And -- And -- And -- And it's coming out of the -- coming out of being in a -- in a -- in a standstill now. However, the critical issues that you have raised and the City Council people have raised today about the capacity of the Redevelopment Authority, about the reorganization of the housing agencies that you have asked Pat those questions, I'm not raising these issues. The City Council, you, the City Council people have raised these issues all day. There needs to be a reorganization of the housing system, to meet the volume and the goals that you have set under NTI. And 266 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 there has been no reorganization. So -- So people like us, with 103 employees, that work and that live in your Districts could lose their jobs because for four years we have no production. For example, the people that -- The people -- One of the things -- One of the things we do when we do volume real estate rehab is, one of our subsidiary companies does all the cleaning, all the painting and all the pressure washing. And they make anywhere from $15 to $25 an hour doing that. For four years I can't hire that crew. I don't know where -- I've lost my crew because we don't have any work for them. And so, the issues you raised are pertinent, but you have to understand that PHA could do volume -- housing volume because they already own the land. They demoed their own buildings and they rebuilt townhomes on them.
Right. And they have an additional subsidy because they 267 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 have ACC'S --
And they don't need Penn Homes money. And Penn Homes is traditionally a part of the nine percent funding process.
And I'm simply suggesting that, you know, PHA should be what PHA traditionally is, affordable housing. And we have a lot of individuals who are concerned about the lack of affordable housing, because the nine percent credits let you have a higher income. And if we go back to what PHA used to be, you know, truly affordable housing, I think we could probably solve two issues: One, the funding issue; and the other, providing truly affordable housing. 268 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Given the mission of NTI, and the traditional mission of CDCs, and given acknowledgment of the fact that capacity has been an issue or an impediment with regards to meeting goals that NTI established, and hearing your first recommendation which would be reorganization of the housing agencies may prove to be beneficial, what other suggestions, recommendations would you offer up at a time like now, given what's ahead for NTI in the next year?
At a critical time like this, the RDA needs to hire ten people to do Act 94, which is the -- which is the either Urban Renewal or Act 94 spot condemnation taking, which is the act that allows the City to basically clear a title on a vacant property and issue a new title, 269 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 and sell that property or give that property for a dollar to a developer for what you call a nominal consideration. They need ten people working on that full-time. The second thing. They need, like, ten appraisers because every building has to be appraised. And it's taking... I don't know -- I don't know how long it's taking, so I don't want to make -- That's something that maybe Pat and the staff could answer. But I know it's taking very, very long to get an appraisal. In addition to that, while we're waiting on appraisal, in a lot in a gentrifying area or in a changing market area, a lot that may cost $2,000 now that I could buy and build something on, if it takes two or four years from now, that same lot could cost $25,000 and the project could not get done. And so that's the issue we're facing, in terms of the backlog. I call it project constipation. That's what we have, 270 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 project constipation.
Appropriate description. So is that to suggest, then, more appraisers and Act 94 practitioners would move this logjam in a substantial way?
That -- That is -- That is like the first thing that needs to be done, either move -- move people from PHDC or OHCD or RDA or NTI. They need to be moved into this process so that things can get done right away.
According to my records, right now there's only one person doing each, as well as I know for the appraisers they're being subcontracted out. But that process needs to be streamlined. It also needs to be speeded up.
My final question. Pre NTI, about how many homes did you do per year?
We could do 10 to 20 -- 271 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 20 a year, 10 to 25 a year. But we also were able -- Because of acquisition, we were able to do some huge projects with private developers. We did some stuff with Scott Mazo. We did a 44 unit, beautiful historic building, with Brad Ingerman. So the Partnership CDC has done 330 units of housing and invested $54 million in the community, mostly before NTI.
Thank you for your testimony. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you very much. We thank Mr. Stoddard again for his... Oh, gosh. How should I describe his presentation? Shocking, perhaps, is the best way to describe it. 272 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 But these are -- As many of you know, the Partnership CDC is in the Third District. And these are the reasons why we raise questions, why we came up with an amendment today, because of people like the Partnership CDC, who work so hard, who are heart -- in the heartland of the community, and who are stymied and can't move. I also felt compelled to say, wearing a PHA hat, that I'm sure they're glad to discuss their funding, and what works and what doesn't work for them. And certainly... And certainly, in terms of PHA's mission, I know that PHA serves many hats today. Their mission is -- They still deal with affordable housing. They are beginning to serve as developer in some ways. They are doing home ownership, as they are doing with the Lucien Blackwell Homes, half home ownership and half rental, as homes in Mill creek. But by the same token, I believe that -- I don't want PHA to become the 273 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 object of criticism, because as we know, they are the main focus in town. PHA has been moving because they work on this all the time. They work on housing all the time. They're always working on the next project. And they've learned to do it very, very well. So, here we are with our community groups, and we're fighting, and we're floundering. And we're trying to get the City and the NTI program to work with us. But PHA is very clear on its mission. They're always working. They're always pushing. And they have contacts all over the country. And so, we are grateful for what they have done, because they have still managed to keep -- During this period when other things aren't moving, PHA has been moving. Thank God for that. So, I wanted to say that in defense of PHA. And again, I wanted to thank Blaine Stoddard from Partnership CDC, for his commitment in this field, and all the 274 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 information he possesses, and for continuing to fight for housing, and to fight for improving the community. Thank you very much, Blaine. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Clarke.
Thank you. Councilwoman, I don't think you should feel the need to defend PHA because my statements weren't meant that way. It was just a simple fact that they are going in for a funding source that is directly competitive with other organizations. I spoke to Carl Green about this issue, and Carl clearly understands the issue. He has indicated that he is more than willing to adjust the strategy, to go for four percent credits because they, more so than any other organization, have the ability. Four percents are a little more expensive to do development deals, but if anybody has money to do it, it is PHA. I think they feel a void because we were having -- We had a situation where tax 275 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 credits that have been allocated for Philadelphia were not being utilized because we were not funding projects, we were not acquiring projects for a period of two years, to set that vacuum up, that PHA then saw the need. And it could have been at the direction and with the support of the Administration to go after those nine percents. But now that we're in a situation that those nine percents have become extremely valuable, we now have an acquisition strategy in place, to a degree. We have things in the pipeline. And we now need to adjust that strategy and have PHA go after the volume cap, and let the CDCs and the other for-profits go after the lucrative nine percents. And I think that we'll achieve a goal of providing both affordable housing because there is -- You know, PHA couldn't have a level of affordability in those units and still achieve the level of 276 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 support that we need for our CDCs. So I don't want you to think that, you know, it was said in criticism. It was just the numbers. The numbers are what they are. And Mr. Green has agreed that they probably should look at adjusting their strategy.
Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that issue. Thank you, Madam President.
Our next witness. MR. McPHERSON: Carolyn Sutton. (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Julie Camborn. (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Liz Ford.
Please identify yourself for the record. 277 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04
Yes. Good evening, everyone. My name is Liz Ford, and I am from the Fourth Councilmanic District, under Councilman Nutter. And I am here because I received information in the mail about reduction of money coming through the Fourth District. And I was very appalled because I haven't seen money coming through the Fourth District. And what I would like to do is just to give you a statement. Back in the year 18, ICAN was awarded $170,000 to do a very small project. We have never got that money. All right? And I don't know where the money went. Because we're looking at 29 and 30. And every time I would go forward for this money, it never was there or no one told me how to get to it. I was always going from this person to this person and then out the door. I don't understand that. I never received money awarded by the City Council of the 278 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 CDBG dollars. And I'm still looking forward to getting that. But in the meantime, my buildings, because it set so long, the buildings that was awarded to me by the City? That had been vacant for years before I got them, they starting to fall because I was not able to get through getting the small project put together. I needed the $170,000, according to the banks that I went to -- and I went to a couple of them, and also a credit union. But the credit unions did not go for this type of arrangement. So I found that out earlier. But the two banks, they still sitting there holding onto my proposal because the City is not releasing that $170,000. The banks are Citizen and First Union. And I'm appalled to that. And I don't understand why. And as far as NTI is concerned, I'd like NTI to realize that Haddington goes all the way to 63rd Street. It doesn't 279 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 stop at 60th Street. It seems like when we find out things, we always find out late; and we are not included into any of the things that we -- I tried to get from NTI. I called them. They ignored all of my attempts to contact them. All right. So I just stopped. Because the more you try to get information from people, the angrier they get, and then they push back more. I don't want that, because my community is very, very important to me. I live and I also work in that area. All right? And I like to see it upgraded. Excuse me. The other thing, too, I guess I'm one of those community CDCs that Councilwoman Brown was talking about, that seem to fall through the cracks. And I don't understand why. We've been working very hard trying to do things, and keep that office open, and community service. 280 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Now, we have serviced a lot of people without money, and that's very difficult, very, very difficult. Couple of things, that -- at the time that could have been resolved. And I don't know why I have not gotten a Resolution on it. We was given a building on 6002 Girard Avenue, to take it, to rehab it. And we asked them for that building because we were going to put drama and other things in that building for the community. Always trying to do things for the children, because we saw there was a need for that. This building was taken away. After we had put $10,000 into this building, it was taken away, without due cause. I'm still trying to get the written... why it was taken away. I don't understand that either. But on a good note, ICAN has been servicing this community because we been in this neighborhood since 1985, '86. The early 1990s, what we tried to do was create 281 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 a building -- mid 1990s, rather. I'm sorry -- A building that would house a fun or entertainment. So everything has started to where I can not get resources. Councilman Nutter has allowed us to do certain things, and I appreciate that. But the building will be called The Way Kids Rule. It will be on 60th and Vine. And the other thing, too, is that I'm really surprised that... And I have documentations here that I'm going to give you, if you don't mind.
I just don't want to go through the whole reading thing. so I just want to make you aware that certain things are not happening. All right. And I'm right there in the middle of the Haddington area. And I've been there, been the CDC for the longest. I'm probably the longest running CDC in that area, that has not been recognized. And I really don't appreciate that, after the long work that we've tried to do. We all are volunteers. And there's 282 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 nothing wrong with volunteers because we still get work done. I guess what I'm sort of frustrated to a point where, when you go out and you try to reach the people that you want to reach, and you get ignored, and you don't get any reply, and then sitting there wondering what's going on and what's happening. And I would like to get my 6002 Girard Avenue back, so I can put the drama productions and whatnot that we wanted to put in the first place. I understand the 6002 Girard Avenue was given to somebody else, but I understand he gave the building back. I don't know what went on. But I know that ICAN does not have that building. And the buildings that we do have are crumbling because I never got my $170,000, even to get that small, very small project started. I thank you for listening. And I'm hoping that I get some response or reply so 283 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 that I can move on with what we're trying to do in our building.
Thank you. I think Pat Smith is still here. And perhaps she could... She could certainly be of assistance to you in telling you where that money is.
Well, the other thing is that the buildings that they're getting ready to tear down on Vine Street, when I looked at it, it looked like it wasn't ready to be torn down. But the buildings we requested to be torn down for the project, for The Way Kids Rule building, it's still sitting there. It's been sitting there over 30 years. We trying to get those buildings torn down. 6050 Vine Street and 6052 Vine Street we purchased, because for this project, for the children and the neighborhood? We purchased 6058 Vine Street in order to make this project come alive. We need those two buildings 284 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 demolished. And I've been trying to get them demolished for the past three, four years. We need them demolished so we can move on with this project. I thank you for listening, and have a good day.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next witness. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is Johnny Tobin. (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Robert... I'm sorry. Robert Brasswell. Is Johnny Tobin here? I'm sorry.
No. 18 MR. McPHERSON: No? Okay. Stephen Coughman. (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Jihad Ali.
Good evening, Council Chair. I have some -- a prepared testimony 285 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 for some of the Council people that...
That would be wonderful. I think you can proceed while they're being circulated.
Thank you, Councilwoman. My name is Jihad Ali. And I'm a founding member of the African American Contractors Roundtable Council, a non-profit organization of African American and Hispanic contractors who have advocated for the inclusion of disadvantaged African American and Hispanic contractors in the City of Philadelphia construction industry. I want to thank this Honorable Council for this opportunity to comment on this important issue, and I commend you for providing ordinary citizens the opportunity to describe to you the difficulty for minorities to get into the construction work or construction contracts in the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. I will not belabor these hearings with a lot of details because many others have concerns about these matters have 286 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 already provided details in previous testimony. However, I do want to emphasize that there has been and continues to be a systematic and successful program of denying access to records and contracts under the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. What is most disheartening is that the City and other agencies designated to assure that there is minority participation in the awarding of contracts, subcontracts, and man hours employed on projects funded by tax dollars, have failed to carry out their responsibility, and in some cases have been complicit in seeing that only a select few minorities get work, and place unauthorized organizations as brokers of contracts. Agencies like NTI have the responsibility to establish policies and procedures which govern the inclusion of minority business in NTI projects, policies and procedures of the NTI which govern 287 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 prime contractors and their selection of minority businesses as subcontractors, policies and procedures of the NTI which governs the implementation of the use of all legally permissible means of fostering the award of prime contracts to minority businesses such as joint ventures, policies and procedures of the NTI governing the inclusion of minority businesses on solicitation lists, policies and procedures on having transparency on subconsultants and contracts awarded by the NTI. According to the 2000 Census, the City population is 43 percent African American, 8 percent Hispanic, 2 percent Asian, and 45 percent white. Despite these numbers, the practice of discrimination continues. No single organization, other than this Council, represents all of the City of Philadelphia citizens. I am aware that the NTI awarded a contract to the African American Chamber of Commerce to help newly formed emerging 288 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 contractors enter the construction industry. We have repeatedly requested copies of all proposals and documentation forms which must be completed by an organization such as ours, in order to receive funding in an amount as authorized for the African American Chamber of Commerce. In conclusion, this Honorable Council is the only organization that has the responsibility of all of its citizens. If we want to seriously find a solution to the patterns of discrimination against African American and Latino contractors and workers, there must be more direct oversight by this Council. Council must have adequate reporting and monitoring system in place that will allow it to oversee how City construction dollars are being spent. This is the only way to reduce the opportunity for corruption, nepotistic employment practices, inefficiencies, and systematic discrimination. 289 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 While the courts have held that quotas in and of themselves to be unconstitutional, there would be nothing illegal about this Council assuring that City agencies or programs like NTI improve the use of minority contractors by at least one hundred percent each year over the next four years. I'd like to make a few comments about some of the testimony that I heard earlier on the Emerging Contractors Program.
Now, as an individual that's been involved in construction -- commercial unionized construction for years in this 17 City, has been a strong advocate on most of 18 the demonstrations in this City concerning 19 the inclusion of African Americans, one 20 thing is, I have a feeling, from being on the street, that most of the community people really believe that Council wants to do the right thing. The problem happens between this Council and the programs that are in place, 290 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 and the oversight that doesn't occur once programs are funded. If we look at -- If we look at -- If we -- If the question is, is the emerging contractors successful, let's look at it from this perspective. I think Miss Smith said -- she testified that there was candidates that 10 went through training. 11 What she didn't say was each one of 12 those candidates go for a total of 23 hours 13 a week in training. They go Monday through 14 Friday, I believe, from the hours of 6:00 15 to 11:00, three nights a week, and they go 16 one day from 8:00 to 4:00. 17 For a total of eight weeks, that's a 18 total of 184 man hours or woman hours. If 19 we do that -- If we add another 40 hours, 20 because I believe her testimony was that they are given some on-site demolition to occur. And if we assume that they do 40 hours, that would be a total of 224 hours maximum that each one of these candidates would do in order to enter this industry, 291 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 for a total times would be 4,080 hours. Now, if we're saying that this program is going to empower somebody for only 224 man hours of instruction, it's going to put them in a competitive position with some of these established businesses, it's not going to happen. I know people that have been in business for years. They have all 11 experience necessary. They know all the 12 intricacies of construction. They know all 13 about safety. They know all about the 14 unions, which is not even discussed at this 15 table at this time. So we know that that's 16 an uphill battle. 17 What I think is happening is, we 18 have a few people that are really taking 19 advantage of the desire of this Council to 20 do something for disadvantaged men and women, and to try to do something during your watch to make a difference for the youth out there that's looking for direction. But what we really need, what 292 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Council -- It should be so. When they come in front of this committee, you should drive them really very hard, to find out how are they performing, because in construction, like any business, it's the bottom line. What Miss Smith didn't testify to was, what is the cost -- how much have they funded, this Emerging Contractors Program? And if we do basic math, we said it was $400,000. Divide that by the 4,080 hours. We would say that's $89 an hour and some change for instruction. That money could be spent in a better way. One of the main problems that Emerging Contractors Program had was the bonding. Those of you in Council that are not even contractors, you're aware of what bonding is. Now, when this program was -- When the inception of this program happened, the Contractors Roundtable which were -- at least at the time, was invited to give some comment on that program, we had a question 293 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 about the fact that how would startup businesses going to go from nothing to something overnight, with no experience and get bonding? Let alone not even have the union agreements. When that was -- We said, well, wouldn't it be a better suggestion, like Councilman Clarke had had... What about the exiting businesses that are out there, the disadvantaged businesses, like Councilman Cohen said? What about those businesses been struggling for years to make it? Let's 15 partner them with some of these emergent 16 people. It seemed like a win situation. 17 It was shot down. Now here we are a 18 year later.
We can always say that they've 19 had three contractors that actually 20 graduated from the program that are participating in contracts. And I think maybe one contractor is at least bidding. So, in terms of if we -- If the question is is the Emerging Contractors Program a success, it depends on how we 294 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 define success. If success is to sell false hopes, it's a success. If success is to fill up classrooms and get people in there, it's a success. If we look at what is the bottom line, if they have produced any contractors that are even going to compete with firms that have been in business for years, 11 the answer is no, it's not a success. 12 Now, we can't -- We don't have -- I 13 don't have time to waist, and I'm sure this 14 Council doesn't. We need to put all our 15 minds together because no one of us is as 16 smart as all of us. 17 If we put our minds together, we can 18 beat this thing. This thing about 19 exclusion for minority contractors is 20 really -- it's really a plain argument. And all we have to do is put our minds together and find a solution. But I ask this Council to be more -- more vigilant on how these monies are spent. Make people more accountable. 295 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Don't go by the fact when people come up to talk programs. You have to look at the basics. And if we go back in time and look at how this program was structured, we would see that it was structured from a bad foundation. But in Pat Smith and them's defense, they have one component of this program that was really a success. And that was the DAP program. Because the DAP program is only -- is the only key that is going to allow these disadvantaged young men and women to enter into these construction trades, because we haven't even begun to talk about the 16 trades, when it really -- in effect, are really over 60 union locals that have 80,000 men and women employed in those trades. Receipts of last year was $153 million. Currently all those unions currently have in the bank $50 million ready to defend any challenge on their turf. 296 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 We just saw that this week where they kicked MTV out of town. So, not even looking at that, we need to go back to the drawing board, make Miss Smith and them more accountable on this Emerging Contractors' program. One thing I would like to close in saying is, we asked to be a part of the NTI. Now, sometimes when Council is putting money out, different agencies, they will do outreach. And NTI did do outreach. Miss Smith and them had a meeting -- I think it was Councilwoman Miller said there was a meeting down in the Mayor's office which I attended. We talked to the Director and some other people from Hill International. And we asked for -- We asked for another dialogue with them so we could get more established guys involved. We were told someone at Hill that the only way that we could get more established contractors involved was they had to be in the Emerging Contractors Program. 297 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Now, let's think about that. We're talking about businesses that are established telling them to go to class? And I've been in meetings with guys that have been very angry because somebody's telling them to go back to class. And the question that they -- The answer was always, I need contracts. So we need you, the members of Council, that are concerned like we are, to help us. We need you to make Pat Smith and her -- Because, you know, the buck really should stop with Miss Smith. She says she can do something, but she should be made to do it. Because we can not have people who we're paying millions of dollars to, and spending a lot of money on salaries. They have to be made accountable. They should be -- They should be forced to walk in West Philly, North Philly, South Philly and talk to some of those young people on those streets that don't have any hope in the world. 298 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 So, I just really need you to help us.
Because when it's all said and done, when I look at my children, I want to say I tried. So I'm down here today to try to get you to make them reconsider their funding of the Emerging Contractors Program, and make them look at helping more established contractors. Thank you for your time. ).
Thank you. Councilwoman Blackwell, your light is on.
I only wanted to say thank you to Mr. Ali. I've heard him say parts of these remarks before. I know he's committed. And it's an example. My goodness, we're talking today about how NTI is stalled, but Mr. Ali's testimony just indicates how far-reaching it is. And it's certainly unfair. I get a lot of pressure. I've had this discussion 299 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 with many people with regard to people in neighborhoods and minorities in neighborhoods saying they're not included, and what's going on, and what are we as City officials doing? I mean, it's just concerns. And the questions are absolutely legitimate. And certainly we all need to work closer with him, and certainly have him not feel that he's alone in this struggle, because it's not. It's all of us. We are -- We are -- We are our City. We're representatives of certainly neighborhoods. But Mr. Ali has aptly, justly, succinctly stated the issue. And certainly we all need to work more closely with him. And thank you very much.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you, Mr. Ali for coming in. We've had several 300 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 conversations about this stuff. It's the more things change, the more things stay the same. And it's been year after year after year for at least the last 30 years of trying to get minority participation in any of the work on the City. I won't be critical of the emerging program because I don't know too much about it. But whenever we come to the table and ask for the participation of a disadvantaged group, then they get into a program. And they never get out of the program to participate in the actual work. So by the time they finish the program, NTI will be over and nobody will have participated. It's just like trying -- When we had the hearings on the minority participation program, in terms of employment. They set up a program where the kids go into an apprenticeship program. They never get out of the program, so they never 301 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 get in the work. You never know how many African Americans or other minorities are in these unions. And so it's just always a program. A program may be nice, but I do not think that they should -- if a qualified contractor wants to participate in that NTI program, they should not be sent to a training program, because I do know there are many guys who are around here who have the ability and the capability. The one thing that we ought to look at -- and I don't know how we do that -- that is an obstacle that is always going to be an obstacle -- has been forever is the bonding issue. But there are ways that they can do that, and they will listen to them. All kinds of barriers are put up so that there will not be any participation. It is an economic force, economic enslavement. And it's not right. And I don't -- And I hope that what he said about steering someone who wants to do work in the NTI program, 302 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 who has the capability of doing it, certainly has to be the financial capability of doing it. That does not happen. And they have to go on some program. Because they'll never get out of the program.
Mr. Ali, thank you very much. I'm sorry. You did say you have what, years of experience? 12
I have 20 years in the 13 construction industry. And as the 14 Councilwoman said, I am not alone. But I 15 am a member of an association, and we have 16 35 members. And some of our members have 17 bonds. So the fact that we're not included 18 in this program, it's just a bad mistake. 19
Well, when 20 you say you're not included in the program, don't they put out RFPs? Do you apply?
Well, actually, in the Emerging Contractors Program, no, that no 24 RFPs were put out. And I think that's an interesting 303 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 point, because the Council, when we -- in terms of the Emerging Contractors Program and participating in that, no RFPs were put out. But I think Council really needs to look at how that was structured and the structure of that whole program. You have a responsibility to look at the details. My mother always said the devil is in the details. And we have to look at the details.
So Pat can answer also, she mentioned earlier that they were going to put smaller bid packages together. Because the only way you're going to develop a small business is to put it in a venue, whether it's minority or any other small business, is to put it in a venue where they can compete. They'll never be able to compete with the big guys. So, the packages have to be in -- And I think what Councilman Goode was trying to state this morning, well, we 304 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 control the money. And it's a special program we have. We write the rules. And the people have to follow the rules or they don't participate. There's no law saying that it has to be $21,000. We'll say we'll give you $10,000 for this building. Here's the specification. I bet they would do the work. Same thing with putting these small packages together. We have put smaller packages together, gotten more -- smaller businesses to help participate. Then we would be looking at this sheet (Indicating). It wouldn't look like this (Indicating). See, because people could be working throughout the City. You know, my demolition in my District is just going to start in July, two years later, but it could have started with the other demolition. Here, it's completed. But I'm way back here (Indicating). Why couldn't we all have been on the same track? If you 305 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 look at the program in a way that we could have involved more smaller businesses to do the demolition, and then we wouldn't -- it wouldn't look like this (Indicating).
I just wanted to just hopefully clarify a couple of points. I didn't want Mr. Ali to go away to think that the only way he could -- businesses can participate is through the Emerging Contractors Program. We have in the past put out smaller bid packages which are publicly bidded.
And we've been trying to, you know, do community outreach to let people know about that. All of our bid packages are posted. We're putting out even more. For example, we experimented in the Tioga bid package with both small and large bid packages. But what happened was, I believe, most contractors bidded them together, as opposed to separately. We crossed Greenwich was an example 306 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 of an property bid package, and we've had some other, East Germantown, some smaller bid packages. One of the -- the feedback that we're getting, I think it goes back to the performance bond issue. And what we're looking at now is, how can we in the City -- because look -- use a different type of surety bond instead of our traditional one. When we looked -- And we've started looking at other jurisdictions. And different cities do different things. But the Law Department is looking at that. And what we've committed to is to begin, was to resolve the surety bond issue, because I don't want small packages to go out in pairs --
-- because of the surety bond issues. We wanted to start rolling out at least twice a month small bid packages, not more than six. And I believe we've been talking about that. 307 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04
Yeah, but, see, the thing is, it's not just that we have to talk about it. We really have to look at it from a business perspective. And the City can't really allow theirselves -- I don't know if you were here when we had the Crosen (phonetic) decision. But one of the things that occurred during the Crosen decision was, we had the General Building Contractors Association which originally was known as Amassive (phonetic) Builders Association Of Philadelphia, which incidentally was formed in 1841. 1944 they changed the name to the General Building Contractors Association. They are the dominant contractors organization in the City. One thing that we learned from the Crosen decision was that they allowed the City to make some steps to try to help disadvantaged businesses. And when the market went down, they sued, and they successfully won their suit, along with 308 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 attorney privileges. So what I'm saying that to say is, whatever you come up with, it's going to have to be a fair business model, because it's going to have to be fair across the board, because there will be an adversary to spring right on you. And it's not going to -- Even if you had a business opportunity for one firm to participate, you can not get around that surety bonding. But what would be better for us to work on is joint ventures. It's accessible across the board. But we need people in power, positions of authority, to at least put that on the table because we're really shooting ourselves in the foot. With a joint venture, we're assuring a new firm with an established firm that it's a win for everybody, and there's guidance for the new firm, because nobody can get in construction and walk down that path. 309 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Imagine it from your perspective. How could somebody have 224 hours worth of political training and come out and be the Council President or a Council person? It just couldn't be done. So it's the same thing in business. All we needed -- But it was said to us that we could only be participating. And I don't want to name the fellow's name now, but I'll tell you at the end of the meeting, that he told me the only way we could participate, because they told him that it had to come from the Chamber. And that was a slap in the face to everybody that's been struggling. Look: We're all in this thing together. But as I said earlier, no one of us is as smart as all of us. And if we put all our minds, then all this stuff is easy. The unions... The only reason why the unions are dominant is because they're organized. That's it. There's no rocket science in none of those unions, none of them. And you know them only like I know 310 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 them. But the problem is, they're organized. And as long as you're organized, you can win every time. So that's really all we need to be a part of.
Thank you, Mr. Ali. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo for a point of order.
You know, it's interesting you're bringing up these performance bond issues. I recently talked to a vendor that told me that he sells a significant amount of vehicles to the City of Philadelphia each year. And he indicated that because of the significant requirements for these bonds, that it's adding approximately three to four hundred dollars to the cost of every vehicle. See, it's so unrealistic, and it's so unnecessary, that I believe the Procurement Department -- And, Pat, you're 311 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 shaking your head, so you must know what I'm talking about here, because I believe we're talking about the same performance bond --
-- no matter whether it's for what you're doing or other commodities that the City purchases. So if we are requiring these vendors to come up with these security bonds, and it costs the City more than necessary, something -- that whole thing has to be revamped. The vendor eventually called me back and said that the Procurement Commissioner said that it was an issue that was a City Charter issue that needed to be dealt with on the ballot.
I mean, I don't pretend to know all the law on that. But obviously it's costing the City a lot of extra money. And maybe it really needs to 312 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 be reviewed and looked at very, very... very hard.
I know there have been some changes with what they call the small purchases. It probably wouldn't apply to that. That, I think, just passed a Charter. So they're putting regulations into that. But that deals with the purchase of goods versus demolition construction. And some people argue the purchase of goods are less risky and different. But we are looking at other... what the private industry does, like everyone talks about. The AIA surety form. We're looking at some of the other jurisdictions, and look at what their bonding requirements are, to see if we can come up with something that's just much more reasonable, particularly for smaller bid packages, where I think one could argue there is a lesser financial risk because of the size of the package. We wouldn't do it for the mega ones, but then that's how we 313 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 can begin to lower some of the barriers that we've --
It's almost like riding a car, because just like in the City, bonding is almost -- is insurance. So it's insurance that the project is going to be done in a safe manner and nobody's going to get hurt. It is insurance. It's just like in the City of Philadelphia in construction, it's -- it's -- it's ingrained in the industry. It's not going to change in this lifetime because it's been like that for three lifetimes. But the thing is, we just need to be able to get maybe lower levels of insurance. But the fact for Emerging Contractors are, if you're not qualified, you're not going to get that insurance. And you can't get qualified unless you have 314 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 experience. So they're running around in a treadmill. They're never going to get to the next point unless they do a joint venture. And that's just really a concept thing, because it's really, do I want my name to be on the contract by myself or do I want to share it with Miss Smith? What's the difference? At the end of the day, we're still going to make money and we're going to move on. We don't always have to be married together. But as long as we move to a point where I can step off, then later on I'll be fine. And that's what we have to keep in mind. I'd like to thank you for my time.
Thank you. I believe Councilman Nutter would like to be recognized.
I would, Madam President, but it's solely for the purpose of asking Miss Smith possibly three questions. She doesn't necessarily have to 315 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 give answers to at least two of them. One I do need an answer on, but I don't know whether...
It is not regarding his testimony, so I don't want to tread on another member's time. Lost track of where we are.
How many more witnesses do we have? MR. McPHERSON: We have one more witness, that I'm aware of. Rosemary Cubis.
Good evening. My name is Rosemary Cubis, and I live in the Twelfth... in the Seventh -- in the Seventh District, 19th Ward, 12th Division. And the reason I'm here today -- and 316 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 I thank you very much for staying this late -- we're tired; you're more tired than we are -- is because after hearing all this testimony, we have experienced the City's anti-blight program as government sponsored terrorism in my area. And I want to make that real clear. All the people who spoke about the need to tear down dangerous buildings makes it real clear that the monies that have been allocated by this City Council in other areas are very necessary for those buildings. But before you we have signs. We have placards here that you can all not see, but we can make available to Council that shows... You can take it around... that shows --
All right. That's great. We have two. This one that you're going to see is the street of Bodine Street 317 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 that has been memorialized in the City Paper with a six-page investigation, that included reports from HUD siting the City on misconduct. Bodine people are all Spanish speaking. They were forced out by the City. The City has made our neighborhood blighted. Those of us who live there have lifted up our neighborhood from blight. We had abandoned buildings. We had garbage strewn lots. We had drug traffic. We had total disregard for our neighborhoods. We brought it back. Over the 31 years that I live in my house, I've seen many efforts. We have brought it back from blight. Technically, unofficially, we are now the boundary of Northern Liberties. The houses in our area on that Bodine Street, they were offered $20,000. Last May of 2003 the Redevelopment Authority said that it would -- projected that it would take $29.8 million to use eminent 318 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 domain, including relocation for 218 families. If you do the math that's, $136,000 per family. The families on Bodine were offered $20,000. The subsequent families in the takings that the City is using for eminent domain are 12,000, 15,000. Now, you tell me where people can move with these prices. What's not taken into account is the years of making those neighborhood safe. A house is not a neighborhood. A house is not a home. We made those neighborhoods safe. I am not moving from my house which you're seeing. My house is the one with the mural. The other houses in that chart are Bodine Street which the City has blighted. And I say that very clearly. Those homes were in good shape. The gardens were beautiful. The City forced those people to move in the way that I'll explain. You get a letter from the City. And the City says we 319 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 are -- a very confusing letter to Spanish speaking people. We are interested possibly in your house. Do not pay rent. If you pay rent, keep paying it. Do not move, and have 90 days to move. These are the letters that we have received in our neighborhood. People were totally intimidated on Bodine. So that's the term that I use: They were forced. And that's one of the points of government sponsored terrorism. That's how it feels. Now, what we're here today is that the budget for demolition has been doubled. From million projected, it is now 17 projected for 53 million. 18 We think that those abandoned 19 properties that people sat here time after 20 time speaking about, that are in such bad 21 condition, need to be demolished. 22 The minority contractors fairly 23 should have those demolitions, but they 24 shouldn't be in areas of our community that 25 are rehabbable. 320 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Specifically, these signs went up last week. The building that you're looking at now in that orange chart -- we made it almost the same color -- is a church that had this tagged on it. The imminently dangerous has been crossed out. And what's put on there is unsafe. We have other signs where imminently dangerous was crossed out and nothing was put. These are buildings that... The one there is rehabbed. It's a church inside where we'll be having our community meeting to talk about this, and what the City's doing to us. We're trying to fix our neighborhood. We have fixed it. Bodine has no remedy now. But this is what's happening to us. The takings through NTI on my block were attempted. 2163 North 2nd Street, and 2153, and all the property in between, the City tried to take it through NTI last June. 321 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 We came. We testified that those properties were owned, thriving, lived in. One was a business. And the City had no 5 business taking it. And then they said -- The City told us that it was a mistake. Well, they couldn't get our land that way, so then they're going this route. This is on an adjacent building.
The Councilman, I believe, tried to make an inquiry as to why this was happening. And on the ones on 2nd Street he could find no answer. These are rehabbed.
You're talking about the sign that's on the church.
I'm talking about the sign that's on the church and the sign that's on the PHA house which has minor fire and smoke damage that we've been waiting to be repaired. And the problem is 322 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 we have no control over PHA. And the typical time line is 90 days. Now, any of you who know PHA, how do you expect that we'll be able to put pressure on PHA to do something in 90 days that they haven't done in a year? We are experiencing this blight removal as terrorism. Our neighborhoods are being torn apart. And we don't appreciate it. You need the money in West Philly for demolition of housing that is dangerous. You need to get it. And you need to get it out of our neighborhood. We don't need the green grass, if that's what NTI represents for us. We need housing. And we need you to leave us alone. We are rehabbing our homes. And these are poor people we're talking about, people on fixed incomes, minority people, Spanish speaking people, senior people, women. And what we're asking is that money 323 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 not be augmented for demolition. Use the money that was allocated and parcel it out to the areas that are imminently dangerous, not like this where imminently dangerous is crossed out. So, we'd like the money not increased, and we'd like NTI or whatever the blight program is called now or later, to leave our neighborhood alone.
We'd like a response from NTI because this is from L & I, and this is through another channel. Since they couldn't get it through NTI, in terms of buildings that were right on my block, now this is the new -- there were ten teams in our area slapping these on indiscriminately. When we saw it slapped on the church, we said this is --
Three. But I did want to talk about the process. When we go out and inspect, and we find any kind of condition that constitutes a notice violation, we put up a sign. That sign does not mean the building will be demolished. The next step -- And many of you who have been part of this process -- is getting together and going through all the violations. We do it in the field. We have photographs. And then the ones that are imminently dangerous are then listed as part of the proposed bid package. Then that in turn is submitted to City Council for review and approval. But any time inspectors from the City are out in the field, and they find a condition that's a violation, they do put the notices on. And even if a building is intact; you know, it's a vacant property, it still presents, you know, a nuisance in the sense of, if somebody were to go into 325 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 the property they can hurt themselves. So that's been the basic process. I can't speak to the church or the two properties there, but we can -- you know, I can get the addresses and give you the violations to let you know why they were cited, and whether or not -- I don't know -- they're being proposed for any bid package. But there's several steps after we do the notices.
Councilman... President Verna, the reason that we're so worried is, we have had the experience where our neighbors had bought a house on Sheriff sale to rehab on the 2200 block of Palethorp. And they were rehabbing it and fixing it. And they got -- A neighbor came and said, the wrecking ball is knocking down the house that you've put on a roof. And you have the windows. And we have proof and we have documentation. And so, therefore, we don't take these signs lightly, because we have 326 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 the experience, as I said -- and I used it very carefully, government sponsored terrorism. That is how we're experiencing this blight program. We're here before you time after time just defending what we have, and what we've been able to build over the years. That is outrageous, that when all this blight exists, we have to sit here before you just defending what we ourselves have improved. That's outrageous. And that's why we're saying that this government is doing the citizens on my block and neighboring blocks very, very great harm. And we want to know where the -- where the money is going. $136,000 it averages out per family for those 218 families for $29.8 million. Check May of last year Daily News. Where is that money going? It's not going to the residents. So in whose pockets and in which processes and for whose salaries are those going? 327 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 We're just defending ourselves from being wiped out. And instead, we hear all these people that are desperately in need of having housing torn down, while we're basically trying to keep ours together. We ask this Council to really look at this very carefully because this is -- this needs more -- this needs very clear scrutiny from as many levels of the government and of the people as possible. Because there's something very wrong here. And I think another sign that we'll have to create is lies. In other words, we have to say it that way, because it's impossible that everything you've been told is in place is in place, and yet these things are happening.
Hi. My name is Elizabeth Sagarra. I'm from the Citywide Coalition to saving my home. I was here last week hearing John Street speak. And there were a lot of people here for the same problem, people that want to keep their home. People are 328 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 homeless. And a lot of them were homeless. All this money is given for demolition, but I don't hear nothing about giving homes to homeless people or helping minority people. This increase of demolition, we don't need it. What we need is more homes rehash and more homes given to people that needs it. There's too many people here homeless. And NTI is making me a homeless person because they're trying to destroy a property next door to my home. And they -- And if they knock down that home, it's going to damage my property. And that's going to leave me to move. NTI is making people more homeless. They are not doing their homework. They're not going -- They're looking at the building and placing papers on top of them. I seen it with my own eyes. March 11, '04, when they put this on my neighbor's house, I seen them just look 329 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 at the building. They parked their car and looked at it, and they put this right on it. That's all I seen. They didn't go in the building. They didn't see nothing. That building is not falling. I don't know what's going on, but what I'm realizing is, there's more homes needs to be fixed than taken down. And we have to stop this, because a lot of people in another five or six years at NTI can taking homes off of people, there's going to be more homeless people living in Philadelphia. We all going to be poor. And I'm poor already. NTI is going make me poorer. I'm a homeowner. They're taking homeowners and making them into renters. That's making those people more poor. This man Don Ramone (phonetic) on Bodine Street owned his own home for 40 years. And NTI just came and took it off of him. Now he has to rent a home to live? That -- That... And you have to really, really, really to not increase -- I'm 330 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 begging you, please, help us. Don't make us homeless. Don't make these poor people more poor. We want -- We want to keep our home. We want to raise our children there. We want to keep our community together. It's the fiber. It's not the home. It's the fiber and the -- and the unity that we have in our community.
We have one more person. We gave you a bird's eye view of our area but it's happening all over the City. We didn't know that this hearing was happening. And therefore, we didn't have a prepared speech or we would have been.
You're doing quite well without one, believe me. Good evening. Please identify yourself.
Yes. My name is 331 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Delcina W. Wilson. I am from the Park Side area of the City. And my concerns are some of the same concerns that have been voiced here earlier today. I would like to see more cooperation between the entities that are involved in the demolition of the properties and the community because that's essential. I would like to see some stringent policing of the L & I process because my experience with them has been that they maker erroneous demolitions. I know that personally, you know, firsthand. There should be no way that L & I should go out and knock down a building that is not supposed to be knocked down. They have schematics. They have maps. So if they're not doing their homework on that end, there are other areas that can transpire. I feel the NTI initiative, their purpose is a good one, and there is a lot of blight in the City that needs to be eliminated. 332 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 However, we do have sound structures in our area. And some of those structures can more than -- can more than sustain rehabilitation. Some of them are imminently dangerous, and I can, you know, coincide with the fact that they should be eliminated. But the ones that are sound in structure should be given a chance to live again. All areas of the City should be given the same chance. However, Park Side with it's historic background, being the area where the first World's Fair was held, being the area where the blue collar workers from the Pennsylvania Railroad once resided in the interior streets. I think that that should definitely be given some consideration, as well as other areas in the City. So, the buildings that we can save, let's try to save them. I understand the continuous parcel element of development because it's easier to get continuous parcels rather than to 333 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 get scattered sites, but let's have some consideration for the integrity of the neighborhood. That's my opinion.
We ask money to go into Basic Systems Repair instead of demolition. And the demolition money that exists, we ask that it be equally shared, especially in areas that desperately need it, like the ones that testified today. But leave us alone. We've done our own. Stop tearing down our buildings. We beg you to help us stop this, because this is terrorism and we don't understand why. Thank you.
You're welcome. Thank you for your patience. Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I will be very brief. If I could just have Miss Smith back, I just need to put a couple questions on the record.
334 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 Councilman, we still have one more witness. I'm sorry. Sir, would you please approach the witness table. Identify yourself.
Thank you. Good evening, Council President, Councilman, and people in the audience. My name is Robert Lattimore. This is my wife, Barbara. For over 42 years we've been together. We had a business. We never been on any assistance in our life. We stayed in business for 30 years. I'm sure some of the Council people heard of me because I been here before. My wife and I about a month ago, one after the other, just went into the hospital. We just got out. So if you see me wobbly, then you'll know why. I'm here to protect my family. I was in business, like I said, for 30 years in the -- in the South Philadelphia area. Redevelopment after the Martin Luther King Housing Projects was imploded, 335 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 and we were on the other side of the street. They came in and they... through eminent domain they took six of our properties. Mind you, we was in business. They put us out of business. We are now on assistance. We owned six -- We owned eight properties at the time. Now we are struggling to survive. This is not what the RDA or NTI really wanted to happen to any family. I'm here because it's been a long fight for my family. Five years exactly from '99 we came here. Council passed a resolution that if anyone wanted their properties, they could get them. Every time I went to get my properties, I was discarded. I had -- I told Redevelopment that I would build new if I had to. I had no 22 mortgages on my properties. I had --
Did they take your properties through a condemnation or did they demolish them?
No. My properties was not unsafe. I had -- was in the development process myself. I had one of my buildings extended with cinder block, intended to make three apartments out of that one. Altogether, if completed, we would have had apartments, five stores, and a 16 corporation. We never got the opportunity to complete what we was in. Now, and I'm -- Every time I came to City Council I was kind of brushed aside because the Councilperson that I was addressing didn't want to hear that. So I'm here now, me and my wife, to ask whatever Councilperson -- whoever Councilperson for help. Now, so far Redevelopment has taken 337 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 and tore down two of my properties and they built on them. I've never signed any agreements with them. They just went on and did what they had to do -- what they wanted to do. I told them that I was going to build. They went on and tore down my business property and other properties along with that. There's two left. And I'm still fighting maybe to get those two back and maybe make an agreement with the developers. But it seemed that every time I tried to --
I think -- Miss Smith is here. I see she's approaching the table.
I've asked Miss Califano to follow up. I'm sorry, sir. I'm going to ask Miss Califano to follow up. I know you mentioned as part of the Martin Luther King Development, so it kind of predates our involvement. But she will -- We can get the 338 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 property addresses, and just find out what the status, if money was paid into court, that type of thing.
Money was never paid. I didn't accept it. I had six -- All of my properties was commercial: Apartments, business, and I was developing all of my properties. Redevelopment took my properties and offered me -- And mind you, this is in South Central City. They offered me for six properties $73,500. And one of my properties in that area was worth at least a couple of hundred thousand dollars. But right now we are still suffering as a family unnecessarily. The houses in that area are going like wildfire for $150,000 up. And I'm saying, all I wanted to do was upgrade my community and uplift it. That's what I did for 30 years in that community and longer. But no one would listen to me, no 339 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 one. And I'm here now to... well, to ask your assistance, to ask your help.
Thank you. At this time the Chair recognizes Mr. Ramos.
I'm sorry, Madam President. I had pressed that button and pressed it back off earlier. My question was for Pat Smith.
Okay. We'll wait. All right, sir. Miss Califano is here. If you sit with her, give her the addresses in question, she will check into this, and try to be of assistance to you, and see what we can do to help you.
Thank you. Thank you very much. 340 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04
Just one more. Just one more. The harm that the taking has put on my family is devastating. And I want to put that on record, because any other person would have did something a little different -- and I just wanted to say that -- for his family, the taking from his family. I'm going about this in the way I believe God wanting me to deal with this. And I'm telling you, I will not stand for the taking of something we worked over 30 years to build. Although they were not finished, completed, I bet in '60... it could have been another six months, we would have had things completed. But I say again, I just want the Council people to hear me. And if anyone out there want to reach out, then I'll appreciate that.
Thank you 341 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 very much. Miss Califano, why don't you raise your hand so the gentleman will know who you are.
Okay. Miss Smith, do you want to take the table, please. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam President. I'll be very brief. Miss Smith, I have a couple questions that I don't need an answer right now, except for one. First, can you provide to us a side by side breakdown by Councilmanic District, taking the FY'04 budget that we approved, the dollars that were approved, and the anticipated number of demolitions that were in Resolution 030306 compared to year-to-date by Councilmanic District the dollars spent, the number of demolitions that actually took place. One of the things I'm trying to 342 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 understand is, it appears that dollars may have been moved around within the total of the $19.6 million that you had. I take it you could have even possibly spent beyond that. And I'm trying to understand how the dollars moved around, and what it means to have a budget by item by District, and how anything can happen to it. Second is, I need you to tell us how much of the NTI money is left.
-- and how much is left in each of the categories. Lastly, we've had some discussion. What I'm taking out of our discussion is, 343 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 in terms of -- You're going to come back with a proposed amendment different than the proposed amendment that's in the Resolution for today, possibly different than what's in your testimony. May or may not be. But you shared with me a figure for the Fourth District of $3,362,696.
What I need to understand is, does that then represent a restoration of the 1.1 that was proposed to be decreased in the budget amendment before us, plus an additional $562,696 which is what gets you to the $3.362696. Is that the way it works?
Yes, because it reflects the actual cost of the 100 properties.
Okay. So you're going to restore the proposed cut, plus put on an additional $562,000; is that correct?
Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. 344 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04
And Madam President, if we can have the Sergeant-at-arms circulate and enter -- We have three separate packages, if you will, of letters, petitions, and other documents that members of the community in the Fourth District have sent in or brought today, that maybe had to leave. With your permission, I'd like to have all of them entered into the record.
Make sure that the stenographer gets those, please. At this time the Chair recognizes Councilman Ramos.
Thank you, Madam President. Pat Smith, I was very much concerned about a lot of things that were said here today. And thank you for making yourself 345 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 available to us. And I guess you'll be back, probably more than a couple times. But I was really concerned about these signs that went up a few blocks, about six, seven blocks away from my home. And there's a scratching out of the word imminently dangerous. And one of them, the one at 2148 North 2nd Street, and up above it said unsafe. I don't know if -- or if they are synonymous or very close to it, but they seem to want to... seems as though that this sign is saying that this house is not as dangerous as this word imminently dangerous, but the word unsafe fits it better. But then at this other address at 2159 North Phillips Street, it crosses out the word imminently dangerous. And then that's all it says. It just says, keep out. It doesn't say, you know, why to keep out. And because -- It says -- I mean, a message in my neighborhood, that means I'm just -- because I'm telling you to keep 346 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 out. And I think the people will find that anywhere in this City very offensive. Again, I don't live too far away from these properties here. And there's many of us in the community in this area that support NTI, like NTI is supported in just about every part of the City. But there are pockets of very good Philadelphians that are concerned about particular things. And they have a voice, and they have a concern that should be heard and addressed. And if you can get back to me tomorrow and let me know what, in fact, happened at these three properties. It's 2148 North 2nd Street, 2149 North 2nd Street and 2159 North Phillips Street. What in fact are the status of these homes, and why were these signs put in the manner that they were? Thank you. That's all, Madam President.
You're welcome. 347 Resolution 040095 - 3/22/04 The Chair recognizes Jack Kelly. His light's on. Do we have anyone else? Any other members have any other questions? Okay. That concludes our hearing for this evening. We will stand in recess until Monday, March the 29th, at 9 o'clock. 10 (Hearing concluded at 6:50 p.m.) 348 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the public hearing of The Philadelphia City Council, taken on March 22, 2004, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ DAVID A. DEIK, RPR and Commissioner of Deeds (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.)