The property in question was on the list of the properties 10 that were to be acquired for the project at Greater Germantown Housing Development Corporation, which is to develop. I had the opportunity to talk to this gentleman while the other ordinance was being heard, and I basically explained to him that the Redevelopment Authority only has the power to acquire real estate that's granted to it by the local legislative body, and that the first thing that would have to happen is, A, the ordinance would have to be passed. The Mayor would have to sign that ordinance. The Redevelopment Authority would have to send him a notice of an interest. An appraisal would have to be done and an offer letter sent, et cetera. 132 03/23/04 - RULES - BILL 040138 It is my understanding, unless I'm corrected by the Councilwoman or the developer, that this property is an essential part of the overall project and it is the desire that this property been acquired for that project.
May I ask what you paid for the property under sheriff's sale?
Yes. We paid $11,500 plus closing costs, title and insurance, so about $12,000. My concern is if the appraiser comes in and appraises the property at $3,000, for example, you know, I would not like to lose the money that we already paid, not knowing that this property was going to be condemned. We just found out. I received a letter on March 5th. The property was settled a few months ago. So the sheriff never notified -- or they probably didn't know that it will be condemned. And we were planning to 133 03/23/04 - RULES - BILL 040138 redevelop the property, fix it up and sell it, as we do with all of the properties that we acquire.
I believe the Councilwoman would like the executive director and the developer to approach the witness table, please. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Madam President. My name is Harry Moody. I'm the Executive Director of Greater Germantown Housing Development Corporation.
Good afternoon. My name is Ernest Covington. I'm the developer for Greater Germantown Housing Development Corporation.
Thank you. I would assume that 83 East Collom Street is a key part of the development. I can't see not needing 83 if 81 is also on the list.
83 is part of three units on that particular block that had been 134 03/23/04 - RULES - BILL 040138 vacant for some time. Actually, 83 is adjacent to 81, which is a burn out unit. That entire portion of the block was extremely blighted. And what we didn't want to do is develop the rest of the block in new construction and leave those units there. So that's why those were included in this particular project.
Unfortunately I cannot figure out how 83 got on the sheriff sale list because these properties have been vacant and pretty blighted for a number of years.
They have been. Actually, I grew up on this block. I actually knew the families that lived in them. They haven't lived there for probably more than 19 years. These properties have been vacant. 20 They've been drug infested or used as drug houses over the years for some time.
It's unfortunate that the gentleman has purchased it at sheriff sale. But that property is a key part of the development, so we would want 135 03/23/04 - RULES - BILL 040138 to keep that into the package.
I guess we'll have to do whatever we need to do. I don't know what to say.
I was just going to suggest that since Mr. Guzman has recently purchased the property, unlike some of these absentee landlords who purchased property 10 years ago and sit on it and pay no 12 taxes and do nothing and then show up at a hearing, it seems that he acted in a pretty sincere way and has only made settlement on it within the last few months. That was some kind of paper screw from the Sheriff's Department in not knowing what was going on. I wonder of there is any way that the RDA could at least make him whole. I know that there's an appraisal process, but it may be in this case just maybe at least guarantee the guy recovers what he invested, which would seem only fair. Certainly if the man owned the property for 20 years and did nothing with it, I wouldn't care. 136 03/23/04 - RULES - BILL 040138
I would think too that we may be able to get the sheriff to give him his money back under the redemption program or something of that nature. But I agree that it sounds like he make an honest investment to develop that particular property, even though -- I guess if it was me, I'd actually be looking at other properties too because developing that one wouldn't just work on that block because there's so many vacancies on that block. This is a block that we've targeted for some time to do rehab. So we can follow through. I see Steve from my office getting his information and we'll do whatever we can to help him get a refund. Did you have some testimony?
Yes. I actually have prepared testimony. I have copies for all the Members.
It's also an indication that something is wrong with the record keeping in the Sheriff's Office or other areas of the City. I think it is the responsibility -- because I know of nowhere 137 03/23/04 - RULES - BILL 040138 else the responsibility could be placed. I would place it on the Redevelopment Authority to say when something like this develops we're going to work on this until it gets straightened out and an innocent person doesn't get hurt. I think Mr. Guzman is entitled to that kind of security, not to be told, you got yourself into a mess. The City should not have had it on sheriff's sale. We're going to help you a little bit or do whatever we can. I think the Redevelopment Authority ought to take responsibility because you're the ultimate conveyer. And I think you ought to assure Mr. Guzman that you're going to work with him to resolve this in a fair way. I don't know what that ultimately will be, whether he gets his money back or whether the house is included. Councilwoman Miller made a good statement as to why the house is needed. And if it's needed for the whole development, it may be that the only remedy we'll have is to get his money and be made whole. But he should not have to suffer because of the 138 03/23/04 - RULES - BILL 040138 inaccuracies of the City government and the City government's failure to notify him that the house should never have been put on sheriff's sale.
I think we all agree with you. And Councilman Miller did say that a member of her staff was getting all of the information and that they would deal with the Sheriff's Department. Sir, would you proceed with your testimony?
Yes. Just for the purposes of this Committee, the description that Mr. Wetzel gave you was for the most part a description of the development that would happen on land that they were looking to condemn. This description that I'm about to read into testimony is actually a description of the entire project. There may be some differences in what he said and what I'm about to tell you now. The Wister Commons Phase I project is a 36 unit rental development to be located in the Wister neighborhood of Germantown. The 139 03/23/04 - RULES - BILL 040138 project is a joint venture between Greater Germantown Housing Development Corporation, a non-profit, neighborhood-based real estate development organization and Conifer Realty, an experienced, for-profit development company with a very rich history in real estate development and management. The overall project is an 85 to 90 unit development initiative of single family housing units. As the developers of the project, we are planning to build in the first phase a 36 unit rental development. This development will be called Wister Commons Phase I. The project will be three and four-bedroom amenity-enriched row homes ranging from 1,450 to 1,700 square feet that will be converted to home ownership after its initial rental compliance period. This project will also be a low income housing tax credit program. This project seeks to serve a continuing need for adequate housing in this lower Germantown neighborhood, as well as significantly eliminating blight and unused vacant land in 140 03/23/04 - RULES - BILL 040138 the area. The scope of the project will supply newly constructed housing on several vacant parcels within a one square block area as well as using several additional vacant parcels in the immediate vicinity. Wister Commons Phase I is located in the Wister Urban Renewal Area as designated and studied by the Philadelphia Planning Commission. The Wister area has also been designated as a Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. While keeping in tune with its revitalization strategy, the Wister neighborhood has realized many renewal projects over the years, including the projects developed by GGHDC, which is the Greater Germantown Housing Development Corporation, which are listed on the handout that I gave you. Those are Elders Place 1, which is a 46-unit Elderly HUD 202 realty; Elders Place II, which is recently finished, which is a 40-unit Elderly HUD 202 building; Lower Germantown I, which is a 50 unit low income housing tax credit family development; Lower Germantown II, which is a 33-unit low 141 03/23/04 - RULES - BILL 040138 income housing tax credit development; Cricket Court Commons, which is a 228 unit low income housing tax credit and market rate unit development; and Cricket Court Townhouses, which is a 44 unit home ownership project that was completed approximately four years ago. Elimination of blight and vacancy in this area will continue to have a tremendous impact on the existing housing market in the area. As we continue to try to stabilize and enhance the housing stock, Wister Commons Phase I is just one phase of a planned neighborhood revitalization strategy. While this project will continue to support the significant development investment by GGHDC in the Wister neighborhood, it will also serve as a catalyst for future phases of development concentrating on homeownership opportunities that are already in the planning phases.
Thank you. Are there any questions of this witness? The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly. 142 03/23/04 - RULES - BILL 040138
Could you just tell me for my own benefit, what is the rental compliance period?
Thank you. 11 Are there any other questions from 12 Members of the Committee? 13 (No response.) 14
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, this will conclude our public hearing. - - - - 143 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - - Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - - - - Public meeting conducted by the Committee on Rules, held in Room 400, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILL 040024, 040092, 040138. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILMAN RICHARD MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL 144 03/23/04 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 040024.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, in view of the information that was requested by Members of this Committee, I make a motion that Bill No. 11 040024 be held until Thursday at 1:00 at a Rules Committee hearing that will be held at that time. (Duly seconded.)
The ayes have it. Bill No. 040024 will be continued until Thursday, March 25th at 1:00 p.m. The Chair recognizes Councilman 145 03/23/04 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Clarke regarding Bill No. 040092.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill 040092 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and request no suspension of Rules. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 040092 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller regarding Bill No. 040138.
Thank you, Madam Chair. 146 03/23/04 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING I would request that Bill 040138 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further request that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 10 040138 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. Bill No. 040138 has been reported out with a favorable recommendation. Thank you all very much for your patience. 147 03/23/04 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING (Council adjourned at 12:36 p.m.) - - - - 148 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, March 23, 2004, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON RULES _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR