of it is market-rate housing, high-end housing. And somehow when we talk about affordable housing and it being subsidized by the government, somehow this high-end housing is not being viewed as subsidized when they are in fact being subsidized by the government.
Absolutely. I'm unaware of any buildings in these particular blocks that have either been shell rehabs or new construction eligible for the ten-year tax abatement.
Or 90 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. conversions.
But all around that area -- right, or it could be. All around that area certainly, especially north of Washington, there have been such.
All right. Thank you so much for your testimony. Any questions of this witness by members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you so much, sir. MR. McPHERSON: The next witness is Fred Eller.
My name is Fred Eller. I'm a property owner on the 1100 block of South 9th Street, and my main reason to call here is -- I mean to come here is, it just seems like the activities going on, even though the Councilman -- and he's a good man -- said people knew, nobody knew. And it isn't about the place across the street. It's 91 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. about what can happen after this area is claimed as a redevelopment area that there were projections by the Planning Commission to actually do some things that would affect all the business owners, like maybe some mass condemnations and stuff like that, and this is what most of these people here fear. They're all for getting rid of this building, but nobody wants to face the fact that, hey, they might condemn a whole block and put this shopping center in that the Planning Commission said could be done. And the other thing as far as being a blighted area, I bet since 2000 most of the property values went up at least 20 to 50 percent. You know, a blighted area, they should have went down 20 or 30 percent. I think that's about it as far as I'm concerned.
Right. 92 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. It's my understanding -- and I hear what you're saying -- is that via ordinance 4 and the Redevelopment Authority approval, the designation of an urban renewal can be removed, or am I incorrect? I guess I'm looking at my RDA representatives. Mr. Dema? Somebody has to know. Mr. Koonce? Not to suggest that -- that's clearly under the Councilman's jurisdiction, but I guess that is the question that has been raised by a number of -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Chair, if I may, while Mr. Koonce is coming up, that's one of the concerns as to why there's so many people here today. They're concerned and they're anxious about the title being a blighted area, that this will be the tool that we'll use just to take properties at random, and I've been trying to assure them that that's not the case. They've asked me yesterday in that meeting that took place in my office, Why don't we decertify the 93 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. area as being blighted. I'm not convinced that that's the right thing to do, because there's still a significant number of properties that are blighted and why give up the tools that would enable us to take those if there is a development project that makes sense at this time. I mean, it's not that the whole entire area has been redeveloped. There's still some parcels. It's not unlike any other community that has a redevelopment plan where you have a lot of activity, but you still have some holes in the process where things have still been left unattended or blighted.
No. We actually had a similar situation in my Council District, in the Brewerytown section. As a result of the Westrum Development, the commitment from the City was to build additional affordable housing in the existing community, and when we attempted to proceed on acquiring the vacant properties for rehab for 94 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. affordable housing, we found that that area did not have an urban renewal designation. So when we attempted to expand that area to allow us to do more affordable housing, there was a lot of concerns raised by the residents because of that blight certification, and they didn't feel confident or comfortable with that designation for their community. Although they understood it had some challenges, they didn't want to have that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: There are certain areas in Bella Vista -- and I know the folks in here are familiar with that neighborhood, which is a high market value of properties in there -- that are still designated as blighted. So it just is an opportunity to use that tool. But I'll certainly entertain that going forward. I just don't want that to have an impact on this piece of legislation before us. And I offered to have a meeting with the folks here -- 95 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. Mr. Eller was in my office yesterday as well -- to talk about the possibility of doing a decertification.
All right. Mr. Koonce, real briefly, because we have to move. I know we have a number of witnesses. Can you just briefly tell us what the process would be to decertify an area as an urban renewal area?
It would essentially be the same process that we're going through now. It would start with Redevelopment Board action. City Planning would have to approve the redevelopment proposal decertifying, and then we would have an ordinance here at Council.
See, as I said to the Councilman, Frank, is that they could even keep the certification as long as there was no gross condemnation. When I 96 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. mean "gross condemnation," I mean taking the good, bad and the ugly, whereas spot condemnation, you take a building or a situation that is grossly run down and in need to be condemned. You take it, but you take instead of -- my fear is that they're going to take three or four places, say this isn't enough square feet for us, we need to condemn ten units along a road to put in what we have planned to put in, and there's a lot of good properties in there, because the good properties won't fit the overall scheme of the developer.
That's what I'm afraid of, gross condemnation, like they say we got to knock this whole block down.
Because of our overall plan to do something somewheres else, like in the rear of the block, like the parking lot or something. 97 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. See, the Planning Commission had these grandiose plans of like putting a shopping center on a parking lot and stuff like that. And I just -- they're going to have to condemn a lot of properties to do that.
Well, I can say, having worked with Councilman DiCicco as a Councilperson for the last seven and a half years, he is an honorable and a very fair person, and I don't think, based on my understanding of the man, he would use the condemnation process or allow it to be abused. At the end of the day, regardless of what recommendations the Planning Commission or the Redevelopment Authority make, it must pass through the Councilperson's office prior to any designation or any taking of a property using the powers of condemnation. I know the Councilman is 98 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. real good working with people, and I don't see any opportunity for abuse on the existing designation.
Excuse me, Councilman, if I may. In order for the Redevelopment Authority to acquire any additional properties, even adjacent properties, even though they're within the footprint of the redevelopment proposal, we would have to duplicate this process all over again. We would have to send a redevelopment proposal to this body asking that these properties be acquired, these additional properties be acquired. This legislation will only affect the one property.
And no 19 properties can be added without going to the Redevelopment Authority for broader approval, and it can't even be added until this particular transaction is completed, right?
Thank you. 99 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. Thank you, sir.
Thank you. MR. McPHERSON: The next three witnesses, if they would please come to the table, Joe Tartaglia, Angel Rodriguez, Silvestre Torres.
My name is Joe Tartaglia, Vice-President of the Italian Market. Excuse my appearance. My suit got burned in a fire. I got no ties either.
I might be asking the same questions. I can't hear too well, so I might be asking the same questions that everybody else spoke of. So if I do, please excuse me about that. The only concern I'm here about -- I'm 100 percent for the factory, and our organization is 100 percent for the factory to be done. They were only concerned about the immediate area, where somebody else might have explained 100 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. already. Everything has been done pretty well, great. Mr. DiCicco has been very good in the neighborhood. He's been cleaning up the neighborhood. He's been cleaning in front of the Ice Factory for the last five years. They've been leaving a mess there. And the City won't pick up the trash, and the Citizens Alliance go down and pick up the trash and try to keep the place pretty well clean. That's about what I wanted to know and why we wasn't -- we were notified at a meeting six months ago about what was going on here, but most of the people are Asian and Mexican. It's hard for me to explain to them exactly what's going on. So I did give out a few flyers that someone else gave me and handed to them so that they could bring somebody here to be a spokesman for them so that they can understand exactly what is going on. I'm for the project. The Ice 101 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. Factory was offered to me one time for $250,000. I don't know how they got 2,700,000. There ain't too much I want to say. That's about it.
If I might, I'm here to translate/interpret for this fellow here, Silvestre Torres.
My name is Peter Bloom. I'm the Director of Juntos, an organization in South Philadelphia. So if it's okay with the members of Council, he'll read a paragraph, I'll give you the interpretation of that paragraph.
Thank you. Honorable members of City Council, good afternoon and thank you for 102 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. hearing our voice. My name is Silvestre Torres and I am from Mexico and I'm also the owner of the recently opened restaurant Los Taquitos de Puebla at 1149 South 9th Street. I'm very concerned and want there to be some clarification relating to the renovation project scheduled for 9th Street between Washington Avenue and Federal Street. Neither myself as a business operator nor the owner of the building ever received any notice about the details of this project. These plans, which I've become aware of thanks to some organized neighbors, directly affect me and that I, along with my business partners, have invested a lot of money in creating our restaurant. It was four years ago when I came to establish myself on these streets, which were abandoned. Before there used to be a lot of crime in the form of drug dealing. There was not sufficient lighting and there was trash 103 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. everywhere. We have all worked very hard over the last years to ensure that our street is a place where our neighbors can walk safely and find products and services that they need. We serve the entire community and we are proud to attend more than 50 customers on a daily basis. We clean up in front of the restaurant and we help light the street at night. Together with Asian, Latino and Italian businesspeople, we've been able to bring new life to this area of the neighborhood. Through our own efforts and hard work, we are realizing the American dream and are supporting our families. Furthermore, we directly contribute to the vitality of the City by paying taxes. I stand before you, honorable members of City Council, today to tell you that we are more than 14 Mexican business owners and many more residents of South 9th Street who know that our street is not abandoned. We are making 104 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. the street work. We pay taxes. And we would like to invite you to come and visit the area yourself in order to see with your own eyes how much progress our street has made, thanks to our efforts and those of our neighbors. Thanks for your time.
Just one comment. As a South Philadelphia resident who frequents this area of the City on a regular basis, I do recognize and thank the businesspeople who have come here, not only the long-term businesspeople from a lot of Italian-American merchants but also the new Asian-American and Mexican-American merchants that are there. I think it's important that we understand that the governmental term of "abandoned" or "blighted" is not directed at any individual business or street. It 105 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. is a term that's needed to be used because the federal and state governments require that terminology. It's not a judgment on the business or the neighborhood or anything else. It allows for the mechanism to take a blighted building, like the one at 9th and Washington Avenues, to improve it, but in no way designates you or your business or the neighborhood as a blighted neighborhood. And I think it's the terminology that confuses people and frightens people, because it's not a blighted neighborhood. It's a productive and important neighborhood and pays a lot of taxes and does a lot of good things. So sometimes the government needs to use certain phrases because the law requires it, but we are tremendously happy you are there and thriving and making the neighborhood a better place. And the hope is that this project will improve the neighborhood even more to 106 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. bring more customers and more people to your business and to the street. So gracias. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Chair?
Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Mr. Bloom, does Mr. Torres understand? I mean, I thank Councilman Kenney, by the way, for his explanation and his comments. I certainly agree. Having understood all the issues that have been presented today in conversations with him, I assume, after yesterday's meeting, is he supportive of the taking of this property for the purposes that I've described?
He said yes. What he wants is for there to be some change. What he's saying is, if in fact this project is to make the street better, we're very supportive of that and of the taking of the building. Again, 107 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. the main concern is about this designation. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I understand. We're going to work on that interpretation.
He said we are committed to making sure that this street gets better, and in another year, none of the things that could even be possibly considered vacant will be vacant, if we're given the opportunity to make that happen. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And we all agree on that and we're all going to work to accomplish that. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
He finally said, and we want as much help as we can possibly get from you. So thank you very much. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman DiCicco, for agreeing to meet with us on such short notice. 108 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You're welcome.
One more statement, if it's all right. I know Frankie a long time, Mr. DiCicco. He's been a man of his word. If he says something, he means it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I want to be in your next movie.
We take care of our good brothers, our next-door neighbors. They're our next-door neighbors all these years of the United States and Mexico. So they're here now. They're going to be our future for our children.
Honorable Councilmembers, Councilmember DiCicco, my name is Angel Rodriguez. I'm here today as Executive Director of the Empowerment Group. I come with in-depth experience 109 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. of housing development in the City, previously with non-profits and low-income housing and also with community economic development, and I'm well aware of the process that Councilman DiCicco is trying to accelerate here. I'm also a South Philadelphia resident and I'm well aware of the eyesore that the Ice House has been over the years. As Executive Director of the Empowerment Group, we wholeheartedly support Councilman DiCicco's effort to revitalize and rehab that property. What we are here to clarify and offer our services as well is to assist Councilman DiCicco and his staff and any other Councilmembers in helping to foster an understanding of the development process with the Latin-American community along Washington and 9th Street. As far as our work in that area, we don't see it as blighted per se, but we understand the technical terminology for redevelopment purposes. 110 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. We also are aware through this whole process and I guess, hypothetically speaking, some bailed gamesmanship, what's happening here is small business owners are being bandied about and we are getting a lot of excitement. A lot of that has to do with understanding the process and translation of the process to Mexican business owners and other business owners along the corridor, in which case Empowerment Group here offers our services as doing that, since we are one of two organizations that do support small entrepreneurs in doing that and offer services in Spanish. What I'd like to say, though, is that we'd hope that Council would accept our offer and also pay attention to the value that the small business owners are providing here. I think it would be a great complement to a senior center. I'm well aware, with consolidated plan, the need for housing for seniors in the City. It would be a 111 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. great location, but it would also be a great complement to have small businesses thriving around that development at affordable prices with older residents who are on fixed incomes. So I ask that the City Council please take the time, actually take our offer to help bring the local business owners along and assisting and helping this happen and also allaying their fears of mass condemnation on the blocks. Thank you.
Thank you. Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez, and thank you for the offer. I think what came out of yesterday's meeting was an understanding that there is a lack of communication, and I'll take some of that responsibility. When I called for the meeting with the 9th Street Merchants Association 112 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. several months ago, my understanding is that a flyer or some sort of notification gets put out to all the merchants. I'm not sure if that happened or did not, if that occurred or not. What we're going to do is, Mr. Tartaglia, who spoke earlier, is the Vice-President of the Association. We're going to reach out and maybe we can use your office, your services, to get the notification out. We welcome -- the 9th Street Merchants welcome the new business entrepreneurs. They're part of the fabric of the 9th Street Market, which is much more of an international market than it is an Italian Market these days. But in any event, that I think has been the problem here. And they need to understand, the merchants, the new merchants, understand that it's important for them to attend those association meetings, because they are businesspeople on that corridor and they have just as much of an interest and a say in what 113 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. happens on that 9th Street corridor as anyone else, long-time business folks as well. So I welcome the opportunity. And if you can, if you have a card, if you could give me your card before you leave, I'll reach out to you and we'll put a meeting together and bring everyone into the room to start talking about these things.
I appreciate that. Just for the record, I'd like the Councilmembers and Councilman DiCicco to know that the Empowerment Group is in receipt of a grant from the Department of Commerce here in Philadelphia to study the Washington Avenue area and businesses, specifically Mexican businesses, and the growth in that corridor. So we have a dedicated staff, and that's what we do day in, day out, is focus on small businesses and small business growth, because we believe that's the backbone of Philadelphia. I 114 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. mean, it's about neighborhoods. It's about the people invest in the local neighborhood and say, We're not going to let it become blighted, and take care of the sidewalk in front and also their neighbor's. So thank you for that offer.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments of these witnesses? (No response.)
Gentlemen, thank you very much. MR. McPHERSON: The final three witnesses I'd ask to come to the table, Ellen Somekawa, Jinhuo Chen and Kuang Sang Lin.
Good afternoon. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record.
115 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. Welcome. Please proceed with your testimony.
I am from Asian-Americans United. We found out very recently about this bill and we've been in contact with several Chinese organizations and with Chinese land owners, residents and businesses in the impacted area. We were concerned to find that none of them had heard about this bill or the hearings today. We question a process in which the people are not given the chance to learn about, much less to have a say about, decisions that are being made that will have an impact on their lives and livelihoods. We have been told to stop worrying. We have been told that this bill is really only about one problematic building. We have been told that City Council's move to approve the designation of this area as an urban renewal area is of no consequence. We have been told 116 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. that there is due process available for people whose property is being taken by eminent domain. The problem with these glib assurances is that we know people who have been displaced by eminent domain. We know the retired homeowner who was planning to live out her life in her comfortable home with a paid-off mortgage, and we've talked to her about her years of struggling with the RDA, with everything from the taking to the settlement to getting eviction notices for rent that was supposed to have been paid by the RDA. We've talked to people who have built a lifetime of friendships and memories in their neighborhood, only to have their little piece of security taken away, because putting their bulldozed property into a land bank was deemed to be a better use of the land than allowing their small community to exist. We've spoken to the family 117 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. whose three generations were living off of income from their small storefront whose livelihood was taken by eminent domain. We know people. We've spoken to them. And we have learned that the so-called due process that is supposed to protect people consists of little more than a small ed in the Daily News, a letter saying to vacate and a chance to show up at a City Council meeting where the decision on the taking is already a foregone conclusion. Forgive our skepticism, but if gentrification keeps making its way south and if a big developer wants the property of a small Mexican grocery or a Chinese hairdresser, frankly, we don't like our chances very much. Who will get to say what's more important? An immigrant family's lifetime of savings and dreams that have been poured into a small storefront or a multi-story multi-use condo development? Who will get to say? 118 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. This is our chance. This Rules Committee hearing right here right now is our chance to have public elected officials act on our behalf in a public process. The bill calls for the taking of only one property, that's true, but City Council's approval of this urban renewal area has the effect of taking away rights from all of the property owners, residents and businesses in the area. And I'll say it again. This bill 14 has the effect of taking away the rights from all the property owners, residents and businesses in the area. It is shocking to think that this body would contemplate an action that takes away people's rights based on information that you now know to be outdated and incorrect. Maybe it's convenient to call this an urban renewal area and to continue to call it blighted so that you can get control over one building. Many 119 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. of us wish that there were a way to take the offending property at 1109 South 9th Street away from an uncaring owner and a bad neighbor, but the very same rules that allow you to take away that person's property apply to every other property in the area. We know from past meetings with RDA staff that this process right here, the creation of the urban renewal area, is the time when there's the most accessible and transparent process for public input.
But what kind of process is it when the people most impacted haven't been informed and haven't been given a chance to have a say? The Redevelopment Authority's own plans stated that slightly less than a quarter of the population of the neighborhood is Asian, yet, to our knowledge, there was no outreach to the Asian residents of the area to inform them of these plans that could impact their lives and livelihood. 120 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. Approximately 40 percent of the parcels on the 1100 block of South 9th Street are owned by people with Chinese names, yet we talk to Chinese community organizations who have members who live or own property in the impacted area and they were not notified. We walked down the street and talked to residents and business owners. None of the Asian residents or business owners we talked to had heard of this plan. It is unconscionable to rush to take away people's rights in order to meet someone's construction timeline. Please vote to delay action on this bill 18 until people get a fair notice of these proceedings. Thank you. )
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record. PATTY: His name is Jinhuo 121 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. Chen. He's the Director of China Association. My name is Patty. I'm the interpreter for Jinhuo Chen. Good morning. My name is Jinhuo Chen. I'm the Director of the China Association, which represents more than 10,000 members in the greater Philadelphia area. My organization is one of more than half a dozen organizations representing Chinese immigrants from Fuji Province. We are one of the fastest growing immigrant communities in Philadelphia. Our estimates show that we have over 30,000 Fujanese living in Philadelphia today. Chinese immigrants are making an important contribution to Philadelphia. We are moving here, fixing homes, creating new business, raising our children and paying taxes. We are proud to be Philadelphians and we are proud to know that our people help Philadelphia in many ways that you may not even see. 122 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. I'm here today because I'm concerned about what may be proposed at South 9th Street, without our knowledge or any discussion with us. Mr. Sears is here with me as one of our members who owns a property, a house, of South 9th Street in that area. We have been working in the South 9th Street neighborhood for over six years fixing up properties and investing our savings into making this area a better place. Until we were informed by a local committee organization, we have no 15 idea that the City had plans to call this area blighted. We are concerned that you have not visited this place recently and talked to the owners of these properties. Otherwise, how can you call this area blighted? Why didn't the City inform the hard-working owners of this area about what is going on? We are worried that the City might take our properties just because it decides there's a better use for it. We 123 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. are also worried that because we are new and we do not speak English, that people feel they do not have to talk to us about these important issues. But we are still Philadelphians and we still care. Our life and business are on the line with your decision. We have the right to know about these big decisions and to talk about them. Please delay your decision until more people have the chance to be informed about your plans. Thank you.
Mr. McPherson, do we have any other witnesses? MR. McPHERSON: No, no more witnesses.
Does anyone else want to testify on this bill? Would you just approach the 124 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. witness table, please. Please identify yourself for the record, sir.
My name is Samuel Spear. I represent the property owner of 908 to 918 Washington.
Thank you. Looking at the plan, one of the problems has been identified as the lack of notice. My client only heard about this because she received one of the anonymous flyers on Monday, so she immediately came to see me. So we've had very limited time to do anything to prepare testimony. I apologize, but I appreciate your listening to us. Looking at -- I was able to get off the Internet, fortunately, the September of '06 Planning Commission plan, and it shows apparently that my client's property seems to be, in terms of area, the biggest property involved in 125 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. this area. What she does is, she owns -- or she and her husband are Korean immigrants. They own that area, which is a parking lot, with three commercial properties. One is a restaurant, one is a grocery, one is a check cashing. She supplies parking --
I'm sorry. Point of information, because I'm getting confused. I don't mean to interrupt you. Is the property that you're describing part of this bill? Is it being taken?
Because I understand the issues of notice and the issues of communication, which obviously have been falling short in many cases, but I keep on getting confused, because we're talking about the one property 126 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. that's being asked to be taken.
I just want to make sure that the record is clear that no one is taking your client's property or intending to take your client's property.
Well, we're not clear on that, and that's why we decided to come today. We needed to come because all we know is, we looked -- we were able to read the ordinance or the proposed ordinance and it doesn't even mention, as far as I can tell, the Ice House. And we certainly have no objection to taking the Ice House.
Because that's what's before us today. I just want to make sure.
But the bill, I thought, is to approve the whole plan, and the plan --
But you can't take this one single blighted 127 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. property unless you approve the plan. If you don't approve the plan, you can't take the blighted property. So it's kind of a Catch 22.
And that's why we're trying to seek clarification, because part of the plan involves possibly taking our property. I know it doesn't -- it says it won't be imminent, but of the plan has a proposed usage or -- what's it called? An illustrative site plan, and it proposes putting a new building right in the middle of our parking lot and our property. My clients have owned this for years, and so they're understandably 18 worried, and we came here for 19 clarification. 20
You 21 shouldn't have learned about this 22 particular bill because their property is 23 not in this bill. 24
So I want 128 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. to make sure the record is clear, that even though we're having this very worthwhile discussion, that property is not in this bill and will not be taken. As a matter of fact, there's no other properties in this bill other than the blighted Ice House.
And we appreciate the reassurances, but that's why we came, because we didn't receive notice. We didn't know what it was about, other than reading the ordinance, which does not, as far as I can tell, specifically talk about the Ice House. And I know Councilman DiCicco has clarified that now, and that's great, and we don't oppose that. We don't oppose redeveloping blighted properties, but my client's property is certainly not blighted and is used and taxes are paid on it and it's used by the community. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Sir, I'm very familiar with your property. I know it's a thriving -- there's thriving 129 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. businesses there. I actually go there to eat sometimes. The last thing we need to do is eliminate off-street parking for the 9th Street Market.
I would think. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Again, it's been said many, many times this morning this bill is specific to that one property. And if decertifying the area as an urban renewal area is something that people want to talk about, I am willing to have that discussion, but for the purpose of today -- we've been here for two and a half hours, and I appreciate the fact that everyone has an opportunity to speak and should be heard -- it's only concerning 1109 through 33 South 9th Street. No other properties.
And we appreciate that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If there was an attempt at a later date to take properties, hypothetically, an entire new 130 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. bill would have to be created and a whole new public process would have to be -- we'd have to entertain a whole new public process.
I understand that. I appreciate it. My client appreciates it very much. Believe me, we understand the process, but part of this bill 14 approves the underlying plan. The underlying plan does have a diagram, the only diagram it has, which shows that at some point in the far future -- we know not in the near future. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Or never.
We know you have to go through an awful lot else to get there, but it shows that possibly their business could be taken. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Or never.
That's right. 131 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. Sure. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Or never happen.
We understand that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Because this plan has been in place since 2000.
And believe me, we -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's seven years it's been in place. This is the first opportunity we have to use this for this property, and you heard all the testimony earlier. So it could be a future tool, but it may never be a tool in the future. And if it does become a tool, there will be a public process.
We know that and we appreciate the reassurances. And just thank you. We wanted to put our comments on the record and thank you for your attention. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
Thank you. 132 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Edward Newton. I'm here as both a taxpayer and as a resident of one of the homes within this suggested area. If I could speak as a taxpayer first just regarding the questions about the real estate deal. This just happened this week. Questions why is the price suddenly jacked up. Certainly it does smell a little fishy. I wonder why on the eve of this bill being passed that these things are happening. However -- well, just for the record, I'll just add that the current owner and hopefully soon to be former owner acquired the property in 1993. They paid $280,000 for it. Just that was a question earlier. I would point to six storefronts across the street from the Ice House. According to City property records, just last October, just seven months ago, the properties at 1108 to 133 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. 1118 South 9th Street -- these are directly across the street from the Ice House. They're single level, commercial storefronts. 8 million used to acquire these properties by the same private investment group. In the ensuing seven months, they have renovated those properties. Those properties are currently actively being -- they're seeking tenants for them. I think this does give some indication that there is substantial private development money coming into the area. So, yes, a little fishy about the Ice House. You have to wonder why, but nevertheless, there also is evidence that developers are willing to pay premium prices for properties in our area, with the expectation that that is a good deal. So there's some evidence on both sides on 134 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. that. Now, if I could speak as a private homeowner. We've been talking about the Ice House, but according to the map -- and I know we talk about the fact that this is only the one property involved, but unless there's additional language, I've gone through the ten pages of this bill. I do not see anything that explicitly limits this bill to the Ice House property, nor do I see anything in the City Planning Redevelopment Area Plan from last September that explicitly limits it to this. In fact, it calls this the Phase I, with the expectation that possibly it will be continued development in the area around. There are a lot of private residences included in this zone that aren't even adjacent to the Ice House. I have to question why those private residents are in there. Interestingly enough, not all of them are. For instance, on Ellsworth Street, there's a 135 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. row of houses that are carved out. If you were just doing the redevelopment zone as a straight line, it would go this way, but not -- it painstakingly zigzags up and carves out this row of private residences on the 900 block of Ellsworth Street. Now, why are those houses exempted from being included in this and others aren't? I don't know why. My house is. I live on South Darien Street, the 1100 block of South Darien Street. Every single house on that block is occupied. Indeed, every single house on Federal Street and on Ellsworth Street that are included in this development zone are occupied. My wife and I have lived there for 14 years now. Some people on the block have lived there for longer; others have lived there shorter. One of the houses on our block sold for $225,000 in the last year. So, clearly, there's plenty of private money coming into the neighborhood. 136 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. So I just question, why is this? Despite all the verbal assurances that this will not be a problem in the future, the fact is that this -- that our homes are included within this redevelopment zone. That gives certain legal status to them. Now, consider if you wanted to buy a home and you discovered that the home you wished to buy was within one of these developments zones, that the first step had been taken to potentially -- taking of the home, eminent domain or whatever. Wouldn't that give you a bit of hesitancy about buying that property?
I feel this does affect our property values. It puts a cloud over us. It puts some anxiety into us, and particularly since the development in question for the Ice House has no 22 connection to our homes. So I just do not understand. I think it's very understandable that we have this anxiety. So given this new development 137 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. in terms of the private developer of the Ice House, I would hope that Council would table this bill for a period of time to see what develops. Rather than use the blunt instrument of declaring the redevelopment zone, use lesser and more cost-effective means that the City has at its disposal to help this private development. Let's see what happens. And as a homeowner, I would ask, take our homes out of this. There's no reason for them to be there. Indeed, I believe it is detrimental to put the private homes in the area within this, because our property values suffer. There's no reason for us to be there, so I would ask that you redraw the boundaries of this economic zone and exclude our homes from it. Thank you.
Thank you. Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself for the record and 138 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. proceed with your testimony.
Glenn Doebler. I live at 1174 South Darien. I'm here also because as I look at this plan, it includes my home. I'm inviting you all, please -- you have my name now on record -- come for dinner, see my house. You will not tear it down once you're in it. It is unbelievable. But here I am reading this and it says you have the right to do it. That's what bothers me. I don't want to lose my home. I mean, the Councilman here, he planted the tree in front of my house. I was the first one as part of his plan for new trees. I just don't understand. And also, I didn't know about this until Monday when I got a little flyer in my mailbox. Now it's only Wednesday, not even 48 hours later. I took a day off from teaching second grade. I haven't taken off in four years, but if I knew this was only about the Ice House, I probably wouldn't be here, but the way 139 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. this reads, it has my little house right here, and I'm way back on Darien Street, like a block and a half away from that place. I just don't want to lose my home. I put too much time into it. That's all. Thank you. And I'll be waiting for you to call. Come on over.
And I'm sure that the Councilman would like to see that happen. (Applause.)
The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm just wondering if Mr. Koonce or someone could just kind of go over this again. Nobody is going to take your -- I planted trees a year ago on Darien Street.
You did, in front of my house. I'm the first one you did. I had a college class that day or I would have been there. 140 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We're not going to take your home. I apologize for the anonymous letter. I can't control that. I mean, I couldn't control that from happening. Obviously it created a lot of anxiety in the community, as I said earlier. I just ask Mr. Koonce if there was a way in which we can carve out the Ice House, but we can't do that, and Mr. Koonce maybe could explain that.
This bill actually is both general and specific. It's general in that the redevelopment area is described in a larger neighborhood context, but it's specific in that it asks for approval to acquire one specific property. In each redevelopment proposal, in order for the Redevelopment Authority to actually file a Declaration of Taking in Court of Common Pleas that would allow 141 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. us to acquire the properties, the properties have to be specifically listed in the redevelopment proposal for acquisition. This requires one property -- or this bill lists one property for acquisition. The only way that we could acquire additional properties would be if we went through a similar process to this in the future.
If I may ask, why is the block south of the Ice House also included in this proposal?
The redevelopment area was defined in 2000, I believe. I believe that's correct, Rick?
I mean, I might add, all of Center City pretty much is a redevelopment area and it hasn't affected the property values there. It's just not our experience that that actually happens.
So I just question why the map is drawn as it is. We're 142 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. talking about this area. Why is this area there and why are these houses excluded?
Perhaps in the future maybe we could have discussions with the Planning Commission and the neighborhood and discuss redrawing the area, but this bill does not allow us to acquire -- it only allows us to acquire the one specific property that's actually listed.
Well, I hope we can move forward with excluding the homes from the area.
I just have a question relative to process. Can you decertify and recertify at will or is there a limit on the ability to -- my thought is, if somehow we pass this bill and then decertified the area as a blighted area, could we then, if we needed to, on a case-per-case 143 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. basis recertify it again? Or is there a limit to the number of certifications and decertifications you could do?
I would have to defer to the Planning Commission on that for that answer, but my understanding is that once this bill becomes law, we can then go back and redraw the area.
Could the Planning Commission please come up. Did you hear the question?
Once again, Richard Redding. When areas are certified as blighted, we have not decertified in the past. It has not been our practice. It has not been done.
Can you run down just from your memory besides Center City what other areas have been certified as blighted for purposes of redevelopment 144 4/25/07 - RULES - BILL 070005, ETC. work?
Three-quarters of West Philadelphia, all of lower North Philadelphia, much of the Germantown area --
Any areas in South Philadelphia besides this particular area?
Yes. Point Breeze, South Central, everything between Washington Avenue and South Street --