Thank you very much. Mr. Thornburgh, Mr. Peraza, and Mr. Whitman.
Thank you so much. Could we keep the -- it's very difficult to hear. Could we keep our voices low, it's very difficult to hear. Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record, and thank you for your patience.
You're welcome. David Thornburgh. I am Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Economy League here in Philadelphia. I don't have a prepared testimony, but I have about four or five thoughts to share with you 144 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 that I hope add to this conversation. I'm here in my role as -- with the Metropolitan Philadelphia Policy Center, which is a partnership that was created about a year ago, funded by the William Penn Foundation, that includes the Economy Leagues, the Reinvestment Fund, and 10,000 friends of Pennsylvania. Recently, about two months ago, we issued this report that you may have seen called "Flight or Fight," which really looks at the last 30 years of this region and tries to tell the story of growth, or the lack of growth, at another level, tries to understand the choices that people have made about where they live, where they do business, where they start businesses. So today's remarks, I'll try to put the discussion about NTI and about blight removal in general in the regional context, which is a sobering one. I think one of the things that we began with is looking at population growth and job growth in the region. In the last 30 years, this region is 18th out of 20 regions in terms of population growth, 19th out of 20 in terms of job growth. The most compelling number that describes the condition 145 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 of the region over that time is one that has to do with housing appreciation. Essentially, if you compare the Boston area with the Philadelphia area, you buy the same house in 1975 in Boston as you do in Philadelphia area, you sell it years later -- 7 in Boston that house is worth about $325,000; in 8 Philadelphia, it's worth about $200,000. So 9 essentially that tells you -- that's a clear 10 indication, I think, of the long-term decline in 11 attractiveness of this region relative to a key 12 competitor. 13 What we're left with in this region is a 14 sense that we somehow have managed to have too much 15 growth and not enough growth at the same time. 16 There's a clear concern about suburban sprawl in the 17 suburbs and there's a concern, as there should be, 18 here in Philadelphia about urban blight. So 19 recognizing that as the region has not grown in 20 total, that these are really two sides of the same 21 coin, I think, is a very stark and useful 22 consideration to come to. 23 Just to share a couple of indicators, and 24 you've been, I'm sure, overwhelmed with indicators 25 of what ails the City and parts of the region, but 146 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 the ones that strike me is that according to the numbers developed by the Reinvestment Fund, that 72 percent of the children in this city live in severely blighted neighborhoods, which, I think, is a very troubling indicator of their future. When you look towards the suburban areas, I would suggest in the last few years, the concerns about sprawl, congestion, loss of farm land, and loss of open space have become the most prominent political issues and driving economic issues in the suburbs, and I think it's clear why. Since 1969, the region has lost about a third of its farm land, Montgomery County has lost 50,000 acres of open space. The waiting in traffic now costs the region about $2 billion a year, and traffic congestion has tripled since 1982. So, again, that's a reminder that we've some how got too much growth and not enough growth in a way that no one seems to be happy with. And I guess all that leads me to suggest is that at this point in time, there is a real window of opportunity for the City of Philadelphia and its neighborhoods if certain things occur.
Ways to rebalance the growth of the region to open up 147 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 development opportunities in the City, both for housing, commercial and industrial development may be the kind of opportunity that comes around once every years or so, and there's no guarantees that 6 it will last, because, frankly, developers, as 7 Jeremy Nowak suggested, are, I think, inherently 8 practical folks, and those who are looking for other 9 opportunities outside of the suburbs right now, if 10 they don't find them in Philadelphia, they're just 11 as likely to find them somewhere else, which is 12 certainly not to our advantage. 13 I guess the strategy that we suggest in 14 "Flight or Fight" is one that you may have seen 15 echoed in the Philadelphia Inquirer, I think, last 16 Sunday, or maybe the Sunday before, by Jane Eisner, 17 which is essentially, call it as it is, it's a 18 selfish strategy. It says that whatever communities 19 or parts of this region there are, each one of those 20 has to look at the assets and opportunities that 21 that community has and essentially to play that hand 22 of cards as best we can. 23 I think clearly when you look at the City 24 of Philadelphia and you look at all of the things 25 that the City and its neighborhoods has going for it 148 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 that play into this situation right now, it's the potential for available land that really sets it apart from other parts of the region, from the potential developable land. The urgency of this opportunity, I think, came home to me after we published this report, and we got probably 100 letters from around the region in strong support of the some of the ideas here, but there's one comment from a staff person at one of the county planning commissions who said that she was so thankful that we had put some of these ideas on the table, that we had created this conversation, because, she said, we're running out of land here in our county and we're running out of time. It seems to me if that's the urgency coming from some of the suburban counties, the sense that the City has land as a key competitive asset, again in this sort of selfish fashion, that if we have land and if we can move that land into the marketplace as quickly and efficiently as possible, that we can stand to capture much more future growth than we have in the past. Let me conclude with just an observation about how we ought to project that growth. I know a 149 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 lot of questions, the good questions that have been asked at this hearing and in other forums, have been to try to get a sense of how that growth occurs and who's going to make it occur and where the investments are going to occur and where would you begin. It occurred to me that if you take the historical perspective on the City of Philadelphia and its neighborhoods and its businesses and its factories and its retail stores, you have to recognize that in our 300-year history, it's largely been the private market that's built the houses and stores and shops and factories, starting, in fact, with William Penn, who was a bit of a real estate developer himself. I think that should give us confidence that given the proper circumstances, the proper conditions, and the proper availability of buildable sites, that the private market will again build Philadelphia going forward as it has in the past. Thank you. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Thank you. What was the figure you mentioned, 150 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 72 percent of children...?
That 72 percent of children ages 1 through live in what I think the 5 Reinvestment Fund has characterized as severely blighted neighborhoods.
That's what I thought you said. Thank you very much.
Thank you. I thought your testimony was excellent. LISC, Mr. Peraza. Welcome. Thank you for your patience.
Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Carlos Peraza, P-E-R-A-Z-A. I am the Senior Program Director for the Local Initiative Support Corporation.
I am here both as a homeowner 151 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 and one of those people that chose to move to the City after living in the suburbs for many years and as a person that, over the last years, has worked 5 on helping rebuild neighborhoods throughout the 6 region. 7 I am the Senior Program Director at LISC, 8 the Local Initiative Support Corporation, and LISC 9 is the largest national organization providing 10 capital and technical support to rebuild distressed 11 neighborhoods. LISC works with 300 or so urban and 12 rural communities around the country to support 13 community development activities undertaken by 14 community development corporations. Since 1979, we 15 have invested over $4 billion to help build 110,000 units of housing and more than 14 million square feet of commercial space. Our chairman of the boards is the former Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, and our partners and investors include companies like Fannie Mae, State Farm, Nationwide Insurance, Bank of America, City Group, Fleet, Chase, Prudential, and the National Football League. In Philadelphia, we've invested about $190 million to renovate or build 4500 units of 152 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 housing and close to 1 million square feet of commercial space and community facilities. I would like to express my support for the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative and urge the Council and the Administration to resolve all of the outstanding issues and approve full funding for the implementation for NTI as soon as possible. And I would like to take a couple of minutes to bring up a few key points. First of all, I live here, I chose to live here, I love this city. But I have to say that there are very few places in the country that have neighborhoods with the challenges that the City of Philadelphia has. And being a part of a network working with like 300 sites around the country in the 30-something largest cities around the country, there are only a couple of cities around the country that face the challenges that our city faces in terms of neighborhood decay. And I think it's important to point that out because sometimes we don't realize the extent of the problem that we have. And I do believe that only a very radical initiative like neighborhood transformation will have some lasting effect on reversing so many years 153 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 of abandonment. The second point that I would like to make is that land control assembly and disposal of land is one of the most fundamental principles of real estate development. And our experience around the country reveals that those cities that have developed effective systems to assemble and dispose of large parcels of land are the ones that are most successful in reversing blight and redeveloping areas. You know, developers are there to make money, and they're not willing to wait five years to assemble a piece of land; they just go elsewhere, and they take, you know, resources with them elsewhere. We have a national program that has invested $20 million in retail development with supermarket anchors. And what we're seeing is that at a minimum, we need to assemble sites of 3 to 10 acres to be able to make these retail centers work. And in order to attract additional investment, Philadelphia definitely needs to work on assembling sites and making that process easier. I also would like to point that out that 154 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 over the last months or so, the pipeline or the resources for land acquisition has dried up, and as a result of that, we've seen really a halt on development of affordable housing, and we see that as an urgent issue that needs to be dealt with. And if it's not available, we predict that next year, we'll have even a more serious problem in terms of development of housing.
10 I do think also that in order to 11 effectively attract, manage, and distribute 12 resources for development, there needs to be a very effective and efficient system in place that minimizes red tape. So I urge this committee and the Council to eliminate provisions, proposed provisions, that will build additional red tape to the system and the delivery of resources in the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. As an institution, I work for businesses working with community development corporations, and we do believe strongly and have proven over the last 20 years that CDCs are critical to neighborhood redevelopment. CDCs are typically the only institutions that are in neighborhoods and over the last 20, 30 years have been in neighborhood helping 155 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 to stabilize neighborhoods and keeping hope in those neighborhoods, and they are the ones that have been building the housing and community facilities, redeveloping commercial corridors. So we see a very important role for CDCs under the implementation of NTI. We actually see us as CDCs having an edge on this process. I do believe that a lot of private developers will seek the expertise of CDCs in redeveloping neighborhoods. Lastly, I'd like to say that we hope to be able to invest at least $50 million over the next few years in the development that will take place in Philadelphia, but we need to have projects to invest our money in. Keep in mind that as a national institution, we invest resources where the opportunities are, and there are cities that are very aggressive in redeveloping their communities, like Boston or San Francisco, and if the projects and the circumstances are not correct here, resources go elsewhere. Thank you for your time, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Peraza. 156 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome. I heard the start of your testimony -- I was over on the other side of the room and I know that you've made some comments with regard to your love for Philadelphia and your appreciation for the City.
Excuse me one moment. Keep in mind that we have four busloads of people in the hallway waiting to get in here with Councilman DiCicco's committee, so I ask members of the committee to keep that in mind. He's been very patient, but we do have four busloads of people in the hallway. Thank you.
I appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Chair Mr. Peraza, how long have you been at LISC?
I've been at LISC for about two and a half years; I've been at LISC in Philadelphia for about six months. 157 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
About six months, okay. On I guess what would be of your testimony, you said that developers will not wait two, three, or five years to have site control. I think we all agree with that. There's been some discussion here today about proposed changes to that process. Are you aware of any of the ideas that might help to speed up that process and how they may or may not be affected by the particular proposal in front of us right now?
I believe strongly that being proactive about acquiring land will make a big change in the process. The City cannot wait for somebody to show interest on a piece of land and go on and acquire it and the developer will be gone, so I think that the land banking concept that has made such a huge difference in Cleveland is an excellent idea.
I understand that there are some issues around legislative changes that should take place in order to lower the amount of time that a property owner who has tax liens on a property has (indiscernible) the amount of time that they have to 158 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 come back and claim additional value for a piece of lands, so I think that the Administration is looking at some of those changes which I think will be very helpful as well.
Okay. And I think that we're eagerly awaiting either here in this legislative body or there may be needed changes in State law that would help speed up that process. I think most of us are very interested in that, and as soon as we receive anything, we'd probably act on it relatively quickly.
On that same , you talk about how over the past 12 months, the City's land acquisition system has come to a halt due to a lack of resources. What's your understanding of why that has happened?
Well, my understanding was that it was expected that the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative would be approved and funded sooner so that some of those processes could be used for acquisition. And being that it wasn't, there was no money over this current year
And do you know why it 159 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 was believed that those resources would be available sooner? It's my understanding that a budget was put together in January regarding that, I think, made some commitments regarding funds. We didn't have NTI documents in January. So do you know why those commitments were made?
That's all right. There was a report that LISC may have actually offered to try to assist the City in some of the lack-of-resource problem with regard to land acquisition. Can you tell us about that?
Yeah. We've had some conversations with the Administration on the possibility of having LISC, I guess, bridge some funding between now and the time when this program is in place, and we're in discussions with the Administration on this. I understand that there are some technical issues around the City's ability to borrow money from us that we would have to discuss, and we are talking with the Administration now.
We've had -- we've had 160 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 different levels of discussion, we've been looking at different alternatives and different programs that perhaps could be used for acquisition. And perhaps for a couple months or so, we've been taking about different ideas. Part of it is developing a product that could be used, part of it is understanding the Administration -- the City's limitations in order to be able to procure any kind of resources from the outside.
Well, you're obviously much more up-to-date than -- you're saying that there would be a problem for the City to accept resources from LISC to be able to do those things, and then I'm sure one of the issues, naturally, would be payback. Is that the nature of the discussion?
Yeah. I mean, theoretically, LISC could lend money to the City.
Right, then we could pay you back through NTI proceeds, right?
Yeah, but I mean you -- I -- I -- you would have to approve NTI. If there's no 24 NTI, then there is no repayment source, correct? NTI is a concept right now. 161 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
Yeah, well, not through -- not necessarily through NTI proceeds but, I mean, you know, we lend money to the Gas Works and I'm not necessarily so sure they're going to be paying us back either, so --
I'm sorry. I -- I -- you know, that's something I guess the Administration would know much better than I do.
I mean, we have approached the Administration in trying to discuss a solution.
Yeah. And we have talked to them perhaps maybe every three weeks, kind of like refining different ideas and trying to decide whether it may work or not.
No, there is no solution. 162 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
I don't know that yet. That's part of what we would need to identify what the immediate needs are, and we've been asked to do that.
Now, do I understand -- maybe for my last question, do I understand that you were opposed to some of the amendments that were proposed earlier or actually yesterday?
Do I understand that you may have expressed some level of opposition to some of the amendments that were proposed yesterday?
I'll be frank with you. I heard a couple of the amendments, but I'm not aware of all of the amendments.
I heard -- are you speaking 163 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 about the amendments of Council?
I'm not aware of all of the amendments. I heard of a couple of them but not all of them.
Okay. But did you say earlier that you were opposed to them?
Testimony or any other comment or statement that you may have made. What did you say about them?
I didn't think I -- I didn't say anything about the amendments here.
Okay, all right. You were just talking about the bill as you knew it.
Okay, gotcha. Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate it. 164 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
Thank you very much. EPOP. (Witnesses come forward.)
Thank you again for your patience, and we thank all of you who are entering for your patience as well. Please identify yourself for the record and begin your testimony.
My name is Reverend Steven Avinger, Sr., Greater St. Matthew Baptist Church and Chairperson of South Philadelphia EPOP.
To the Chairlady and to the committee members, we want to first commend both the Administration and the Council for having the guts to attack this critical issue for our city.
Although we do not believe that vision ought to be lost in expediency. There is a story in our tradition, I think, that may help explain what I mean. In the Bible, Jesus walked in the temple, 165 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 and when he walked in the temple, he discovered that there were some individuals there who was not using the dollars in the temple the appropriate way, and his reaction was to overturn the table. We believe when you are about to spend upwards of $300 million on a neighborhood transformation initiative and the center of the core of that initiative is demolition, someone ought to turn the tables over. At the center of what we have proposed are blight-free zones, and we believe that those zones would lend a credence to careful planning. Every neighborhood is different, every neighborhood has different needs. And we believe that it is incumbent upon this council to ensure that before there is wholesale demolition of neighborhoods that there is some planning that takes place which takes into account the needs of every neighborhood. There has to be an approach that brings in the community, the political entities, and private interests to establish anchors within each neighborhood and to ensure that there is a process that is open enough for everyone to be involved in, and that we don't at the end of the day get left with more neighborhoods that look like Ground Zero 166 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 at the end of this process. There is clearly not enough money to replace or rebuild every single property that is supposed to be demolished. In fact, of the 14,000 units that are proposed, there is an understanding that over the period of 5 years, there will be an additional 8,000 more vacant properties. And so we believe, then, that if that is not slowing up the process, then wouldn't it make more sense to plan what you do in each neighborhood so that whatever the needs is for that neighborhood, that that plan respects the neighborhood need and ensures that this process of continuing blight does not continue. And the approach as it stands here, at least as we see it, is that we tear down 14,000 houses, then 8 years, 5 years down the road, there's 8,000 more vacant properties. And so what have we done? We've spent millions of dollars and have not addressed the fundamental issue, which is the elimination of blight. And so although we commend the Council and the Administration for what is about to happen, we would urge the Council to make sure that planning 167 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 becomes a priority in this process so that we can indeed eliminate blight in Philadelphia. Thank you.
Reverend Avinger, I just want to thank you for your continued interest in our neighborhood, and I totally agree with you. And I think I have said to you privately, I do recall many years ago, about 30 years ago, the Redevelopment Authority had a very aggressive demolition program in our community. Well, it took years before something was built on a vacant lot. 13 So the theory of "demolishing and they 14 will come," they have not come to our community. 15 And I am saying that that is why it is very 16 important that we do in fact have a plan, a plan for 17 every neighborhood, because what we need in South 18 Philadelphia may not be needed in another part of 19 the City. 20 So I totally agree with you and I want to 21 publicly thank you for all of the work that you have 22 done on this and for your involvement in our 23 community. Thank you so much. 24
Thank you. 25 (Applause.) 168 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
Good morning -- good afternoon now, Chairman Blackwell and all of the other members of the committee. My name is Reverend Dr. Carolina Harris Ram Sue, and I am also a vice chairman for the EPOP clergy group in South Philadelphia and a member of the PACDC. But at this time, I would like to give my testimony on behalf of Black Clergy and Snyderville CDC. I am not new to this process, and I just want to thank all of the Councilmembers for giving me the opportunity today to come and to share some of the input that the Black Clergy and myself have in this process. While following the Administration's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, I've had an opportunity to review both bills and submit -- and I am now going to submit to Council, based on my review, what I feel is very important to me. Number one, I would like to say to Council that Black Clergy has a group of clergy that is throughout the City of Philadelphia and the State. We support Neighborhood Transformation Initiative and, therefore, we urge this Council to settle any differences that exist regarding the Council and the 169 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 Administration which allow this project to move forward. The both sides have to be flexible when approval for program changes is needed. As I sit here today, I listen to a lot of the other comments in regards to the land bank management program. Looking at your land acquisition under the Administration's plan, you move to $50 million for neighborhood preservation, you propose from $20 million to 50 million. However, it is not clear to me as to how that is going to take place and the role that CDC is going to play and other faith-based community groups. As you know, at the end of the day, we are the ones who are going to remain in that neighborhood. We're the ones that are there in that neighborhood, and we urge you to give us a greater role in this process. We support land bank management. However, I urge Council and the Administration to develop clear criterias [sic] as to how this disposition of properties will be handled. We further urge you to eliminate the requirement for Council to approve the management plan prior to the NTI bond for properties 170 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 acquisition. This language in this paperwork could affect these private projects that need to acquire property to proceed with their projects. And thirdly, I want to address the issue around economic development. We urge this committee to target resources because we have developed in the area to which we are. In 1996, we developed a comprehensive plan. Then in 1998, we went back and revisited that plan and resubmitted it. And to this day, we don't see where the resources are going to come from so that this neighborhood can get its fair share. However, we are urging you to look at the plan, the model that EPOP has proposed, that each community becomes apart, a free zone, because, as stated before, each community is different. Where I'm at is different, on the west side is different, on the east sides is different. And we want you to reconsider that model so that each side can have their own plan and we can sit down with you and the Administration and we can become a part of that plan so that the implementation of that plan becomes a part of the community group. The churches are going to always be there, 171 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 the CDCs are always going to be there. And if anything is going to last in the City of Philadelphia, we have be an intricate part of what's going on. We commend you, we feel that this is a great opportunity for Philadelphia to be transformed, and we commend the effort of the Administration and this group, and we urge you to give us a greater role in whatever plan you decide to do. Thank you.
Thank you, Reverend, and thank you for all of your work in South Philadelphia and the City at large. On of the amendments, II, which was introduced yesterday, the issue related in that section to the land bank was deleted, SO that request has been honored.
Thank you, Council, for letting me come here today and speak, and I'm going to speak as just a homeowner. I don't have a lot of fancy facts and figures. 172 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
My name is Delores Shaw, Eastern Pennsylvania Organizing Project. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. I'm here today as just a struggling homeowner. I don't have a lot of facts and figures. There have been a lot of them bandied around, and I'm not going to try to give you any. I'm going to give you my experience as a low-income home owner struggling to keep and patch and constantly improve my property in the sea of decay that continues all around me. And I implore Council, the Mayor, NTI administrators today, when they continue on with this NTI process, that they will continue to think about homeowners like myself who are struggling, trying to keep their neighborhoods together, trying to keep their homes together. And when they go out and try to start this demolition process, that they will speak to the community, they will speak to these homeowners, they will get our input. These are our communities, these are our homes. We have a long-term investment here, and we 173 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 wish to keep it, we wish to be participants in this process, and I wish that they would think about us when they continue to do this. EPOP hopes that NTI will address the needs of some of the struggling homeowners like myself by marketing their grant and home repair programs more effectively so that more people will be made aware of what's out there. I know Councilwoman Tasco sponsored some of the predatory loan stuff earlier this year. I was involved in a predatory loan kind of rip-off myself, and if there were more marketable avenues, people wouldn't have to be using these kind of program which get you into trouble and then you lose your home. So we're hoping that they will market them better and that they will lastly consider market value when they talk about areas like Hunting Park or lack of market value. It is our hope that the government will steer communities like Hunting Park into a better place in the community so that they're not left to market value forces that end up destroying our community. Thank you. 174 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
My name is Gordon Whitman, and I'm the Project Director at the Center for Public Policy at Temple University. And we appreciate both the opportunity to be here today and the opportunity that you gave the Center for Public Policy and EPOP in March and again in October to present our research at briefings for Council. And we recognize the important role that both Council-at-large and individual Councilmembers play in leading the fight against blight. We have written testimony, but basically what I would like to do is just summarize that as three basic points that we have. Some of them echo what we said already on this panel. The first point deals with how money gets spent and on what it gets spent on. And we view as an encouraging sign the new budget that adds $45 million in private-activity bonds that can be 175 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 used both for acquisition but also for neighborhood investment and preservation. It's our view that's very critical to the success of that -- of NTI because that's money that will be used to create things and subsidize the development of things that people will see in their neighborhoods. We continue to believe that there should be greater balance in the bond budget between, on one hand, demolition, relocation, which we haven't talked a lot -- which hasn't been talked a lot, but it's looming behind this decision, and land acquisition on one hand and the subsidies for development. There are a lot of people, including us as researchers and community residents and community institutions, but also beyond EPOP and Temple, who are very concerned that we will create through demolition a lot of land that we don't have the resources to subsidize and support development on and we'll be left with a lot of vacant land. And particularly if we're talking about moving people out of their homes, it's critical that we have the resources to make sure that we can stimulate development that will result as well as the plans. 176 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 So from our view, there needs to be a balance between the demolition side of this and the development side of it. There are, according to our research, 1350 new vacant houses per year in Philadelphia since 1984. One out of every four blocks in the City has a vacant house. That's the way in which most people in Philadelphia interact with blight. It's a vacant property on their block, that's what they think about they think about blight. We're going to be tested based on whether we can really deliver both development on vacant land but also stemming that tide of vacancy that's spreading into Council districts and neighborhoods across the City. The fastest increase in vacancy in many cases is happening in working-class Philadelphia neighborhoods that have not had a lot of vacancy in the past, and that really cuts across neighborhoods across the City. So we think there needs to be a balance around the budget. The second point for us is that Council oversight is important and that there's a meaningful role for Council to play in the blight initiative. This is a city of neighborhoods, and people continue 177 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 to look to their District Councilpeople as channels to communicate to the City, and that's an important function. And we think it's possible to create oversight without creating another level of bureaucracy. From our view, there's a role for Council to play in developing the goals and strategies of neighborhood transformation to be involved in developing neighborhood plans and then the oversight to make sure that money is well spent. And we're encouraged by the sense that Council is moving towards a compromise on oversight. We think it's an important part of whatever comes out of Council approving NTI. The third point which is important and in many ways has been the weakest link from our perspective as we've listened today and yesterday is planning.
People need to know what's going to happen to their neighborhood. " People need to know what is going to happen, where we're going to begin, and what we expect to accomplish. And it's critical both to the success 178 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 of this and also for people's perception of it. In doing that, it's critical that we bring institutions that have looked at community development as not their business, even though they're invested in our neighborhoods -- churches schools, hospitals, educational institutions, businesses, commercial strips need to be the anchors for our planning around how we're going to do neighborhood transformation. It's clear while there needs to be systems that apply to all neighborhoods, and we've really pushed hard on a set of service standards that apply to all neighborhoods in terms of how long its takes to board up a vacant house or demolish a dangerous building to acquire a vacant lot or a vacant house to convert for reuse. Those need to apply across the City. But we don't have enough money, even if we had two or three or four times the amount of money in the bond initiative, to do serious neighborhood transformation in every neighborhood and to plan it well. So there have to be strategic choices. And we think there needs to be a citywide structure, a planning structure, in order to make 179 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 those decisions so they're transparent and people understand them. " And basically, as Reverend Avinger described it, these are efforts to take on a neighborhood of the City and develop a plan that would eliminate blight in that neighborhood and create a critical mass of positive development that would be anchored by anchor institutions, whether it's a hospital or an educational institution, and where there would be a plan developed so that before we proceeded with anything but dealing with imminently dangerous properties, which obviously has to be dealt with immediately, that before people get moved, before we demolish property, before we assemble land, there's a plan in place that tells people, This is what we plan for this area of the neighborhood. The point is not to pit neighborhood against neighborhood. We understand that this needs to be a citywide, but we need some process that tells people where we're going to begin. And we think that's important as part of the program statement that comes back to Council as part of the 180 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 bill that's being considered today, that it include a process to create these blight-free zones in each Council district. The private investment piece is so critical to the success of this. We've got to use our public money to stimulate private investment. We looked at all of the City's housing programs and we found out they did some good things, but they had no systematic effect on blight and abandonment at a neighborhood level. So basic systems, program helped out a lot of people, saved their houses from abandonment. Almost no houses that received those grants were ultimately abandoned /but the amount of basic systems lending -- grants in the neighborhood had no 17 effect on abandonment in that neighborhood, even when you consider all of the other factors. That means we have not been strategic enough about using our resources. The old way was to do projects and programs, and we need a broader framework to plan out how we spend our limited resources. So bottom line, for us, it's very important that blight-free zones as a planning 181 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 vehicle be a part of the ultimate NTI program statement. And we appreciate the opportunity that you have provided us.
Thank you very much. It was excellent testimony. We thank all of you and thank you for your patience. We will now recess this hearing until 4:15. It is already 1 o'clock, is it not? Then we'll recess this hearing until 3:30. Thank you. We'll see you guys at 3:30. - - - (Proceedings recessed.) (Proceedings resume at 4:30 p.m.) - - -
Good afternoon. Thank you, everyone, for your patience. Our hearing is now resumed. We will have Glen Bryant of the University of Pennsylvania testify. After that, we will have all of our union representatives, who have an election tonight, who have to get in and out, they will be the next passage. 182 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 Again, we thank you for your patience. (Witness comes forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record and begin. And this is under the area of -- I will tell you in two moments -- University Partnerships. EPOP spoke this morning so I suppose that takes care of Temple University. LaSalle was not present, and this is Glen Bryant, University of Pennsylvania
Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, Councilwoman Blackwell and Council President Verna and Councilwoman Tasco and Councilman DiCicco and all members of Council. I'm Glen Bryant and I'm from the University of Pennsylvania, Director of Office of City and Community Relations. I am here today in support of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative as a vehicle to improve the quality of life in communities throughout the City. The University of Pennsylvania is working in close collaboration with other neighborhood institutions, community organizations, and residents to achieve and sustain a comprehensive renewal of 183 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 West Philadelphia communities and to prevent the type of deterioration of urban neighborhoods that has become so prevalent across the nation. As always, we have relied heavily on the advice and support of our councilwoman, Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell.
And we have worked closely with her with the West Philadelphia on the Move Project and will continue to do that, and it's been a catalyst for a lot of what we have done and accomplished. As Council may know, the University of Pennsylvania has been working for more than six years with our neighbors on a set of West Philadelphia initiatives aimed at stabilizing and enhancing the quality of life in West Philadelphia communities. Our work is focused on community improvement in five categories that are: Education, economic development, retail enhancement, housing, and a set of initiatives under the broad category of clean and safe. The housing initiative that I just spoke about, I believe you will hear testimony from 184 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 (indiscernible) Gormley later on from the University City district to describe some of what has happened in the past. Among the lessons we've learned is that Penn must work collaboratively with the City and our communities to achieve maximum effect. Further, Progress on these fronts is best advanced through coordinated action that addresses multiple issues and involves many stakeholders. This kind of coordinated action is assisting and stabilizing and revitalizing the neighborhood, stimulating the real estate and commercial markets, leveraging other resources to the neighborhood, and providing partnership framework for ongoing renewal. And we know a piecemeal response to today's urban realities is doomed to failure. We believe that the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative will work well to help citizens coordinate community-enhancing activities in their neighborhoods and has the great potential to enhance the impact of these types of initiatives in our surrounding communities. The University has devoted considerable attention and energy and other resources to working 185 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 with our neighbors on community revitalization. We're pleased that the Mayor has taken leadership on these issues and that City Council is considering the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. We look forward to the opportunity to work collaboratively with you, and we thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of Council, for inviting us to deliver testimony to you this afternoon.
Thank you very much. As all of us know, it takes a whole city and many partnerships to help it grow and to help improve the quality of life, and we thank Penn for their involvement in these areas. In fact, in terms of education, I counted the programs, and there are 40 programs in West Philadelphia High School and something like 44 in University City, but there are programs and schools all over the district, and obviously, you work in housing where people who move within the area get $15,000 to move in the area, as well as you work to help us do a lot of community projects. We're very, very happy about a dental school that is coming point so that people can get 186 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 dental care. It's become a big, big issue. People can't afford to go to the dentist, and many, many other things that (inaudible). So all of us must realize that we have to work together. We know it is only through a partnership, certainly with institutions like Penn, that we can grow. And on a side note, for those who don't know -- maybe a lot of you have seen Glen at Zanzibar playing with his jazz band, but he's there on weekends and certainly is a West Philadelphian by birth. His father works very, very hard -- they kind of call him "the Mayor of 51st and Locust." What do they call him, Glen?
Yeah, he's the Mayor of 52nd Street 'cause he works, trying to keep the area clean and trying to keep people in line so -- because people are associated with Penn, it doesn't mean that they don't love and care for our community. And certainly we thank you for your commitment and your involvement and the programs that you spearhead. Thank you, thank you. 187 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
The next group -- the next panel will be that of labor leaders: Jeff Brown, Caswell Curtis, Wayne Johnson, Tom Zamartis. (Witnesses come forward.)
Thank you, thank you, and welcome. We are very, very glad to have you. We thank you for your patience. Certainly we saw Pete Matthews yesterday, and we know that he was here all day yesterday. And, you know, this is still a labor town, and we appreciate your patience in coming here today. We're happy to have you. You can identify yourself for the record and begin your testimony. Thank you.
President Verna, members of City Council, thank you for the opportunity to present a preliminary position of AFSCME District Council 33 on the issues of funding for the blight removal in the City of Philadelphia. My name is Wayne Johnson, and I serve as Secretary-Treasurer of District Council 33, representing the municipal employees unions of the City of Philadelphia. I have various offices various of various 188 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 locals sitting here with me this evening, and they have testimony that they wish to present, and I'm overall speaking on behalf of President Matthews who, Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell acknowledges, was unable to be here today, and he asked me to come in and speak for him. District Council 33 overall oversees the various locals under the District Council 33 10 umbrella, and this issue with the $250 million for 11 the blight removal, under that program, it brings a 12 very concern to us as a whole entity because we feel 13 as though it's going to affect many of our various 14 membership, people that we represent throughout District Council 33, and I'm going to let Jeff Brown, who I think his local is more involved at this stage being affected more so than anybody on his time schedule. I want to let him give his testimony first and then I'll give the testimony from Pete Matthews.
Good evening, Madam Chairperson. My name is Jeff Brown, and President Verna, Councilpeople and committee, I am here -- I'm President of AFSCME Local 1971 and District Council 189 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 33, and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 010694, which would, among other things, approve a service agreement between the City of Philadelphia and the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. If you'd like, I can summarize the functions of the agencies that the people that we represent work for: The Redevelopment Authority, the Office of Housing and Community Development, and the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation. But in order to expedite the hearings, I think you're pretty familiar with the agencies, so I'll just move on. Let me point out that virtually all of the work performed by Local 1971 union members and the agencies for which we work is proposed as a part of NTI. Therefore, we have a crucial interest in the NTI, both as employees and residents of the City of Philadelphia, because, as you know, we must live in the City of Philadelphia. We're not talking about us moving in from the suburbs; we're here now, living in the City of Philadelphia. AFSCME Local 1971 has initiated correspondence with NTI representatives of the City. And we had one meeting on July 11th with City 190 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 representatives regarding the NTI. The union -- and we're not attempting to be obstructionist, as people may be saying. The union has emphasized to the City Administration that Local 1971 is willing to work with the City and the three housing agencies to ensure a smooth reorganization and to help improve living conditions and working conditions for all citizens of the City of Philadelphia. We also explain that the union has a legal and a moral responsibility to protect the rights and benefits and working conditions of the employees that we represent. And the union repeatedly asked to be informed of and be able to provide input regarding any reorganization on a continuing basis and not after any such reorganization has been finalized. We were told by City representatives that the City would sit down and talk with us about the reorganization at the point where they had some idea where they needed to be going. That was July 11th. Shortly after that, newspaper articles regarding the City Administration's proposed housing reorganization came out, and we then sent numerous letters requesting specific information about the 191 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 reorganization and asked for another meeting. Yet despite the City Administration's claim to us. And as I've heard over the last couple days, that it wants to work cooperatively with Local 1971 and to ensure fair treatment of employees, the City Administration said that it would serve no 8 purpose to meet again so soon. However, from what I understand from what I've been hearing, there have been quite a bit of meetings with representatives of various other groups, consultants, and a lot of other things, but not with representatives of the employees that do the work right now, currently to fight blight. And the City has not responded to the union's concern elaborated in our last letter, dated September 28th. Even though the City, from what I understand, has begun publicly advertising for a secretary of housing and neighborhood preservation -- I think in the New York Times, also on the Internet -- as early as November 29th, they hadn't met with us. Local 1971, we still reiterate our request to meet with the City Administration to obtain answers to our questions and concerns. 192 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 Just coincidentally, Monday afternoon, I got an urgent call from representatives of the NTI wanting to meet finally to go over the housing reorganization, and we are scheduled to meet later in the week, but it's taken long enough. Let me elaborate and summarize some of our concerns.
Perhaps the biggest that Local 1971 has regarding what we know about the NTI, because there's a whole lot we don't know, and that's, according to the Administration's responses to City Council's information requests, the City Administration's proposing the creation of a new housing entity which would consolidate many of the functions performed by the three housing agencies to, among other things, eliminate unnecessary redundancy in program administration. The City claims that the reorganization would result in savings projected at between $5 million and $10 million annually. 8 percent of the budget. That scale of funding can only be achieved -- fund reduction can only be achieved by a 193 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 significant cut in housing agency services or staff or both. The union estimates that if between and 5 10 million is saved from the three housing agencies' budgets, it may result in a layoff of between 89 and 178 bargaining-unit employees. And according to today's Daily News, it indicates that the City is talking about reducing the overall staff by about 76. So I was a little bit high. In addition, the City is considering establishing yet another new agency, a land bank, to hold title to all City-owned land. As a result of these City proposals, the union has the following questions: 1. How can the City Administration claim to want to steamline functions yet propose the creation of a new housing entity which would have even more redundant functions, particularly in administration, finance and personnel, and possibly even real estate operations, housing preservation financing, land management, housing inspection, land acquisition, and disposition. 2. Would the new housing entity be a civil service agency? If not, how does the City 194 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 Administration intend to create still another housing agency without changing the City Charter? 3. Since the Redevelopment Authority's functions of issuing housing bonds and eminent domain result from State legislation, would the City seek a revision to the State urban redevelopment law to enable a new City housing entity to obtain such functions? If so, how does it expect to obtain legislative changes from a state legislature that has not been particularly receptive to requests from the City of Philadelphia in the past. And if not, why create another housing agency that doesn't have those functions? 4. How can the City administration propose a major initiative to eliminate blight which includes a significant expansion of activity while proposing to reduce the number of experienced current housing agency employees who have been working to fight against blight for years? 5. And would the land bank be a part of a new housing agency or yet another agency? If it would be yet another agency, how does that eliminate redundancy? Now, we also have some concerns as 195 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 professionals working in those agencies. I've been working at the Redevelopment Authority for 32 years and I'm the Senior Project Manager involved in land acquisition and disposition. Some of the concerns that we have -- the City Administration's NTI identifies six market clusters in neighborhoods and proposes market-appropriate housing investment strategies and production goals for each. The market clusters are regional choice, high value/appreciating, steady, transitional, distressed and reclamation. I know of residents who live on solid, well-maintained blocks that were very upset to learn that the City considers their neighborhoods distressed to transitional. Regional choice, who determines the regional choice? I can afford to live elsewhere in the City, yet I choose to live on Greenwood Street in South Philadelphia.
You know, I don't know why they feel that that's not -- that that shouldn't be a choice. Whoever developed these market clusters appears to be elitists who have neither surveyed the people who live in the communities, nor understand how Philadelphia residents view their neighborhoods. 196 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 I think, Councilman DiCicco, you live in my same distressed or transitional neighborhood. It doesn't look that way to the people who live there. One of the very serious concerns that I have with the market cluster identification is that it may have the same impact on City neighborhoods as did the old redlining maps. " What that could lead to is accelerated flight from the City, additional abandonment, and increased neighborhood blight. More accurate and less negative listings of market clusters in neighborhoods must be established, and residents' opinions must be taken into consideration. Another question: Why does the City Administration in Section II-H of its responses to City Council indicate that it will not encourage significant additional financial liability as a result of NTI? It's my understanding that once land is acquired by a public agency, that agency assumes all of the responsibilities and liabilities of 197 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 ownership, which includes, but is not limited to, maintenance, property management, and insurance. How does the City expect to utilize CDBG funding, which is supposed to be used for low- or moderate-income people to concentrate on developing market-appropriate housing investments strategies as indicated in Roman I-D. How can the City keep track of the processing of parcels and acquisition assembly and disposition with a vacant property management information system when it does not even know of all of the property that it currently owns? And that's a disgrace. The City Administration specifies in Section I-D of its responses that the City plans to fund land acquisition and assembly from bond proceeds as opposed to CDBG in an attempt to lower the administrative costs generally associated with these functions. However, in section I-F-4 and F-6, it also states that no bond proceeds will be used to fund staff and administrative costs for condemnation. How does the City reconcile these apparently contradictory statements? The City Administration alleges that the Redevelopment Authority is currently appropriately 198 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 staffed to handle significant increases in urban renewal condemnations. Based upon my 32 years of experience implementing urban renewal condemnation and disposition, I believe that the Redevelopment Authority is currently under-staffed and could not handle the significant increase in such activity without a significant increase in staff. How can the City Administration propose in Section II-H to acquire only vacant lots and not abandoned structures and be serious in attempting to eliminate blight? Why does the City Administration focus on reorganizing the housing agencies but ignore the City's economic development agencies, which may be as crucial to future development and blight eliminations as the housing agencies? And, finally, how does the City Administration intend to develop the vast amount of open space that will result from the NTI? Madam Chairperson, Madam President, members of the Finance Committee, on behalf of members of AFSCME Local 1971, I respectfully ask that City Council not authorize the service agreement until written details of the NTI budget 199 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 and the housing reorganization are provided and the City Administration meets with representatives of Local 1971 and works with the union to ensure that current union-represented employees remain union-represented employees and are not adversely affected by the NTI.
We of Local 1971 District Council 33 thank you, madam Chairperson, Madam President, the committee, and City Council for your support. Thank you very much.
Two things. We would ask Pat Smith and Ms. Wilkerson if they would respond in writing to the Chair with regard to all of these issues. Can you also let us know when you will be able to see them?
Could I get a copy of the testimony? 200 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
Absolutely. Would you make sure Ms. Wilkerson gets a copy of your testimony?
Thank you very much. Mr. Brown, is your local a part of the AFL-CIO?
Has the AFL-CIO taken a position on your position in regards to this particular issue?
I would be interested in knowing what their viewpoint is on your particular issues. 201 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
We represent about 250 employees in the three agencies. That includes the nonprofessionals at OHCD, the professionals and non-professionals at the Redevelopment Authority, and supervisors as well, and the professionals, non-professionals, and supervisors at PHDC.
Thank you very much. And I have to leave, you're aware of that.
Thank you and good luck. All right, we're ready for additional testimony.
Sure. This is Thomas 202 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 Morris, the business agent of Local 222. This is Andrew (indiscernible), the business agent of Local 394, and Sherman Harris, the assistant to the President of District Council 33.
I didn't go into my testimony because of Jeff Brown, the urgency that he had to get back to his meeting, and I hope that everybody for the sake of it here understood that Mr. Brown represents one local under the umbrella of District Council 33. Overall -- and I'm brining testimony directly from President Matthews, that he had some major concerns, and of our proponents, the major concerns are -- is that once that we found out that this NTI and that there was $250 million -- and I have to say I heard Councilman Kenney earlier mention the fact that when there is money involved, such massive amounts of money, and it raises concerns to all levels, especially from within District Council 33. As this body probably has been aware, there has been significantly under-staffing within all of the departments that we represent members in 203 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 District Council 33 -- one in particular which Tommy (indiscernible) is going to explain is in Fairmount Park, but I'm going to go on and read the testimony and let him continue because that's what I was here for.
I really would like to reemphasize what Councilman Kenney just mentioned about the AFL-CIO and the whole Council of the AFL-CIO taking a position vis-a-vis District 33 and all of the other issues that are coming forward. I think it would be very influential to this Council.
And I certainly understand that, and I don't wish to be selfish to anyone, but right now, my concern is about AFSCME District Council 33 and our membership.
Often, you know, labor is united on issues and sometimes they're not. And what I would like to get an idea is as to what labor 204 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 feels -- labor as a whole feels about your potential plight. And they've never hesitated to express their opinion on other issues that have been to the betterment of the community, or to the detriment if they're against it.
So their silence, if they remain silent, would be significant.
Do you understand my point? I'm not trying to diminish your testimony or to say that --
No, no, I -- (Unintelligible; parties talking over each other.)
On your own, you guys are important to listen to as anybody.
I just want to know, you know, what labor stands to get are sometimes in odd ways, and --
Let me say this to you, Councilman Kenney, in some relationships, I do believe that out of this here renewal money that a 205 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 lot of it's going to be transitional for funding removing buildings and construction and labor, and I certainly don't see AFL, to a certain degree, some factions of it, having any opposition to this here for the fact that their people are going to get work out of this here. So I can't say where they would raise any issues about it.
Well, I'm just curious if you guys asked them what their response is.
Right, absolutely, and my whole testimony leads to the fact that our people always in the past have done this type of work, you know, and because of the staffing cuts over the years, they were unable to compete still and they still are unable, but that doesn't justify it, because the levels have been cut to a point where we can't perform or we haven't performed significantly the work that needs to be done to --
I just feel as members of that organization, you would get a quicker response if you ask.
As you know, Mayor John F. 206 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 Street has proposed to City Council that City Council approve a $250 million bond issue that he would like to use to fund massive blight removal plan for the City named the NTI. This proposal involves a massive amount of money that Mayor Street wants to direct towards the demolition and building up of new housing stock in the City. In addition, he also is talking about making other improvements in the City's physical appearance, including things like vacant lots and cleaning, trimming trees and removal, repairs, and ongoing maintenance of lots, parks, and public housing and street repairs. I am here today to make sure that the City Council knows that AFSCME District Council 33 opposes any funding from the bond issue of the blight plan that is used to privatize jobs that are currently being done by any of the members of the District Council 33. While Mayor Street's intent may be worthy of praise for his intent to make blighted areas of our city a better place to live, and I do concur with that, because I do believe that that is the Mayor's intent, but it's also, us as a union, our responsibility to protect our 207 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 membership's jobs, and that's why here today putting on testimony. And I just want to make that clear to the Administration that we're not here to thwart anything that the Mayor has progressed to do. We just are trying to protect some of our members' jobs here. Our members are residents of the City of Philadelphia, we're citizens, and if there's any opportunities for new jobs created by this bond issue, they should be jobs that result from a better funding and staffing of various departments of City government that are currently trying to handle the problems of blight while facing severe staff and current shortfalls. One of the specific areas of concern we have with the Mayor's proposal is part one, demolition, subsection b, contract opportunities, of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, which outlines some goals of use of the bond funding as it relates to demolition of properties in the City neighborhoods. Under that same section, in subsection 5 and 6, and 7, are more details about cleanup and maintenance of lots and tree removal. This subsection is of great 208 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 concern to District Council 33 because the City is proposing to use bond issue funding to create a class of temporary workers who receive on-the-job training for one year with the commission, enabling workers to qualify for entry-level positions with private contractors. This part of NTI is particularly objectionable it is something that we see as the back doorway to privatize the jobs of City workers. Under part 3, Reporting and Project Performance, of the Mayor's plan, we can again see where the City may use the bond issue funding as a wedge between our union and groups like Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition in the competition for new jobs. We cannot allow our union to be positioning in our position to the agencies like GPUAC and others so the jobs that rightly belong to our local union end up being contracted out. These are just two examples of many that we could cite that cause our District Council 33 to have serious concerns about the Mayor's NTI plan. We hope that City Council has similar concerns as representatives of taxpayers of the City. 209 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 District Council 33 should play a strong role in the distribution of these funds because our members are all taxpayers and residents of the City. A proposal to infuse such a massive amount of our tax dollars to the local economy for blight removal and improvements should be considered in light of the impact it has on jobs and the quality of life of the people most directly affected by it.
District Council 33 can make a case for increased funding and staffing levels in the departments where our members work and put a stop to any effort to privatize our members' jobs without undercutting the overall objective of making our city a better place to live. All we're asking City Council for is the opportunity to show you how we can achieve both of these worthy objectives. I appreciate the opportunity to address you on this issue today on behalf of the members of District Council 33. I would like to request an opportunity to present further testimony on this important public issue as you continue your deliberations on the Mayor's NTI proposals and any further deliberation that you may have in the future. 210 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 Thank you again for listening to our concerns. I sincerely thank all of the Councilmembers for listening to us. I think Tommy has some testimony he wants to put on.
Thank you. Thank you. Feel free to identify yourself for the record and begin your testimony.
Okay, I'm Tom Zamartis (ph), business agent for Local 222, AFSCME. First I'd like to say good evening, Madam Chair, President Verna, and all honorable City Councilmembers. One thing I have to bring up to Councilman Kenney is the 8,000 percent -- I want to get in on that later on down the road.
I had to say it, that was pretty good. But anyway, I'll get on. This will be short and sweet. As a union representative and a City resident, I'm not only concerned for my members but 211 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 the conditions of the deteriorating recreational park facilities. I am here to request that City Council and the Mayor include funding in the blight program to increase staffing levels in Fairmount Park at least 100 to 200 percent. This could bring us close to staffing levels of 30 years ago. It is not a secret that the park's staffing level has declined since 1970. There were over 600 plus 500 park guards who served as the park's police force. As of now, the Fairmount Park rangers are not permanent civil service employees and risk chances of losing their jobs next year due to funding. Our parks are in bad shape. Welcome to the City dump also known as Fairmount Park. Last year, 4,361 tons of trash and debris was dumped in Fairmount Park. That's about 12 tons per day. This is a visible symptom of the City government's long-standing neglect of our parks. Adding more park rangers and making the rangers full-time civil service employees could greatly reduce the dumping dilemma within our parks. Over 30,000 volunteers organize cleanups and other activities, but we cannot always counts on 212 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 them. We need higher staffing levels in the building trades and maintenance divisions. Everyone who uses the park also needs necessities like clean, safe, open restrooms. We need to maintain buildings, parking areas, asphalt roads, fountains, and bicycle paths. But most important is tree maintenance, pruning, and tree removal to ensure the safety for all Philadelphia citizens. All Philadelphia citizens should aggressively promote the enormous potential of Fairmount Park to attract new residents, businesses, and visitors to our city. More people visit Fairmount Park than go to all of our major sports events and concerts combined. Mayor Street intends to demolish 14,000 buildings and clean up more than 30,000 lots in the next five years. The City is already neglecting big open spaces in the park. What's going to happen to these new spaces without proper staffing? The park oversees 8900 acres, with a $13.3 million budget. Libraries have added 58 employees since 1993, Recreation has added 61, Fairmount Park has lost 40 funded positions during 213 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 this period. In 1970 the park's budget was 11.7 million; in '94, it was 11.3 million; in 1990, it was 11.6 million; and now, it's 13.3 million. And the City wants to cut back on that. Not counting inflation, the park should be getting approximately $50 million today. Chicago, for instance, spends over $37,000 per acre on its park; Cleveland, a little over $14,000; Detroit, a little over $10,000 per acre. Philadelphia spends $1800 per acre. What's wrong with this picture? The time is now for City Council and the Mayor to step up and together promote better leadership, vision, and funding for our city's most precious treasure, Fairmount Park. I urge that Fairmount Park be a strategic part of the NTI program. This concludes my testimony, Madam Chair and honorable Councilmembers. I'll be glad to answer any questions and I would like to thank everybody and wish everyone a safe and happy holiday.
Thank you very much. 214 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 Before I make my comment, I would like to note that Councilman Cohen is here. I would also like to thank Roberts Hess, who just poked his head in to let us know that the issue regarding the homeless people was taken care of, and also to say that I look forward to the day when we won't have demonstrations like this every December so that people can try to be secure that they'll be in for Christmas. That is what that was about. People were evicted and they want to be in a stable environment so their children don't have to be out here or from shelter to shelter on Christmas. That's what that was about. We went through the exact same thing last year, and I will be glad when one day, we don't have to say we have 2400 people every day who are living in shelters but that everybody's in all the time because we can sustain that in Philadelphia. We can do it. (Applause.)
Pardon me? 215 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
Back on my testimony, I did make up a little chart compared to other cities about Fairmount Park spending per acre, how many employees, acres maintained, and the budget, and I would like everybody to look at that if they have a chance. Thank you.
Yes. Everyone should have them; I turned them in early this morning.
Let me also say -- Councilman Cohen, I will call on you in a moment. We would also ask the administration, Ms. Wilkerson and Ms. Smith, to respond to the issue of decreased funding for the park and to also respond to the loss of 40 positions and the whole issue of park rangers being civil service employees. Also, we'd like you to respond to the issue of tree trimming, etc. in Fairmount Park, the issue of dumping. You see, I was listening. The issue of dumping and trash removal and trash pickup. 216 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 Would you respond to that to the Chair.
Thank you. Then we will respond in kind to you, Tom. Thank you very much. I believe Councilman Cohen had a question.
Just one observation. I think when labor organizations get suspicious of things maybe going wrong, they're absolutely right: You better be suspicious, you better get the facts right on the table and know where you're are. And when you're told, "We don't quite have the information but we'll talk to you later," know it's bad news, not good news. So in the interest of your membership and in the interest that your membership serves the people of Philadelphia by the fine services we get from them, it's very important that you insist on knowing what's going on before there's any agreement. Don't trust anybody. The last person that trusted somebody with respect to vague promises ended up in a homeless shelter, and we don't want that to be happening. 217 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
I would like to thank you and also Tim, your aide, for helping me out. As a lot of Councilpeople know, I have been going through this since the budget hearings with the park and the Fairmount Park rangers, and I would just like everyone to look into it, and I appreciate you for your time. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen. - - - 218 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 (Proceedings now being stenographically recorded by David Dyke, RPR.) - - - 219 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
All righty. Thank you very much. In any order. D.L., why don't you identify yourself for the record and begin the testimony. Welcome and thank you for your patience. I know you've been here all day.
Thank you, Jannie. I'm Diane-Louise Wormley, and although I now work for the University City District, I'm here with the perspective of reflecting on the proposed NTI program from the Mayor, from having run the Community Housing Program at the University of Pennsylvania from its startup in late 1996 to 1999. In '96 the University City area was an area in extreme duress. Home ownership was as low as 12 percent in some areas. There were more than a hundred properties available for sale, but the market was sluggish at best. Several hundred vacant and distressed properties were found in the community. As Glenn mentioned earlier, the university responded with a multi-part 220 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 initiative, including housing. One aspect of the housing program was the Mortgage Program. And so far, more than two hundred people have brought properties from the Penn and the Health System Affiliates, at all income levels. This program has been extraordinarily successful. But in some ways the most daring part of the initiative was the Single Family Rehab Program, through which the university purchased twenty vacant and blighted properties that the market had ignored for anywhere from two to more than twenty years. The goal of the program was to retain stability on key blocks, to increase home ownership in University City, and to stimulate the real estate market through the targeted acquisition, rehabilitation, and sale of single family housing. The properties were selected based on the strength of the block where they were located and the potential impact of rehabilitation on the broader area. Acquisition of the properties was 221 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 through negotiated sales, and to a limited extent, through the sheriff sale. Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell was extremely helpful in assisting us with the acquisition of several of the properties, and we wouldn't have been able to do the program without her. The results: Twenty properties were rehabbed and sold, with many of them sold before the work was finished. In fact, three of them were sold before the work was begun. Homes were sold in price from $89,000 to $200,000, which was an extremely risky approach several years ago. Today those same homes would sell for anywhere from over $100,000 to in excess of $275,000, and would obviously require a lot less subsidy to work on. The daring experiment stimulated the market. Home ownership numbers are increasing. And twenty formerly vacant properties now have taxpaying homeowners. Today, University City is a hot neighborhood. There is a waiting list of more 222 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 than fifty Penn affiliates and many non-Penn affiliates who want to buy houses. And real estate brokers tell us that they have dozens of potential homeowners looking for homes, but there are very few houses to buy. The Mayor's proposed NTI program could help alleviate this problem. In University City, the issue is not so much demolition, although there are some properties where the wrecking ball may be the only option. Rehab and stabilization are priorities in University City. There are numerous potential homeowners willing to rehab currently distressed properties, but they are unable to work through the government maze to acquire the properties. The neighbors and community associations that played a key role in helping Penn identify the priorities for rehab in 1996 are willing to do so again. But unfortunately the current processes associated with stabilizing and acquiring these problem properties are 223 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 cumbersome and present a brick wall to community associations and eager, potential homeowners. The proposed NTI program's plan to increase the number of properties that are stabilized through encapsulation is important to our communities, as is code enforcement.
The streamlining of the acquisition process would allow individuals and private developers to acquire and rehab these vacant properties that can be found throughout University City. More importantly, however, creative approaches are needed to address property owners who sit on vacant properties and pay their taxes, thus making them virtually untouchable. As a footnote, there are four such properties located in the 4800 block of Chester Avenue. We understand that tomorrow the process is beginning -- even though these have been identified as imminently dangerous for a very long time, that the process is beginning to take these properties on, these properties and the owner that pay their taxes all the time. 224 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 And so, when I went to look at these properties to see if I could use them in the rehab program, because he was asking for such an astronomical amount of money, I could not save these houses. Now we fear that these houses, four years later, obviously not much better than they were then, are about ready to come down. These properties are architectural gems that could be saved if the city had a program like the Boston Receivership Strategy. In that program, the city has taken a very proactive approach, using several of their L & I and health system programs to require that homeowners and property owners take care of their properties better. While developers doing rehab for investment purposes have access to tax credits, there are no such incentives for rehabbing by homeowners. Increased home ownership is central to the continued strength of neighborhoods like University City. University City provides this city 225 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 with an opportunity to demonstrate how vacant and distressed properties can be rehabbed in steady and appreciating neighborhoods. The Single Family Program demonstrates how the strategic rehab of only twenty . . only twenty . . distressed properties help to stimulate our market. We need implementation of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative to start now. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Let me again ask Pat Smith and Joyce Wilkerson if you are aware of the Boston Receivership Strategy, and if you could likewise comment when you respond to other issues about that. And when they do, I will contact you. Put D. L. Wormley's name down, and I will be in touch with her with regard to that, and the city strategy related to it. Thank you.
Mr. Stoddart, would you like to be next? 226 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
My name is Blane Stoddart. I'm Executive Director of The Partnership CDC, and I do have prepared statements for the Council people.
First of all, let me say that I especially want to acknowledge the leaders of this great body: Council President Verna, all the distinguished Council people, but especially my Council person and Finance Chair and Majority Leader, Jannie Blackwell . . .
. . . for her unrelenting work in advocating for Philadelphia's neighborhoods.