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.)