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.
Thank you. I was trying to listen to this upstairs and then I thought I'd better come down. I don't have a lot of vacant property in my district, but I do care about the process because we've had to 76 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 convey some land. In Mr. Coates' testimony, he talked about -- I think this is his testimony. He talks about the new process that the Public Property through -- they intend to convey properties from Public Property to PAID. Is that what the process is? And from PAID to PHDC? Is that the Landbank process?
Why are we going to PAID? Or have you answered that question before?
No, I didn't answer that question. Public Property has to in order to avoid having to go out for RFP or for bidding, if Public Property were to transfer property directly to a non-profit, even one basically owned by the City like PHDC, PHDC would have to compete with all of the other non-profits for Public Property's properties. If on the other hand Public Property, the City, 77 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 conveyed its property through an authority, then it does not have to go through the bidding process, and that authority can in turn convey property directly to PHDC. So we have to insert an authority into the process in order to avoid PHDC having to compete with PEC or Project Home or any other CDC, not-for-profit for those properties.
No. It will be like that transaction. The properties will be conveyed from Public Property to PAID. PAID will turn right around and convey the properties to PHDC.
So if someone wants a side yard, for instance, they apply to PHDC for the side yard?
PHDC internally determines whether or not that person gets the property?
Well, VPRC, that committee, and the staff will review the application to make sure that the person is eligible.
So if we were looking at two charts and you had current process and proposed process, do you have that available?
Councilwoman Tasco, that's a great question and one of the things my staff has just passed along to me. We'd be more than happy to chart -- yes, we do. Not on us, but we'd be more than happy to chart both the processes, the old and the new, in an effort to show you how the "do" in our estimation 79 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 simplifies the process and hopefully will make it a lot faster than before. In addition, we'll also sit down with each Councilperson at your leisure to go through in as much detail as you want the entire process and why again we think it's a better way to skin this cat.
Now, you weren't here, but in reading Mr. Coates' testimony -- and I wasn't in Council at this time -- that PHDC had this process and then it was transferred to the Redevelopment Authority. Could someone tell me why, why was the change? MS. McCOLLOCH: They're pointing at me because I've been here the longest. I've been here since I was 12 years old.
It was first -- MS. McCOLLOCH: I don't have the benefit of having reviewed Mr. Coates' testimony, but there was a 80 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 reorganization in 1992 that consolidated the real estate functions at the Redevelopment Authority. So VPRC had been at PHDC and at that time the decision was made to make the Redevelopment Authority the financing agency. The structure was that the Office of Housing and Community Development was the overall planning agency and then the financing and real estate functions would be carried out through the Redevelopment Authority. So that's why contracts for funding for low-income housing tax credits and so forth were being done through the Redevelopment Authority and the real estate function was at the Redevelopment Authority.
So now why are we back on this side? If that was to satisfy a need, what changed the need to come back to bring the process back to OHCD? MS. McCOLLOCH: The disposition 81 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 process through the Redevelopment Authority with the redevelopers' agreement is complicated and the desire is to again have this consolidation to have a Landbank, and the decision was the Landbank would be best suited to be set up at PHDC.
So how do you acquire the properties for the Landbank?
Again, Catherine Califano, Office of Housing. The land going into the Landbank would come from Public Property, as well as Public Property now acquires land through the sheriff's sale process. In addition, PHDC will have the latitude, as Tony explained, to do direct acquisition of land as a private property 82 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 owner. So by having the land sit at PHDC, you'll be able to do land coming from the City of Philadelphia, land coming into the City from sheriff's sale and acquisition that PHDC does privately.
Now let's go to Logan. Now, if we were in the process of acquiring that land, would all of that process now be at PHDC and not with the Redevelopment Authority?
No, because we still -- the Redevelopment Authority is the only entity that has the power to use eminent domain and condemnation. So what this allows the City to do is have multiple means for acquiring property. But condemnation is a power and authority that is vested only in the Redevelopment Authority. In that case, we could not track down many of the property owners, and the City had committed to provide compensation for those property owners that were being relocated and so forth. So we could only do that through the 83 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 Redevelopment Authority.
So I want to go back to 1992 when there was a reorganization and you moved this process over to the Redevelopment Authority and now we're bringing it back to OHCD.
Within the Redevelopment Authority there were still separate departments under the Real Estate Division. So within the Redevelopment Authority there is still the division that does the urban renewal acquisitions and dispositions and then there were the VPRC staff, Vacant Property Review. At PHDC there was another department that did real estate transactions for PHDC, and at times the City of Philadelphia has used PIDC to dispose of property that's in Public Property's ownership that they believed had revenue-generating opportunity. What this does, this consolidation does, is moves those real estate divisions, the VPRC division at RDA and the division at 84 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 PHDC, into a single real estate division so that --
So in the consolidation, I guess we changed all of this. How many employees are impacted?
The RDA had roughly people in their department. PHDC had 15 approximately five people, four or five 16 people in their department. There will 17 be in the consolidated OHCD real estate 18 department 18 people total. 19
You 85 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 couldn't find something else for them to do?
Earlier I was upstairs listening as you testified and you were talking about the process, which I just want to make a comment on in terms of the process and why it took so long and you need to go to computerization. Did we have to go through all of this just to set up a computerized system? Couldn't we implement a computerized system in the department so that process would be easier? It seemed like, well, we couldn't do anything because people were still doing stuff on 3-by-5 cards and this and that and that. That's a management issue.
There was a confluence of issues that all kind of hit at pretty much the same time. The fact that the federal administration again cut 86 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 us back last year to the tune of $5 million -- no; $7.8 million, a total of $7.8 million, 5.3 in CDBG, total of $7.8 million in federal cutbacks, we recognized the need to computerize not just the disposition and acquisition process but a number of other processes. We felt that it was better to, rather than try to just take care of one particular problem and ignore the rest, try to get it all done, as complicated as it is, as complicated as it has proven to be, but try to get it all done pretty much at the same time, and that's pretty much what you and the other Councilpeople are seeing. We didn't just attack inefficiencies in government. We didn't just attack the fact that the disposition process needed to be computerized. We didn't just attack any one of a number of different issues but rather tried to get them all done at pretty much the same time, and that's what, fortunately or unfortunately, you all are seeing now. 87 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 And the downside of it is -- and believe me, we regret it almost as much as you all do. The downside of it is just the bottoming out of productivity. Because we were trying to get through all of this stuff pretty much at the same time, our folks have not been able to get done the stuff that they historically have been paid to get done. And our hope is that we can get through this and get to the other side and hopefully see the productivity bank back up.
May I ask you how much money you've saved in a year of pretty much shutting the agencies down and not processing applications.
May I ask you how much money we saved with all these 69 layoffs, how much money has the City saved since we started these 88 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 layoffs.
I want to know if we have properties that can't be inspected because we don't have inspectors, that can't be appraised because we don't have appraisers, that can't even be processed because we don't have all these millions of clerk titles that you have, how do we save? As all folks say, you're walking backward. You don't know what you're saving. You stopped processing properties. You lay off people. So in order to process people -- you don't have in place the people that do the work, whether it be inspections, appraisals, et cetera. So how is any of this helpful? (Applause.)
Given where we are in this process, it's not helpful. Given where we are in this process, it's not helpful. And if we were to stop right 89 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 now, it would not be helpful. Very little good would come out of it. I have a relative who got very sick and had to go through chemotherapy. Chemotherapy can be a very painful, very uncomfortable process, but ultimately it leads to something better. If we were to stop right now, you're right, Councilwoman, we'd be worse off now than we were before we started the process. All the more reason for us to encourage everyone to try to get through this to the point where we can bring back people, hire folks back and put them back to doing the job that they were hired to do originally. We can't just stop. We can't just stop right now midstream, because if we do, we all drown.
But you did. But you did. If you hadn't stopped midstream, if you hadn't laid people off, if you hadn't shut down departments, I could believe at least 90 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 that you really are committed to something. (Applause.)
You did. You laid people off. You stopped projects. You hurt neighborhoods. You hurt neighborhood people. You hurt employees in our city who live and work and have families, too. Everybody's hurt and yet we don't know the benefits. You say, Blindly follow us because once we come out of this cloud, we're going to get to the other side and we'll see it's better. How can we believe that? We who have lived through -- I mean, we heard about the Brophy report. We lived when we had 1209 -- 1202-A. We lived through you name it. I've been here since Rizzo years. Every housing reorganization plan you've had we've been here and it was supposed to make things better, and it doesn't. We've seen plans where -- I remember when we introduced some legislation when Cardell Blue (ph) was 91 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 head of PHDC, I guess, when we talked about nullifying certain steps so a property didn't go through I don't know how many steps, or something, before 6 conveyance. 7 So I've been around here long 8 enough to see these proposed changes, and 9 they're never improvements. I've not 10 seen really improvements, and we're at a 11 point where we could. We have enough 12 expertise. Certainly John Coates and Deb 13 McColloch are still here. We lost Herb 14 Wetzel due to all this foolishness. And 15 we have people who have been here and who 16 know what to do, but you don't free them 17 up to do things. We still don't see that 18 it's better. 19 (Applause.)
And all the issues about employment, we had a union president, we have union people here, we have people who have been laid off, people who are still working, people who have been demoted, who have lost 24, 92 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 thousand dollars down to jobs. How can somebody be changed and be cut by -- forget 8 and 15 and 16 -- 24 and 25 thousand dollars and be forced to say that's your new job and that's your new job title? How can you do that to people? It's happening over and over and over. (Applause.)
So we 12 want to know what assurances can you give 13 us -- I'm sure you won't be able to say 14 any -- that things are going to be 15 better. What assurances can you give us 16 that we'll have some sound policy and 17 that a land like this invisible 18 Landbank -- because I can tell you what's 19 in my district in the computers in -- you 20 have it. We've been doing it without 21 calling it a Landbank forever. We have 22 to be able to do that. I can't give you 23 one property if it's already owned by 24 somebody. We're forced to develop a 25 process, and that's fine. We're okay 93 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 with that. We don't have the problems that you seem to articulate. So much of life is just common sense and commitment; that's all. And we still feel, as we always do when we have these hearings, that we talk about things and nothing changes. You try to force us to deal with and to agree with a process that you haven't developed yet. You're in the middle as we walk blindly. We're supposed to follow you blindly, and you don't know where you're going either as a department, as housing departments. You all don't know. (Applause.)
It's so unconscionable, so unfair. I'm not screaming today. I'm not upset about -- I'm upset, but I'm not screaming about it. I promised that I would remain calm, because certain things just don't seem to change. Since you really came out with this and you come up with this, it just gets worse for people 94 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 who -- I could even deal with it -- I could even try to deal with us debating the issue if you hadn't laid off 69 people. You're laying off people. We can fight all day. We get paid to do it, but it's unfair that in addition to our debates with the Administration you lay these people off, too. I don't understand what you expect of us or how you can ask us to agree to some blind process that just let's people go home and lays them off and demotes them and makes them bump each other and all those negative things that this process has created. Very, very, very unfair and unconscionable. Very unfair. No matter how hard we try to work with you -- what do you say, just when you think you're out, they pull you back in. We're always back where we start from. (Applause.)
Councilwoman Tasco, you have another question? 95 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945
Members of the Committee have questions? (No response.)
We'll ask you if you would let some other people who are here testify. Mr. Coates, you still want to make your testimony? I know everything, the whole scope of things, has changed. We invite you. Is Mr. Sampson, Cathedral Park still here? (No response.)
Leola Stowall, 1900 block of -- are you still here? You'll be next. Betty Ferguson, are you still here? You'll be third. And Leonard Ferguson. And Nora Lichtash I didn't see. Anyone else who is here, we're happy to have you after those individuals testify. 96 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 Thank you, Mr. Coates.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I guess in the interest of time, since a lot of the things covered in Mr. Hanna's testimony were covered in mine in terms of the history of VPRC and all that, I wanted to keep a narrow focus related to the Resolution 060945 and not make the debate over whether VPRC should be used or not. It has gone, I guess, about 8,000 times to the settlement table for people, but my understanding is that -- and I guess my testimony goes to regardless of whether we're going through PAID or RDA or whatever, that VPRC -- and my understanding is the Administration is willing to do this -- shall be used to review the properties and that the VPRC would continue to serve in its advisory role on their transfer. And further I understand the properties in the pipeline that were before February 2006, if all the 97 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 applicant criteria is met or if they're required to meet City priorities, they shall proceed under the current guidelines. That would cover the backlog of properties in the Small Vacant Lot Programs which were part of the Mayor's NTI program. I think the sticking point which wasn't clear was what role Council would have under the reorganization and the conveyance of properties out of the Landbank. We know that Council would be required by ordinance or resolution to transfer properties from Public Property to the Landbank, but the question was how would they get out. And I also understand that in talking with Mr. Hanna he would not be opposed to configuring a way at PHDC's disposition process so it would require VPRC review and also Council's approval by resolution. I believe Councilman Clarke has already introduced legislation to that effect. And the other point was since 98 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 it would be a while before property might be conveyed out of the Landbank, the trends and forces at that time might dictate that the use it went in for should be changed. In other words, something may have gone in for residential but it might be more appropriate at that time for it to be commercial. Those changes would require VPRC review and concurrence and also on the way out, that property would have a Council resolution. So my understanding, if that's all correct -- and I have no reason right now to believe it isn't -- it would seem that the VPRC role is preserved, but what's most paramount is that the District Councilperson's role would be solidified in both the acquisition and disposition process of property conveyed under this reorganization. Now, all of these things haven't been worked out exactly how they will go and how all the I's are dotted, 99 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 but I haven't found this to be an adversarial process at this time. If all these things fall into place, I would be willing to try to proceed and work them out with Mr. Hanna's office, if that's a situation you would be comfortable with. Rather than go into long testimony, I think those were the points, to ensure that the VPRC would be involved in whatever the disposition and acquisition process is and that Council's role is solidified in that both going in and out of the Landbank. Thank you. If there are any questions, I'll take them.
Thank you, Mr. Coates. You're a good man and a decent man, and I resent their actions in your regard, because we know that you're one of the best minds in this City and you've done an excellent job with VPRC. Are there any questions? (No response.)
Thank 100 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 you very much, Mr. Coates. Thank you.
Councilwoman, I have a couple of questions. Mr. Coates?
Mr. Coates, would you please come back forward -- come forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman.
I just have some questions, and maybe I should have asked them of Mr. Hanna, but since you're there. Until we work out this situation, who does City Council contact regarding the Vacant Property Review Committee and do you have any staff presently working on the committee? 101 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945
Is there anything happening or are you all not doing anything?
So there are no cases or no requests, there's no 13 processing going on?
Do you want to answer that question? What's happening?
As Mr. Coates indicated, his department has -- all of the folks in his department have been laid off. They would ordinarily be the department, the folks to whom we, you, people from the communities would contact. With them out, the entire program has been suspended. 102 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945
So we can't convey any properties through City Council?
So what happens then if -- what will it take to get staff on board in the Vacant Property Review Committee? What are we waiting for?
We're waiting for a transfer ordinance that would -- a transfer ordinance to be passed that would provide the money for us to rehire that staff, to bring back Mr. Coates and a couple of his folks and to rehire and replenish his staff.
Didn't we pass a budget last spring and didn't it account for those staff in that budget?
Yes and no. You did pass a budget last spring, but the budget that you passed provided for money to be spent in Class 200, money for RDA staff or PHDC staff. Mr. Coates' group 103 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 is going to be housed at OHCD, because as Ms. Califano said before, the staffs, the respective staffs at RDA and PHDC, have been consolidated. There were two real estate groups in the two different respective departments. They have been consolidated into OHCD, but the money you all put in 200. The transfer ordinance 10 moves money from Class 200 into Class 100 in order for OHCD to hire Mr. Coates and Mr. McIntosh's staff into OHCD.
That's Bill 889 that's on our Calendar for second reading and final passage. Now, the reason we asked that that bill be held was that the employees felt that once we transfer the money to OHCD, more individuals will be laid off because they could not stay where they are because all the money would be transferred to OHCD. 104 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 When we said that and we didn't do it, the Mayor wrote the President a letter and cc'd us threatening projects in our district, but instead of, thank God, my colleagues getting angry with me, they got angry with Kevin Hanna and the Mayor, as they should have, for threatening to cancel their projects. Now, we assume that -- (Applause.)
We wrote a letter, follow-up letter, to the Mayor saying how dare you, for all that Council does for one bill to threaten our projects is unconscionable. And we also sent a letter back. He agreed then to process our tax credit and other projects, to rescind all of that if we pass this bill. But the other side of it is the employees. Last night we were here until 11 o'clock with the Mayor, with Veronica Pankey, Sherman Williams, Mr. Henry and Mr. Foster, who are here, and others 105 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 talking about the union contract, because the Mayor -- this was the second meeting, and the Mayor had promised that if it took all night, we would consummate it, then we'd be straight, everybody would agree on hiring and we could agree that our projects would be completed and we'd forget the fact that he closed offices down so as not to process our stuff and that they held up projects for a year and still can't say they've saved a dime. We put all that aside. Union contract would be met and there would be people in place to process our projects. Well, that didn't happen. We were there until some 11 o'clock and the Mayor said, We can't finish this now and that we have to meet in a few days. Now, we're supposed to meet in a few days hopefully to consummate their contract, and the issues on board are -- nine out of ten are ridiculous. Ninety-nine percent of the union people who are transferred are made non-union. 106 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 So they've taken that away. Ninety-nine percent. We're supposed to meet again to resolve those issues. And we're asking again -- and I say this to you, Mr. Hanna. I know the Mayor is supposed to be in Washington today or the National League of Cities or something. We're asking that next week we're supposed to pass 889, but we want to make sure that the union stuff is straight. That's one part of it. We know they have to work the process, the applications for our neighbors, and also that the commitments are -- we have another hearing next week at 1:00, next Thursday, that is, at 1 o'clock. We want you to bring the information the Councilwoman referenced, the comparison on what is and what was, and any other information that will prove to the Council. And we assume that if we vote for this 889 on Thursday that the union stuff is consummated, because there are no major -- there are no major issues 107 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 therein, two or three maybe out of some or mentioned. But we assume that 4 all these issues are going to be resolved 5 so that everybody can live with this and 6 we can at least move forward together. 7 So I hope that you will convey 8 that, and that we have our meeting and 9 that at that meeting we consummate a 10 contract, because Ms. Pankey, who was 11 here, and Sherman Harris, who was here, 12 but Mr. Foster and Mr. Henry are still 13 here and they can verify that the 14 majority of things on the table aren't 15 even major. There are not issues that we 16 can't resolve. And we were prepared to 17 stay all night, as was the commitment in 18 advance, but we were there until 11:00 19 and the Mayor said we couldn't finish it. So we want to get this done. So in spite of all of the lack of answers and the lack of faith we have in a process that nobody can describe, we're still willing because we have to move forward, but we need some assurances that 108 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 our projects will get done by employees in this room and beyond and that they will have a contract that at least they can vote for and support. We can do that if we commit to working together and getting it done, but we can't do it just on one side. There has to be a commitment on both sides of the table. (Applause.)
Thank you. Ms. Stowall? We Councilpersons don't like being threatened, do we, Councilwoman Tasco? We're all right until you threaten us. Don't threaten us. We don't like being threatened. Nobody has a right to threaten us on our projects. Don't threaten us. I keep telling people I was born in the old Richard Allen, you know. (Applause.)
Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Blackwell. In the year 2004 I received entry authorization papers to 1928 South Redfield Street. Following this I became unemployed, which delayed the restoration process. In August 2005 I was truly blessed and I was able to begin the major repairs: new roof, all new electrical wiring, plumbing, new floors, walls, windows and ceilings. On the 13th day of December 2005, President Verna and you, Councilwoman Blackwell, introduced Resolution 051206 authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia, without consideration, deeds conveying conditional fee and simple title to certain City-owned lots or pieces of ground, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in the 39th and 40th wards of the City of 110 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 Philadelphia pursuant to Chapter 16-400 of The Philadelphia Code and authorizing the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia to dispose of such properties for rehab and/or improvements in accordance with the terms of Chapter 8 16-400. I have been told by Mr. John Coates that there is no one to prepare the deed for 1928 South Redfield Street. Mr. Michael Closome, the deed inspector, wrote out his report for the property on September 13, 2006 stating that 1928 South Redfield Street is ready for the deed to be prepared and given to me. I am prayerfully asking for a resolve in this matter ASAP. I took a shell and made it into a beautiful home and that added revenues to this City will be obtained. Please give me my deed. What will happen to this property should I perish? Will my family inherit it? No, because it is in the 111 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 City of Philadelphia's name. I have invested over $25,000 into this property and I have with me today every receipt that I spent in this matter. Please release my deed, as stated in the entry authorization documents I have received in January 2004. Please give me my deed. Thank you. (Applause.)
All right. You heard Ms. Stowall. Please give her her deed.
And Councilwoman Blackwell and Mr. Greenlee, Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds and Councilman Ramos -- is that correct -- I'm from the Roxanne Jones days and we are getting sick and tired and sick and tired of the games that's being played with us that have these homes and keep getting the run-around about our deeds, and I want to make it loud and clear that someone in that Housing department better get their act together or else we will be sitting 112 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 in front of their offices and they will not be allowed to come out and go home unless something is done to get our deeds in our hands. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you, Madam Chair. Could I ask somebody from Housing just give me a simple answer why somebody couldn't have done the deed. She did the hard part. She did the hard part. And if I'm right, the bill was introduced December 2005, so you've had -- and I'm not putting it on one person, but since 2006, beginning of 2006 you've had this deed. So even the layoffs didn't take effect until the middle of December 2006.
Even with the layoffs, there is someone at the Redevelopment Authority who can process 113 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 the conveyance of property where the deed has been taken care of, when the deed just needs to take this last step. This is the first I've heard of her specific problem, but we have an individual at the RDA who can process the conveyance of the deed if in fact all of the steps that she's represented in fact have been taken.
That's what I was going to ask. Do you have any idea how many -- again, I'm assuming she's telling us everything accurate. There's no reason to think she's not. How many people are there or how many people have gotten a disposition, do you have any idea, and are now sitting there at the edge hanging over?
Because, again, it doesn't -- I've been accused of 114 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 oversimplifying things a lot, but it doesn't seem like it should be that tough, that difficult to do this. I mean, I don't know.
It seems to me that the issue is people working. When you lay off a department, they can't process the deeds because there's nobody there to do the work on all these clerk titles that you all create.
But, again, that was even, Madam Chair, just the end of this year. This bill was passed at the end of 2005. So at least in this case that shouldn't even be a factor.
I'm sorry. Mr. Coates, could you go a little closer.
Councilman, there are, at last count -- let me see if I 115 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 still have that with me.
We're having the Clerk bring a copy of her testimony so there's no question.
I know Ms. Stowall. I know her very well. She's right in what she did. We have about 400 people waiting settlement.
Well, they span a -- but that's sitting there now that should be being processed out.
Well, there's nobody to do it, yeah, but that's what it was as of probably the beginning of December.
Four hundred people that, again, have done most -- it sounds like they've done most 116 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 of the hard work, right?
Well, they've either done that kind of work or they're willing to buy and --
Again, it's unconscionable. That's what we say. From either end, from the layoff or the processing end, it's unfair. It's unfair. And Mr. Coates should have never been caught up in that. It's wrong. It's immoral, unconscionable, mean-spirited, unfair and just wrong. Betty Ferguson. Mr. Leonard Ferguson, is he with you?
Okay. Mr. Ferguson, you're next, then Nora Lichtash, then Delcina Wilson, then Toby 117 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 and then whomever would like to testify. Please identify yourself to the record and make your testimony. Thank you for coming.
I appreciate my voice being heard this afternoon. My name is Betty Ferguson. I am the President and CEO of the Holly Street Garden Association located in the Belmont community. We began in 1990 -- I just want to give you a little brief history -- basically because we started with concern of the blight of a vacant lot, a vacant lot that derived from a building that sat vacant for 20-something years. So the Holly Street Garden group decided, Well, hey, we'll do something about it -- the building was tore down -- and created something very nice from a blighted area to a training port for 118 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 youth, Feed the Harvest port for our senior citizens where they can just go and pull out vegetables at any given time. Since 1993 when Councilwoman Blackwell sent the Holly Street Garden Association a letter of support along with the Belmont Improvement Association President at the time, Ms. Evelyn James, we stood before Chairman Marks back in '93. Where's our deed? We put in multiple times over and over through PHDC. It went from them, went to RDA. Now we're stuck in RDA's department. Now, I'm thinking because maybe I changed my last name or our group became a full-fledged 501(c)(3) non-profit, that we were on prime property that no one cared about until we opened up, we cleaned it up, opened our mouths. Now everyone wants it. It went from almost zero value to the 500-something-odd dollars in value that Mrs. Ferguson along with her children, the youth, put that 119 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 equity into that land. I'd just like to know, where is the deed? We are going on with a long-term process here. It's not just a regular garden. People come to us, offenders, ex-offenders, when they're looking for a place to do community service. Here is a training port where we collaborate with Penn State University where they bring their students down from State College to do projects in our garden. Hopefully it will still be a part of the watershed problem due to the overflowing of inlets in our area. Can I please have the deed? I need to go further. Here's the problem: The Belmont community can actually fund the entire bank. We have over 200 vacant parcels in our area, not to say a numerous amount of vacant properties. We can be the bank ourselves. I know it's prime property. We're aware of that. Unfortunately, some of the block captains -- and I'm also 120 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 President of the Belmont Block Captains Association -- and they had to leave. But we're willing to compromise. Right now in the Belmont area it is sites, 6 parcels, that the community has interest 7 in and have long-term plans for. For the 8 ones that are waiting for their deeds via 9 RDA or PHDC, could we please have our 10 deed? 11 4116 Ogden Street has been a 12 viable part to the community. It's 13 become even a memorial site for one of 14 our merchants, Korea merchants, that was 15 killed. We dedicated a tree for him. 16 All the 16th District Police were there. 17 Can we please have our deed? 18 We have plans. And we 19 understand that economic development is 20 important and we know it's vital, but 21 there is enough land to go around. And I 22 have received a letter back from RDA in reference to another property across from that that the Holly Street Garden Association wanted to revitalize and 121 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 redevelop a property. They sent me back a letter, which I have with me, stating that our assets wasn't large enough to deal with them. Are we turning into sharks, allowing the developers to just come in and take away any open -- all of the open space that is important? Some of that open space is important to the environment, and if we take all of the open spaces and just do away with them, what do we have? I can go on to my EPA world, but I'm not. All I'm asking this afternoon is for Council, the RDA, PHDC to reconsider Holly Street Block Garden group's plea for the deed to 4116 Ogden Street.
The developers really don't care to -- some of the developers don't care to have it, but others do. And I understand why, Madam President, it's a lot of lobbying going on for the prime property. Belmont community is a prime location, but we're willing to compromise. Thank you. 122 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. )
Thank you very much. Thank you for your commitment and hard work. Mr. Leonard Ferguson. I see Ms. Wilson. Thank you.
Councilperson. I'm new at this. I have a vacant property next to my -- it's been vacant for over 50 years. I've been in my house for 52 years. I've been cleaning it, taking the trash off, taking the garbage, pulling weeds. I did that for about 10, 12 years. Then I tried to acquire it, but I was told that it was privately owned and although there was no taxes paid on it -- till this day there's still no taxes paid on it, 52 years later. I put $800 down in Municipal Services Building about 15 123 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 years ago. They told me when they looked it up since no property taxes was paid, it would probably come up for sheriff's sale within the year. They would let me know. My $800 was still down there for like ten years and nothing. And the property was still in this person's name. So I went and got my $800 back. And then in '92 I had my lawyers from the job, our union, contact your office, and you wrote a letter to whoever and said to try to get the property for me, and still nothing happened. So then they start redeveloping in my neighborhood and I called down the Municipal Services Building and they told me, Well, you took your $800 back. I put $800 back down there again, and that was in 2000. And they said, Well, it's got to come up for sheriff's sale within about six months to a year. That was 2000. As a matter of fact, it just came up for sheriff's sale. 124 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 I think the City acquired it. So it's no 3 problem with the organizations. It's just that now that the City did acquire it, I just want to know what I can do to get the deed.
Thank you, Mr. Ferguson. Mr. Coates is going to help you. What do you have, pictures?
Okay. All right. We certainly obviously support you, and I think taking care of this vacant property 50 years should qualify you. Mr. Coates will help you. And, Mr. Ferguson, thank you. We'll be in touch with him and you. We have your number, do we, in my office?
And 125 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 thank you for your patience today. God bless you. (Applause.)
That's a lifetime, is it not, ladies and gentlemen? Nobody should have to wait 50 years and take care of a lousy vacant property and not be able to own it and acquire it. And the other issue is, Mr. Hanna -- and please, Delcina Wilson, come forward. The other issue is that if people were to have to pay for them, then they could enter in another tax bracket, you got to pay taxes, all kinds of stuff that could be involved. And it's one of the reasons why obviously we believe that we need to maintain a current system of conveyance for a dollar, the quote/unquote, dollar homes and lots, and not to hurt people or put them in income brackets and all of that when they're just trying to improve their neighborhood 126 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 and practice NTI, Neighborhood Transformation, as it should be. Delcina Wilson, thank you for your involvement and commitment to your community and to the fine job you do in East Parkside and citywide.
Thank you, Councilwoman Blackwell. I'm going to keep it short, because the hour is late. My name is Delcina Wilson. I'm a Committeeperson in the 24th Ward, 9th Division, and I just want to make a few references. The first thing is that we cannot allow the disbandment of the Vacant Property Review Committee. They are a vital asset for people in Philadelphia. They are a link with the community. You can't come to my area and tell me what's going on, but my Councilwoman can. So the more layers that we remove from the bureaucratic red tape, the more mechanized the situation becomes, and we don't need that. I've been around. I've lived 127 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 in a couple of cities. Philadelphia has become a metropolis for development. Twenty years ago you'd get property very, very cheaply. We're on the map now, thanks to projects like Spring Garden and now so much in the forefront the Microsoft School. The land banking of property, no offense, Mr. Hanna, your testimony was very, very vague and I am still kind of perplexed as to what the restructuring of your organization plans to accomplish, because there's an underlying current there that's built on shifting sand, according to your testimony, and we can't quite figure that out. I, for one, would like to see what you will mandate in the future in a very, very concise manner. Once you bring that back to City Council, I'm sure City Council will share it with the public in a very expedited manner. But I cannot see the disbandment of the Vacant Property Review Committee. I can't. 128 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 And another thing, they referenced a couple of things. They asked you how much money was saved by the layoffs. They also asked you how much money has been saved by various departments that have been shut down within your organization. You didn't have an answer. So before you can restructure anything else, let's go back to your organization, restructure that, get the groundwork laid that needs to be laid, then you can dictate what needs to be restructured in another arena. And I thank everyone for your time. (Applause.)
Thank you, Ms. Wilson. We appreciate you and all the fine work you do. Toby. I mentioned your first name and not your last. Please identify yourself for our record.
Okay. Good afternoon, Councilwoman Blackwell, 129 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 Mr. Greenlee. My name is Toby Rich. I work with Scoop Newspaper and I'm called the "Mayor of Girard Avenue." You know, I had something written down for this, but I'm going to talk straight from my heart. I won't be long.
Excuse me one moment. Thank you, Alice Wright, United Block Captains. Thank you both.
There are people that come to me on the street. A lot of times when they can't get to the Mayor for some reason, they buy into that little name I got and they ask me about their property and what's going on with HUD and why they don't get a deed. You know, I know Mr. Hanna is not a bad person and the people that work with him, they're not bad people. They're caught up in a situation that I really wish they would find a way to get up out of. You got to stop this dichotomy 130 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 thing of "them" and "us." We're in this together, man, and we ought to work together. And when 69 people lose their job before you really come to the table and show that you're working hard to keep their job, something is wrong, man, because you ain't laid off from your job, see. And I don't expect you to be, but there's something wrong with that picture. You know, I found a Mickey Mouse watch and it's ironic to me that Mickey Mouse can still be working after all this time, but 69 Americans get laid off. There's something wrong with that picture, man. There are people that come to me and they want to know about their properties, and there are people that would like to start little small businesses on properties. When you talk about this bank, I'm wondering, this Landbank, will this impose the same kind of rhetoric that poor people go through when they go to 131 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 the regular bank and they won't be able to get like a loan because the color of their skin or where they lived at? I mean, now if a guy or a woman has the money for a piece of property that's a lot and they can make something work with this lot, is this Landbank going to put them through some rhetoric because they aren't going to be able to make the money that you might think they could or they're not going to be able to do the things that you might not feel they can? You know, you give a person a chance. This is America, last I heard, last I saw. You know, I sound so corny, it's getting to me, but there is something wrong with this picture. There's no reason why this couldn't have been worked out. This shouldn't have had to come to Council like this. I just don't think so. And I think -- my really wish and hope is that you can get together collectively with the Mayor, 132 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 because I do support the Mayor, and you should get together collectively with Council, because I do support Council, and this situation shouldn't happen again. And definitely 69 people laid off should not happen, man. That's a disgrace, man. It shouldn't happen. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you, Mr. Rich. Question, Councilman Greenlee?
Yes. Actually, it's for the folks from Housing again. I know we've been at this for a while, but if I could just ask one more question, Mr. Hanna, or whoever. Regarding what again was brought after Ms. Stowall's testimony about the backlog, if you will, of 400, I think Mr. Coates said, of deeds waiting to be processed, say if Bill 889 was passed next week, as you start or you continue through this new process, are there plans 133 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 to prioritize that part of the program in order to try to move people through a little faster, again, as long as they meet all the criteria? Because it seems like that's certainly a big problem here.
To answer your question, yes, that will be a priority once those folks are hired back into their department, to process VPRC requests. That will be one of the priorities. There are a couple, but that certainly will be one.
Now, will that mean like adding more people to that particular unit? Has that been the problem, that you've gotten backlogged because there hasn't been enough people?
Mr. Coates would be better suited, I think, to answer that question, because this backlog didn't start in 2005. It didn't start in December of 2002 when I got here. It started long before I got here. So Mr. Coates would have to answer that 134 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 question.
If maybe you all hired him back, you know what I mean, I'd feel better calling him up putting him on the spot. We're going to ask you to answer it, because you represent the Administration. And half of the people here, many people who have been here all day -- Mr. Tolan, you need to hear this -- who have been laid off, people have come after their jobs, people have left their jobs. Thank you both for being here and thank you, Tim, for being here. And people who have had to bump other people and all of that who don't have jobs, and then you all use it as a stick to make us do what you want. So I think you should answer how long the backlog will take once you 135 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 are up to full speed, which we think should happen tomorrow. All you got to do is work out these union contracts. The issues aren't hard issues. These people know what to do. We got people who have been in our city and 30 8 years. They know their jobs. You just 9 need to untie their hands and let them do 10 it. 11 (Applause.) 12
If I'm asked to 13 answer the question as to how long it 14 will take to break through that 15 400-odd-person backlog, my answer is I 16 don't know. 17
But you 18 did say that it would be one of the 19 priorities? Because, I mean, it just 20 seems to me if a person has gotten that far -- I mean, I know this isn't an easy process for the department or for the individuals, but if they got into that process -- again, I know I said this before -- it seems like they shouldn't 136 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 have to wait this long.
I consider that low-hanging fruit as well, and, yes, that will be a priority once the folks are rehired into the department.
The answer, Councilmen, is I don't know. I can get you an answer, but as of 3:26 on a Tuesday afternoon, I don't know.
Fine. Well, someone else in here must know. If we have to, then we'll ask Mr. Coates, but it's not fair to give him that pressure. We can ask Ms. McColloch. Ms. Califano is here. She must have something to say. Do you have something to say, Ms. Califano, to answer the question?
I think Kevin Hanna answers for the Administration. 137 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 We'll be happy to --
Well, why did you come forward? Why did you come forward? We had him at the table. Why did you come forward? Is it to protect him? Do you think we're going to beat him up or something? Why did you come forward if he was here? What's your point?
Councilwoman, Ms. Califano is seven and a half months pregnant.
Madam Chair, may I put it another way? I understand we might very well have another hearing. Could you try to figure out in a time frame given that 889 would pass, could you break down somehow a reasonable time frame? I'm not saying 138 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 we're going to hold you to every day, but a reasonable time frame when that backlog could be thought that you might be able to cut it back?
Next Thursday at 1 o'clock we're meeting. Could you get up even an intelligent estimate? I'm not going to hold you to the exact time.
Yes, Councilman, I can by 1 o'clock on Thursday afternoon, February 1st.
We'd appreciate that and the information Councilwoman Tasco requested as well.
Thank you, Councilman. I hope we can have all these issues resolved, have everybody back to 139 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 work and we can pass that bill by next Thursday, because as much as you're pressured and that this is absolutely I'm sure not a comfortable position for you to be, we're on the other side. We don't want to be here either. I've been grown a long time, so we do what we have to. We don't prefer to do it this way. We like to get along. It's my nature. But when it comes to defending people in need, then we have to be what we have to be, because we all are extensions of one. We're our brother's keeper. When it comes to doing what we have to do, then we fight because we have to fight, because the Administration, you force us to fight to defend the people we're elected to represent. And that's what it's about, people who need their jobs and people who need their deeds. It's unconscionable to put $25,000 into a property and still say during this time we're waiting for a deed. I'm sure there could be 140 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 extenuating circumstances, but nobody said anything about it. We just shouldn't be here. It's just so unbelievable to go through this over and over and over. Over and over and over. Is there someone else who would like to testify today? (No response.)
Let me thank all those union people, those who have been laid off, bumped down, transferred who are still here and union leadership who has been here and are trying to survive and find a way to survive all of this when they're not given good answers, nor are we. So I'm hoping that -- I'm sure you'll let the Mayor know when he comes back that we're serious about this meeting. We're serious in being a part of helping to resolve labor issues, and we're serious about passing 889 and what it means that when we transfer money, that people won't be further hurt and 141 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 they won't have to ask Councilpeople -- they won't have to have their union representatives ask us not to pass a bill 5 because they're afraid when we pass it all the money goes into personnel for OHCD and people not there won't have their jobs. That's the fear. That's what all of that hold-up is about, the fear of further layoffs. So the union people need assurances. We need assurances that when we pass a bill, we don't further hurt people who work for housing agencies and further enhance more layoffs and further disintegrate an already very sad relationship between us all. That's what it's all about. So we need assurances from you that things will be better, people won't be laid off if we pass the bill, our projects will be processed and that we don't have to worry about them being processed, we don't have to worry about tax credit policies. I know we have that 142 1/23/07 - HOUSING - RES. 060945 in writing, but we want you to know how serious it is to us and how much we care about all of those things we're supposed to care about and that we have to collectively do what we can to protect and enhance the lives of people we're entrusted to serve. It's what it's all about, believing in God and doing what we're supposed to do by him to service the people who live and work in our city. Having said that, is there anyone else who would like to say something today? (No response.)
Then we will continue this hearing until Thursday, February 1st at 1 o'clock, same place, same time. Thank you very much. (Applause.) (Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless adjourned at 3:35 p.m.) - - - 143 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on January 23, 2007, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)