COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON HOUSING, NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND THE HOMELESS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, January 23, 2007 1:15 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL, CHAIR COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DANIEL SAVAGE COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO RESOLUTION 060945 - Resolution calling on the City Council Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless to hold hearings on the status of the Vacant Property Review Committee and furthermore, calling for no changes to occur without full concurrence with City Council. - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good afternoon. This is the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless. We welcome all of you. We're happy to have you here this afternoon. To my left we have Councilman Daniel J. Savage. To his left, Councilman Bill Greenlee, and to my right, Councilman Darrell Clarke. We're ready to begin our testimony. We thank you all for such a nice turnout on a cold day. We will now ask the Clerk to read the title of Resolution 060945.
Resolution 060945, calling on the City Council Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless to hold hearings on the status of the Vacant Property Review Committee and furthermore, calling for no changes to occur without full concurrence with City Council.
Thank you very much. As all of you know, the 3 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 head of Vacant Review Committee has been John Coates for my entire term in City Council. Having said that, Mr. Hanna has asked to go first for administrative protocol. Please come forward and present your testimony.
Good afternoon, Councilwoman Blackwell and members of the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless. I am Kevin Hanna. I serve as the Secretary of Housing for the City of Philadelphia. I'm here to present testimony on Resolution 060945 regarding the status of the Vacant Property Review Committee, otherwise known as VPRC. VPRC was created by City Council -- I'm sorry. I'm joined here by Deborah McColloch and other members of my staff. VPRC was created by City Council in 1973 to make recommendations regarding the acquisition and disposition 4 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 of property by the Commissioner of Public Property. It was created by City Council ordinance and will retain its powers as outlined in Chapter 16-404 of the City Code. City Council will retain control of the VPRC disposition process and the movement of properties in and out of the system. In 2006, Council passed legislation which requires Council's approval of all transfers of property from Public Property to another entity, including the proposed Landbank to be housed at PHDC. The Administration proposes that when a property is scheduled to be conveyed to its end-user, settlement will occur only upon written approval from the District Councilperson for that property. Thus, City Council members will have two opportunities to review and approve the terms of property dispositions: once when the property is moving into the Landbank and once when the property is moving out of the 5 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 Landbank. The property will not be conveyed on either end without Council support. It is OHCD's intent to improve the efficiency of the VPRC disposition process through better use of technology, planning efforts and reduced staff costs, while maintaining City Council's role in determining the terms of the transaction including the end-use and the end-users. I acknowledge that City Council may have lingering questions about the process. Pursuant to your request, Councilwoman, OHCD will brief members of Council about the proposed new disposition policy and provide them with a copy of the policy for their review and input. OHCD will present to City Council a clearly delineated description of the process for property acquisition and disposition, one which ensures and outlines Council's role and input in that process. Thank you for this opportunity 6 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 to testify today and I am happy to answer any questions that you all may have.
Is there any other testimony from Deb McColloch or Michael Koonce or Tony McIntosh or Cathy Califano at this time? (No response.)
Then if we could, we'll ask the former head of VPRC, John Coates, to come forward and ask if you would stand by so that we may get into -- before we do that, Councilman Clarke has a statement or a question.
I have a couple of questions with respect to the status of property disposition in particular. Over the last year, based on a number of reasons, there has been some delay in dispositions, and I understand some of it was based on some concerns by 7 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 Public Property and its need to raise revenue per the budgeted amount of revenue that was proposed. Two, there was an issue with respect to properties that had been in the system, requests for acquisitions prior to a particular time. And, three, there was an issue about market-rate disposition for both properties and side yards. Where are we at with all of that? Because it's my understanding from some internal and external sources that that has not been determined to the point where we are disposing of a number of properties that are still in inventory, a number of properties that are waiting settlement; therefore, raising the necessary revenue that has been projected. And I know I can speak for myself as a District Councilperson. I have a lot of people calling wanting to know when are they going to get the property either from a nominal perspective or there are a substantial 8 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 number who are willing to pay, but for some reason -- and this is prior to the layoff, so I don't want you to say it's because of the layoffs. It's prior to the layoff -- that those properties haven't been disposed.
I can speak to the first question. I'll have my colleagues, one or more, to speak to the second two. It is true -- while it is true that the Administration essentially gave the edict to Joan Schlotterbeck, Public Property's Commissioner, that as many as -- to the extent possible, properties should be sold for fair market value. We understand that that's caused a good bit of concern on the part of Councilpeople. One of the things we will work out in this process that's coming is the matter of when it is appropriate to sell property at fair market value and when it's not.
When you said one of the things you will work out, 9 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 in what process?
The process that's coming up. What we've committed to the Councilwoman to do is to meet with Councilmembers after this hearing, to meet with Councilmembers to brief you on our proposal for how to do that and the disposition policy, but we want to get your input on that proposal. That's the process I'm talking about.
Well, I'm just going to speak to the first one. Relative to requiring fair market value be charged for properties, that was an edict that was handed down by the Administration to the Commissioner of Public Property. That's going to be modified somewhat by a proposed property disposition policy. That's what we want to talk to you all about and get your input on. Let me just kind of summarize 10 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 that, at least as far as that particular issue is concerned, by saying that in cases where there's side yards involved or when it's otherwise inappropriate to charge fair market value, we'll continue to convey those properties, dispose of those properties at nominal. In situations like where market-rate development is being developed, then obviously those properties will be more than likely, almost certainly, conveyed or disposed of at fair market value. Now, I know you had a couple of other questions relative to where we are in the process.
Well, I want to get back to the first one. What I'm trying to understand is that I was told quite some time ago that this process was being worked on, and now it sounds like you're telling me that you're just starting to initiate a process of determining the disposition policy. I 11 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 was told that there was -- there had to be a sign-off by the second floor and then it was going to be a policy developed. Because we actually had requested a letter in our office so we can respond to these applicants who were calling and wanting to know what happened. So, I mean, had you been working on this or are you just now starting to work on this?
No. We're certainly not just now starting to work on it. Maybe I just misunderstood your question.
My response was to my interpretation of your question, and what I'm saying is maybe I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking --
I wasn't asking you what you're going to do now. What I'm trying to find out first -- and 12 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 then I'll subsequently ask you that question. What I'm trying to find out is what has happened over the last year when we have been told that there's this process that's being worked on that will give us a clear-cut policy on disposition of properties or vacant lots. And now it sounds like to me that you're now going to start that process in meeting with Councilmembers to determine what the policy should be.
Okay. Let me clarify. There is a proposed policy. We're waiting the Administration's sign-off on it. That proposed policy is what we will discuss, what we want to discuss with you all.
Because you led me to believe that you were going talk to us and then come up with a proposed policy. 13 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945
So you want us to review what you've already determined is appropriate.
If I may, what's the current policy and why do we have to change it? I mean, now we sell some properties to developers and now we, for these past many years, now we convey them nominally to seniors in neighborhoods. So we want to know what the current policy is and what you propose as a change. Then maybe we have some basis on which to have a discussion.
Good afternoon, Councilwoman and members of City Council. Under the current --
Please 14 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 identify yourself, Ms. Califano.
My name is Catherine Califano, Chief of Staff of the Office of Housing. Under the current City policy, every time we want to do -- the Office of Housing or the Redevelopment Authority would like to do a nominal consideration disposition, we have to secure numerous approvals, including the approval of the Mayor's office. And under the new disposition policy, what we'd like to do is clarify some categories explicitly, affordable housing development and side yard, as if the projects meet that criteria, we automatically are able to dispose of it, and we hope that that will streamline and expedite the process.
What about the others, if I may, that are not in that group? If now we sell some and we give some to people, small developers and small business types and others who are interested in property rehabilitation 15 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 and we give it to them nominally in exchange for them saying they will find someone, whether it be their church, whether it be their family, whomever, to help rehab it, we still donate it to them, although they're not receiving TANF assistance.
As things stand right now, Councilwoman -- and this may be what you were referring to, Councilman -- as things stand right now, the Commissioner for Public Property has to get approval from the second floor before signing off on the disposition of those properties for nominal, even in those cases where it's being -- property is being used for an affordable housing deal or being used for side yards by neighbors or for gardens or some other non-profit-generating purpose. The purpose for this new land disposition policy is to -- well, to streamline that whole process and make it much less contingent upon the Public 16 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 Property Commissioner signing off or even on the second floor signing off.
Ms. Califano, you had indicated earlier that you were developing these categories to determine the disposition policy. Is there anything relating to the applicants that's a part of that process; i.e., low income, moderate income, wealthy? Does a person who has a net worth of $5 million -- and I know I'm exaggerating -- applies for a side yard from the City of Philadelphia, do they get that side yard for nominal?
No. What we tried to do in the disposition policy is be clear and up front on who is eligible for nominal consideration and under what terms and conditions.
So we use the same existing income qualifications? 17 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945
Correct. What we tried to just do is create these categories, and that way, it would be streamlined and the agencies would have the -- the Redevelopment Authority or PHDC would be able to internally approve them as long as they met the criteria approved by the Administration. It's really on the disposition price where the policy is focused, what should the individual pay.
Yes. You wanted to go first, so now we got to do it in reverse. Yes. I want to know about the system. Obviously you have some criteria in mind for what you charge people. And, again, as we've said from the beginning, VPRC has been Council's baby since 1973 and we don't want the rules to change without our input. 18 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 Obviously you have some ideas because you're making income criteria that the Administration approves. VPRC is our baby when it comes to disposition of City property and we don't want any decisions being made even for criteria. I think that most of the people who come to us aren't the $5 million types who want a side yard. It's just the opposite. It's the senior who has been taking care of a lot next to her her whole life, who spent 10 and 20 years keeping it clean or planting flowers and who is on a limited income, or a small business person who wants to contribute to our city and be a bigger business person, they want to find their way. I get them every day, who say if you help me -- or somebody who wants a family. I have a person now who goes in my church who says, I have a son, it's my only child, I want to help him rehab a property. So they're not high-income people. They're people who are middle 19 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 and low income and who deserve a chance at surplus city property. So I don't know what the criteria is and I don't know why we have to change it. The business types for any major -- if Keating comes to me or Prime Property, that's different, or Penrose, that's different. But certainly for an individual or small business person or some other situation where people are just trying to contribute and they make our city better, they don't deserve to now have to pay for these lots that we were conveying nominally. (Applause.)
Can you comment on that? And many CDCs. I see we have many CDCs represented and community groups here. We have many of them. How do you propose that this affects them?
My name is John Coates, Chairman of the Vacant Property Review Committee. I think there are two separate distinctions of properties. Properties using a benchmark of 1979 that were acquired with CDBG money were considered surplus and those properties are sold currently to people who exceed the Section 8 income guidelines or who are developers or otherwise intend to profit off the acquisition of the properties. The money received from the sale of those properties is considered program income to OHCD. People who are low income and do not exceed the Section 8 income guidelines and who don't own other properties or non-profits have 21 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 historically been eligible for a gift. I think what this new housing policy speaks to, something that VPRC recognized two or three years ago, was due to the surging property values in the city. A rethinking on how we would dispose of properties with value needed to be arrived at. VPRC started that process a couple years ago. It somewhat mirrors what I've seen come out of OHCD. But to be clear on the question that Councilman Clarke raised, city capital properties, I believe, are the properties that the Public Property Commissioner was to -- had to be sold, and there's been conflict over who would get the income from the sale of properties. I believe that's been clarified with OHCD. So, yes, we still sell property today to people who are profit oriented and exceed the Section 8 income guidelines.
We all realize that the value of property has 22 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 increased, but it costs more to rehab them. Everything costs more today. We know that we're fighting this full tax valuation, at least I am, because I know every time they touch taxes, property taxes go up, without fail. I've been around here long enough to know that. But in terms of after a person fixes up a property and sells it, there could be, but in terms on the acquisition end for the applicant who is middle to low income, how does it -- I mean, acquiring the property and changing the price for them doesn't help. On the other end, if they rehab it and hold it five years and want to sell it, that's another issue. So I'm trying to figure out just what Ms. Califano mentioned, there were some issues they wanted the Administration to consider, but we're trying to figure out, in response to Councilman Clarke, what we're talking about.
Well, I think 23 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 everything had been held for fairly stringent review last year because I'm not sure everybody understood the distinction between the CDBG-generated properties, which have been historically the properties that we have moved through the Vacant Property Review process, and those properties that were bought with city capital funds, I believe, or bond funds. And there was some, I guess, confusion over where the money from the properties would go. I think that's been worked out now. So the VPRC funds have -- they accrue to OHCD. So as of today or whenever, we were still selling properties at fair market value to profit-oriented people, but we were still gifting properties to people who met the Section 8 income guidelines. This new housing policy, which I don't think is totally formulated, looks at some new process as to how we will dispose in the future. My understanding is, everything 24 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 that's in the pipeline before I believe February of '06 will be grandfathered the way it went in and new applicants will be looked at under this new policy.
That's very important. But these are the reasons why, Mr. Hanna, we fight, because you make all these new regulations and you tell all your people, and then I know because Sandy comes over to me, who has worked for the City in this area since 1983, and says people trying to get side yards and properties for nominal fees can't get anything done, everything is on hold. Now, we haven't talked about layoffs, but we'll get to it. And so she'll say everything is on hold, and then I got to call you and I got to call Deb McColloch and I got to call Michael Koonce. I have to call all of you. I got to call Tony McIntosh. And we have to go through all of this in order to try to service our constituents. 25 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 Again, if you communicate -- we're not unreasonable people. We've been here a while, and those who haven't are in touch with their community to the extent that they got elected to be here. We respect the City and we respect the people who elect us. So when you do these things and when you make these kinds of changes, you just can't do it in a vacuum. They end up -- at some point when we talk about property acquisition and disposition, Council is involved and you put us -- then we fight because somebody somewhere in an office sits there and says, I think this would be better and I think that would be better, and you don't communicate with us, and that's why we fight. For me, it's always a matter of believing in God and principle, and I'll fight until the ice age comes. It's okay if I believe it. We all know that. (Applause.)
But 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 you have to communicate with us, and then we don't have this. Everything we find out has been because we're so active and we work so hard with our constituents. It shouldn't be that way. If it's better for the city, if it's better for the housing departments, let's talk. We're always here. Let's talk. It's what we want to do. We all have the same service area, whether they're union people and other employees who live in the city and work for the housing agencies or whether it's various people who want to be able to take advantage and improve their homes and their communities. It's all the same group of people. We're all dealing with the same city, and so we need to have better communication so we don't all have these threatened hearings. I know the Mayor doesn't like this. And we had eight hearings. Right now we have two scheduled, one today and one next week for whatever we don't resolve. We don't 27 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 want to have eight hearings again. We will if we have to, but we don't want to have eight hearings again to deal with the issues that affect our citizens who use your departments and who work in them.
I just want to get clarity, Mr. Coates. The February '06 date, properties that have been applied for prior to that date will operate under the old standards in terms of disposition?
The old criteria, if you were below the Section 8 income 28 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 guidelines and didn't own property or a non-profit group or something like that, you would be eligible for a gift. If you exceeded those guidelines and income or a profit-oriented entity, then you would pay fair market value.
So what's going to be the difference now? I mean, it kind of sounds like the similar --
People who are low income will be the ones eligible for nominal or gift properties, as well as CDCs and non-
People who are low income as well as CDCs and developers of low-income housing will be eligible for -- it's the end use of the property as well as the end user that will 29 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 determine who gets properties for nominal.
Why do we go through a year of not disposing of properties if you're telling me -- it sounds like you said the new policy is going to be the same as the old policy. So why did we hold up all these properties for a year? MS. McCOLLOCH: Good afternoon. My name is Deborah McColloch from the Office of Housing and Community Development. Part of the delay that occurred prior to this was related to this issue through Public Property of whether the properties were being sold at fair market value or for nominal value. And for us at OHCD part of that issue was that the funds involved were the CDBG funds, the Community Development Block Grant funds, 30 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 and we wanted those, if you will, to be part of our program rather than spending those scarce resources going back to the city through Public Property. So the Public Property Commissioner was not comfortable with signing off on releasing properties at nominal value if she wasn't clear -- and this is quite understandable -- that the developments for which they were being used were being supported by OHCD with our subsidies. So there was a need to communicate between OHCD and the Commissioner of Public Property, and so for each --
Well, why did that take a year? MS. McCOLLOCH: I don't believe it took a year, but there was some time during which we needed to go back to a list of properties that we thought had been agreed to the Public Property Commissioner was not comfortable with in some cases because they had -- John can corroborate this -- they had gone over 31 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 prior to her assuming that role and then she needed to understand what they were there for. So that throughout the year -- it happened that I was the person sending them over -- I would sign off and say, The following properties are being used for the following purposes, and list whatever those affordable housing ventures were so that she felt comfortable that the reason why they were going out the door at a nominal value was because it was part of an overall affordable housing development. And so those lists of properties needed to be sent over.
I hear what you're saying, but for the life of me I don't understand why it took a year to resolve that. The other issue is -- MS. McCOLLOCH: Well, I don't think it took a year, but --
Well, I'm just telling you, this started about a 32 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 year ago when people were told -- because I have a member of my staff who sits on VPRC and they came to me and said, Well, all these properties are being held up because of some issues internally. And I'm not going to belabor that. With respect to the Public Property properties now that have clearly been acquired without CDBG subsidy, will they still fall under this category of being able to dispose of nominally to people who qualify under Section 8 regs and to CDCs?
So that's going to be the same? That's all going to be the same, right?
Yes. And I say -- I only want to qualify that with based on the use. Assuming that a low-income person is going to use it as a side yard or a garden or something along those lines, yes. If on the other hand it's a fairly large lot and somebody sees the 33 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 opportunity to acquire and then flip, then no. So based on the use, assuming that this low-income person is going to use it as a side yard or for some other, as John put it, non-profit-generating purpose, then, yeah, it will be conveyed at nominal.
I'm just trying to understand -- I guess I'm not going to get the answer that I want to get -- is, why did this take all this time to basically continue the same policy? And I hear your response, Ms. McColloch, about determining where the ultimate revenue generated as a result of those sales will go, but I just don't understand why that took so long.
Well, one reason, too, was that, which is very upsetting to us, was the fact that the Public Property Commissioner comes in at the end of the 34 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 process. So she's getting property, she's getting deeds to sign that in many cases preceded her getting there. So she wanted full information on each one of those properties. We finally had to develop a checklist --
Not to cut you off. Does the Public Property Commissioner have a seat on the VPRC?
So that person is fully aware of first the agenda early on and present during the discussion about the property? So they should be aware --
But you're saying that after that, then the Public Property Commissioner needs to have their review.
Yes. She wanted 35 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 a -- we now send a checklist which verifies the VPRC date, the Council resolution date, the Redevelopment Authority Board resolution date and the end use, whether it's reported by the city, whether it's for profit or whatever, and that had to be done for many, many properties.
And that couldn't have been done by the VPRC representative from Public Property prior to the hearing?
Okay. So now all these properties -- and thank you for allowing me so much time, Madam Chair. Now all of these properties go into Landbank, publicly owned CDBG acquired/owned, they all go into this 36 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 Landbank.
Public Property owned and PHDC owned we're proposing to go into a Landbank. RDA's land remains at the Redevelopment Authority.
So the disposition policy as it relates to the PHDC disposition, does it now have to also be checked off by the Public Property Commissioner? What's going to change in that respect?
No. PHDC's properties and Public Property's properties will, once established, all go through the Landbank policy. It goes to part of my testimony, the fact that Council first has to approve or sign off on the conveyance of property from Public Property to the Landbank --
So the deeds change from Public Property to the Landbank?
So there 37 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 will be a consolidation of ownership?
If I may, Councilman, we're told that we have even properties that have been bundled that have gone from PHDC to City inventory that's been there for years and years and years, and that's one of our concerns, that PHDC isn't made a depository for properties that don't move. It's bad enough we know we need appraisers that we have one. It's bad enough -- and we learned just last night that we have four inspectors where we had seven. If we can't get appraisers, if we can't get properties inspected and we don't agree to adequate overtime, how do we get anything done? I mean, I will ask you for a response to that, starting with PHDC and City inventory. What assurances do we 38 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 have? PHDC has properties that have been caught there for many, many years. So what assurances do we have? And then they bundled more, and they go -- and PHDC and the City work together, but what assurances do we have that these will be disposed of, that we can dispose of them as District Councilpeople and Councilpeople overall? Incidentally, Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown is here. We wanted to acknowledge that. So what assurances do we have that the other process that held up PHDC properties is improved? Councilman Clarke just mentioned that the Public Property Commissioner wanted a whole new system with one zillion million details so she would know what happens. Well, that's your end, that's not ours. We're still waiting to process properties. Our CDCs, our people, the individuals who apply for them want them and they're held up because of some other glitch that you 39 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 all do that holds up the process, not us. And it's not like you tell us it's just held up because they're waiting to review who knows what. Then we can't get it inspected. We can't get it appraised. Because in the final analysis, I don't see where any of this improves it, nor does anybody I've talked to. Overall, this housing reorganization does not assure us. We all thought a Landbank would be great, but we're not assured in any way that this whole new process is going to make things better. We just know, as Councilman Clarke so rightly indicated, that for the last year we have been stuck, that things have been on hold, that our people couldn't get anything done and you laid off -- then I said, Well, the layoffs must be related to them catching up. What you're saying today doesn't even justify that. I don't know what we're doing. You lay people off. We're not processing 40 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 properties. And this system I'm not told doesn't assure us even that it's better. So people are suffering who live in the city, who work for the agencies. Sixty-nine people we've lost. And then our properties haven't been conveyed. You can't convey them. We're stuck on this Bill 889 until we get there and pass this bill, and we're still all in the middle of no place and no understanding about what we're doing and where we go from here. And that is what we really need to determine in this hearing today, where are we, where are we going, how is this system going to be better, when will people go back to work, when are you going to process properties for the constituents who acquire them? (Applause.)
So you can respond in any way you choose to all of those concerns.
Let me start by responding to your VPRC/land disposition 41 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 concerns and --
To include PHDC. Let me first say that we recognize a lot of the issues that you've brought up. The time that it takes to move property out, the complicated processes that it takes to move properties one way or the other, we recognize that. What we're trying to do here is address those issues, those issues of timeliness, those issues of efficiency, those issues that have to do with what seems to be a relatively simple transaction taking a much longer time than it needs to. This policy, these actions, the moves we're taking are all aimed at trying to make that process more transparent, trying to make it more efficient and trying to make it more timely. Now, we haven't had a chance to implement these changes, so it's a little bit premature to say that these changes 42 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 haven't worked, because they haven't been fully implemented. If, Lord willing, we make the changes and we see that we're still running into the same kinds of issues -- hopefully we won't, but if we see that we're running into the same kinds of issues, then we'll try something else. But given the fact -- we talked about the fact that things are taking a lot longer than they need to. Part of that is the fact that we're kind of in this transition period going from the old to the new, but my plea to you is, give us an opportunity to try to implement something new, understanding that we understand, we hear what your concerns are. This is the Administration's, my department's, effort to try to improve on a system.
Let's talk a little bit about the Mayor's Small Vacant Lot Abatement Program, whether or not this will be gifted or are the 43 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 properties there supposed to go to fair market value?
My understanding is those were in the properties that would be grandfathered into the old system because they started at the beginning of the Administration, so they precede the new housing policy.
Thank you. So that's seven years going on eight years for some.
And going from three entities, the City, RDA and PHDC, to two, PHDC and RDA, why should Council amend 16-400 removing RDA as the transfer agent? Why is it better? Why do we need to do these things? We still haven't been convinced as to why and what the approval is for the citizens of our city.
We vetted this with the Law Department, among others, as to 44 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 how best to reduce the number of entities from the three or so that were responsible for acquiring and disposing of properties. The Law Department's top recommendation was that the Landbank be established in a not-for-profit organization as opposed to an authority. One of the reasons for that was the fact that when property is vested in an authority, in order to dispose of it, it has to go through certain state-mandated steps. Those steps wouldn't come into play when it came to properties being in a not-for-profit. Rather than create a whole new not-for-profit, it was decided that PHDC, a non-profit organization, would be used as the entity to get that done.
See, Mr. Hanna, all the issues we raise are questions that we don't really feel we receive answers to.
Again, Councilwoman, we'd be more than happy to 45 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 sit down in a group or individually with each Councilperson or groups of Councilpeople to address all of these issues individually.
This is the Housing Committee. This is the Housing Committee, and my colleagues who are not here I am sure don't know any more than the people here, but we feel it's by design.
It is by design that we're left out of a real process to service our constituents and to keep our citizens working. We feel it's by design. Because all of us here have at least adult basic education learning. We can understand what we hear and we can understand what's being said to us. To my right is Councilman Ramos. And we don't know what you're doing. This is my issue. I say it all 46 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 the time. Dealing with people in need, dealing with people who are homeless and housing, from a grate to homeownership, it's my issue. That and education are my commitments in office and out of office, in season, as they say, and out of season. And I don't miss too much, because I'm focused on it every day. And we still don't know what it is -- we don't know what you're doing and why either. All I can see is that you want to lay off and not give people properties. That's all we see. (Applause.)
Good afternoon, everybody. I know this is going to sound like an overly simplistic question, but as I'm sitting here listening, when you fix something or you want to fix something, isn't there supposed to be something wrong with it, isn't it supposed to be broken? 47 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 (Applause.)
And with all due respect, I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'm not hearing what was broken here. I'm not hearing what was wrong. You were working with the District Councilpeople. I'm At-Large, but I worked here for a long time, so I kind of know how the process worked, I know how Councilman Clarke and Councilman Blackwell and all the District Councilpeople. The Vacant Property Review Committee seemed to be something that was working, from what I could see, and all this turmoil got started -- and I've heard some of your answers and I guess it's in there, but I'm still -- if there is a way to succinctly tell me what needed to be fixed.
There are a couple of things, Councilman, that needed to be fixed. We had heard from developers in particular that there were a myriad -- a number of different processes that needed 48 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 to be followed in order to get property conveyed to them depending upon who owned it.
Who owned the public properties. If the Public Property department owned it, then you have to go through this process. If PHDC owned it, you had to go through another process. RDA owned it, you had to go through another process. If PIDC owned it, you had to go through yet another. One goal of this whole effort was to simplify that. That was one issue. Another issue had to do with properties, for whatever reason, being overcommitted. We've run into, especially since all this development has kind of cropped up over the past couple of years, we've run into situations where years ago a property was committed to an individual, an entity for development. 49 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 Nothing ever happened with the property. Fast forward, the same property is committed sometimes once, sometimes twice, sometimes three times over for three different purposes. This process seeks to try to get rid of or try to fix that issue as well. The shortcomings that we heard came mostly from developers, folks who were trying to get properties in an effort to acquire and assemble lots in order to do something relatively large. And a big part of this policy and the efforts that we're trying to get underway is to address those types of issues.
Mr. Hanna, I don't know how you could say that. And I'm just taking one point, and Councilman Greenlee has -- how can you say that there have been commitments for various purposes for the same property when the Housing office processes it? We can only recommend. Your offices process it. So how could four people have the 50 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 same property? If you make -- there's no 3 way. If 1234 Market is owned by SEPTA, how can they give it to Jannie Blackwell? Come on now. That is not something that should require -- you insult our intelligence when you say that you reorganized -- (Applause.)
-- because of recommitment of properties. You all got to do your paperwork.
The people here know what they're doing. You can't tell us that sort of thing. We're trying to be really nice. I promised I'm going to be calm and I'll be nice, but you can't insult our intelligence either. (Applause.)
Councilwoman, you hit upon a very cogent point, the fact that those -- we have to do our paperwork. Accounting for those properties, accounting for those 51 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 commitments were for the most part done on paper, often times on index cards.
Hire these people back. They can keep your records.
We're trying to go from a paper-based system to a more technical-based system. That effort of going from 3-by-5 cards to a computer-based system we're hoping, we expect, will avoid overcommitting properties going forward. It wasn't an indictment or a negative statement on Council. It's an internal issue that we are trying to address.
We knew it wasn't us, because you all have to convey it -- we're real clear on what's our fault and what isn't. But we know that many people come to us for the same property and we have to make those hard decisions. That's okay, but once we 52 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 recommend -- if people come to you from off the street and we write a letter to you about our recommendation, we've already said the District Councilperson has the authority to make that decision. So there shouldn't be that. Now, if you would hire back these inspectors, because we have four instead of seven, who could go out and tell you if the house is occupied or not or what the condition is, then -- and if you have people in place who could go in the year they get the entry authorization and go back and say that person has done nothing, so you grab the property back and then it can be reconveyed, we're all straight with all of that. And we agree, it's not our problem, it's your internal system, but all you got to do is hire people. And this should not be an issue and should not be a reason and cannot be a reason to change a whole system of property acquisition and conveyance. You can't change all of this for, as you term 53 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 it, recommitment of properties. (Applause.)
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one last question on your answer, Mr. Hanna. Basically according to what Councilman Clarke said, any conveyance of anything stops for a certain amount of time. It seems to be a debate whether it was a full year or not. Did it all have to stop? I mean, couldn't some of this that there wasn't a dispute on who the owner was or something -- I mean, was there a dispute on every property?
Some did continue, but it was a slower process. Things were backed up. 54 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945
One last question, if I could. Mr. Coates, I think -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. What were you going to say?
And I think the other thing that was backed up was pending -- caught in this whole reorganization was the application process, and I think a lot of people had applied and we couldn't take them anywhere because we weren't sure when this was going to go through or if there would be new policies. So you've got that group of people sitting out there, too.
And one last question, Mr. Coates. Was there -- I think I know the answer. Was there dialogue with the District Councilpeople through this to let them know what the problem was? And was -- I guess a double question on that -- was the criteria of what the person wanted the land for, was that a consideration in all this and was 55 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 that discussed with the Councilpeople, the District Councilpeople?
That never was really at issue. The District Councilpeople were usually made aware of what the properties would be. Our problem was the City was changing its program. We weren't sure which way that was going to go, so we couldn't process people. And then we had people in the system that their end use and all that needed to be verified. So the staff was stretched very thin complying with all that and couldn't really service the new stuff.
Just one moment and then we'll defer to Councilman Clarke after a moment. What happens is that the department heads, people who know what they're doing, some departments like Vacant Property Review 56 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 Committee, were made victims of some administrative plan that only they knew and so everything got stuck. So if I call Mr. Coates, if I call Mr. Koonce, if I call Tony, they couldn't move anything because everything was caught up in something, and nobody really knew what it was. I mean, it just doesn't make -- we have too many people who want to work for the City, people who need their jobs, the 69 people laid off that we want to talk about. Everything is two-pronged. It's always the properties' acquisition and disposition and always the people who do the work, and it's all intertwined. So when we have hearings, we have to deal with both aspects of that. Everything is involved. But I know and they can't say that everybody is made victims, Mr. Hanna, of you and the Administration, so they got to say, I'm sorry, Councilwoman, we can't do anything on that because we have orders that it won't 57 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 move or we can't or whatever. They're victims of whatever you all decide to stay. And I say this at every hearing it seems we have now. Last I know, the Constitution called for three equal branches of government. We're an equal branch of government. We're no appendage of the Administration or anyone else. We have a responsibility to people, a responsibility to our district and the City, and you don't have a right to treat people and projects the way you do. We shouldn't work, my goodness, and be frustrated and worried about tax credit projects and tax credit deals, because when you closed VPRC down that date, Friday, December 15th, you all closed down every housing department, so I couldn't call anybody. Now, all of you who work here, you know it's the truth. There was not one housing office open, so that I couldn't get any response. I don't even know how legally you could do that. But you decide we're going to win 58 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 at all costs, and that's wrong. That's immoral. It's wrong, and we deserve better and our constituents deserve better. (Applause.)
Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, there's some information that I would like for you to forward to the Chair, to the Committee. I don't know how you do it because your staff is not in place, but I would like to know what the backlog is on properties that currently exist in VPRC, both City of Philadelphia and previously acquired by subsidized CDBG dollars, because I understand it's relatively substantial. PHDC, if PHDC is established as the Landbank, the current process for PHDC and its disposition actually prior to the passage of the bill. They were capable of disposing properties without City 59 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 Council approval; am I correct?
And I'm not going to rehash why I think it went to PHDC, because I fully believe that that was the intent, to put it in that department because it would not require Council approval, but fortunately we were made aware of it and we changed the law to make sure that that happened. Does PHDC under the old policy require to have Board approval for any disposition of properties? Because I know PHDC has an independent Board separate and aside from the government. MR. McINTOSH: Good evening, Madam Chair. My name is Anthony McIntosh, the Executive Vice-President of PHDC. Councilman, currently Board approval is not required.
So the Executive Director can determine the 60 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 disposition of properties without any approval process by Board members, any independent -- MR. McINTOSH: That's not completely accurate. What we've adopted at PHDC was a policy well over eight years ago where before we disposed of any property throughout the City, we require a letter of support from the District Councilperson supporting the disposition and the proposed use.
I'm talking about internally. MR. McINTOSH: Internally we had an acquisition/disposition committee, which is composed of staff, and staff makes the recommendation to the Executive Vice-President and the Executive Vice-President reports out to the Board at the Board meeting.
And the Board does what? MR. McINTOSH: It's information only. 61 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945
So there's no public process of disposition of PHDC-owned properties? MR. McINTOSH: Not currently.
All right. Under this new process will there be any internal PHDC process?
Under the proposed policy, properties would be conveyed from Public Property to the Landbank/PHDC only by way of a Council resolution. So properties only get there through Council.
Once in the Landbank, in order to come out of the Landbank, we are proposing that, again, a letter of support be provided by the District Councilperson. In addition to 62 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 that, we're also proposing that if it's Council's desire, Council may also pass another resolution on the back end requesting that the property be conveyed on the terms that the District Councilperson is recommending or has agreed upon.
So how is that streamlining? It sounds like it's adding another layer.
Because you're now going to require VPRC recommendation. That's not an approval, right? Am I right?
VPRC recommendation. That recommendation goes to PHDC/Landbank, right, and there will be some internal process by PHDC. I'm not clear what it is. Then there's -- 63 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945
The Landbank, what happens -- VPRC recommends that these properties be disposed of in the following manner, right? And then the recommendation goes to the Landbank and PHDC.
What happens at PHDC when they receive these recommendations from VPRC?
The proposal is that a committee at PHDC will review the recommendation by VPRC.
No, not at PHDC. 64 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 The public process is your process, the Councilperson, the District Councilperson, along with our recommendation that Council pass a resolution at the back end as to how the property should be passed. It's not very much different from the current system. One difference is, we're talking about RDA as opposed to PHDC.
Kevin, again, it sounds like it's the same process or maybe even longer.
No. It's not longer. It's a similar process. An important district --
How is it streamlined? I don't understand. Instead of going to the RDA, VPRC staff, it now goes here, and then they then send it to us after a requirement of a letter from a Councilmember. How is that any different than the current process in terms of time? It goes from VPRC to RDA to here. It's the same process. You 65 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 just change agencies. It's no different, Kevin. The only difference is, as I said earlier, prior to us changing the law, it would have required no Council disposition. Now, that would have streamlined it. Not in a good way, but it would have streamlined it because you no longer had to go through City Council. So I don't understand. What is the point?
Councilman, in our view, doing it this way will in fact allow us to convey properties faster than going through the Redevelopment Authority. And we have not --
Kevin, Mr. Hanna, in all due respect, you can say what your view is, but you're not giving any evidence to substantiate your view. You're saying -- (Applause.)
You're just saying VPRC, RDA, City Council. Now you have VPRC, PHDC, City Council. It's the 66 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 same number of steps. It's not streamlining anything. MS. McCOLLOCH: One of the advantages of the Landbank as a system is, it allows you to assemble properties, that you can have a set of properties that at the moment you don't know who the end user is going to be, but you know you want to acquire a parcel for future development. So you can begin to assemble those, have them in the Landbank, and when there's a developer or when we choose to put out a request for proposals for a developer, we have an assembled parcel that then before the property is transferred out of the Landbank it would need the approval of the District Councilperson with the letter of recommendation about who that developer should be or the end user should be. It has the advantage of being able to have a repository for land so that someone who is interested in 67 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 development could come and say, Show me everything you have in the Fifth District because I've been talking to the Councilmember and I want to do some development there, what's available. And because for one thing of the new technology that Kevin was mentioning, we would have an ability to say, Here are all the properties that are in the Landbank, they've been assembled, why don't you go look at them and see what you can propose.
Let me take a step back. You said when people or someone, entities, want to give properties to the Landbank, how often does that happen? I mean, realistically. MS. McCOLLOCH: I'm sorry?
You said the purpose is for acquisition. MS. McCOLLOCH: Well, part of it would be parcels that are in Public Property now would be transferred to the Landbank. 68 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945
I understand. We've gotten beyond that. What I'm trying to understand is, how is this streamlining the process. Because the disposition process has the same number of steps, if not more, than the current process. So if you're suggesting that on the acquisition side that it may streamline it, my understanding is the acquisition is still going to be done by the Redevelopment Authority. MR. McINTOSH: Councilman, one thing at PHDC is that instead of requiring a Board resolution authorizing the disposition, we all have to go to our Board to get authorization to go out and dispose of a property. We report to our Board. So that's going to help us out in one instance. In another instance --
Hold it. With all due respect, Tony, you report to the Board at a formal Board meeting. So the only difference is, they don't vote. 69 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 I mean, how much time is that going to save? They're still going to have it on the agenda, so they just don't vote. So that will save two seconds. MR. McINTOSH: No, not in reality, because if the Board just met, I don't have to wait until another Board meeting a month later to get the approval. So that's one thing. In addition to that, we have the committee process, which is an acquisition/disposition committee, and we can call that committee together at a moment's notice to go ahead and take care of an acquisition and/or a disposition. And, for example, Councilman, if I may, is that when we were doing the NTI demolitions and there were some demolitions that -- there was this one piece of property that you needed to come down, and it's my understanding the Authority had been trying to get it for months, but we were able to move in on your behalf and get it acquired in less 70 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 than 72 hours. I think because --
How did you acquire it? MR. McINTOSH: With the assistance of Gary Williams there and our real estate department --
No. Give me the specifics. Was it a privately owned property? MR. McINTOSH: Yes, it was.
How did we acquire a property in 72 hours? Because I need to know that. MR. McINTOSH: We were able to go out there, make an offer and get the deal done and get it done right then and there.
So it was a private transaction? MR. McINTOSH: Through the agency, of course, yes.
So that goes back to the acquisition side. You're saying that the process could be 71 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 streamlined on the acquisition side. Because I was talking about disposition. MR. McINTOSH: As well as the disposition side, because, again, if you need a property and the Board just met yesterday, I don't have to wait another two weeks, I don't have to wait another 30 days. We can go ahead and get that started right then and there and get the acquisition before the next Board meeting and just report it out. By that time, the person is settled and things have moved on.
So you're basically saying that it's a good thing because you're eliminating a public process. MR. McINTOSH: That's not what I'm saying.
That's what you're saying. MR. McINTOSH: That's not what I'm saying.
I'm not 72 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 saying it's good or bad, but I'm saying right now there's a public process at the Redevelopment Authority, right? MR. McINTOSH: That we don't have --
So you're suggesting because that public process is eliminated in order to streamline the process, that's a good thing? MR. McINTOSH: Well, it helps us to get the job done in a more expedited manner.
Back in 1999 we established West Philadelphia on the Move. We called for a ten-year plan to get rid of blight in the Third District and to get rid of homelessness. That was 1999. We called a meeting at 73 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 the Pyramid Club, had a PowerPoint -- in that room they call the Library, I believe -- maybe not -- had a PowerPoint presentation and we had 30 developers come to us in order to develop in West Philadelphia. So when people talk about development, we sought it. I can ask Sandy to punch up on a computer who has properties on 52nd Street, on 60th Street, on Lancaster Avenue. We have that information and we don't have a Landbank. A Landbank is -- you can call it something special. We have the ability to do the same thing now. So calling it a Landbank doesn't mean anything to us, because with the advent of computers and before that you wrote it down and you kept all these records of people who have properties in your district and people who want them. So it doesn't take us where we want to go. I still don't understand, piggy-backing on what Councilman Clarke said, how this is better. And I even say 74 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 that for those who talked about -- I read something in the paper that the Committee of Seventy wrote that they wanted mayors to commit to not having Councilmembers make decisions about properties in their district. That was one of the points they wanted Councilmembers to agree to. They wanted City Planning to do it. And who better than we who live in our areas and know our communities can make these decisions? (Applause.)
So, again, we ask the question how this is streamlined or better when we all know -- Councilwoman Tasco. We thank her for being here. I know if I mention Ogontz Avenue, she knows what's there and she knows what's vacant and she knows when businesses close and she knows what she wants to do there. We all do, because that's part of the service we're expected to offer to our constituents. And I still don't understand. Maybe I missed a 75 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 point, many points during this hearing, but I still don't understand where this is better and I still don't understand given the fact that we want more done, I still don't understand the whole issue. We have a lot of people here who have been laid off who have come here. I still don't understand how we can do our job and increase production with 69 people laid off. (Applause.)
So I'd like to hear a response on both ends, on the employment end and on the production end. Councilwoman Tasco. You can think about that while Councilwoman Tasco asks her questions.