m. - - - BILLS 030248, 030283, 030284, 030286, 030289, 030293, 030294, 030301, 030302, 030303, 030304; BILLS 030285, 030287, 030288, 030290, 030291, 030295, 030296, 030297, 030298, 030299; BILLS 030331, 030339, 030340, 030386, 030389; BILLS 030186, 030187, 030221; BILL 010500. 2670 ¡›î› I N D E X BILL 030186 PAGE THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Commission .... BILL 030187 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Commission .... BILL 030221 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Commission .... BILL 030248 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Commission .... 7 CARLA PUPPIN, Queen Village Neighbor Assoc ... 16 CATHERINE SERICK (ph) ........................ 16 8 BILL 030386 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Commission .... 17 9 CYNTHIA PHILO, Old City District ............ 18 RICHARD THOM, Old City Civic Association .... 22 10 MIKE NASONS ................................. 23 BILL 030389 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Commission ..... 24 MICHAEL SAMSCHICK, South Street Head House District ................................ 25 BILL 030339 LYNDA ORFANELLI, Personnel Director ......... 27 DENNIS NORWOOD, Benefits Administration Supervisor ............................. 36 BILL 030340 LYNDA ORFANELLI, Personnel Director ......... 27 LIBBIE BLACKMAN ............................. 39 BOB EDDIS, Fraternal Order of Police ........ 46 JIM WHEELER, Fraternal Order of Police ...... 48 DONALD CRAMP, Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority ................... 52 AUSTIN MCGREAL, ESQ. 54 KATHY SYKES ................................. 54 KAREN LLOYD BORSKI, Fairmount Park Commission 55 JAMES BLOOM, Fairmount Park Commission ...... 58 BILL 030283 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 61 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 65 JOHN CHIN, Chinatown Development Corporation . 71 ANNA CHAN, Chinese Gospel Church ............. 73 BILL 030295 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 67 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 65 3 ¡›î› I N D E X (continued) BILL 030296 PAGE HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ...... 66 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission .... 67 BILL 030298 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 79 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission .... 81 SANDY SALZMAN, New Kensington CDC ............ 81 BILL 030299 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 83 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission .... 84 KATHLEEN MURRAY, Special Assistant to Council President Verna ................ 85 ROB BUSCAGLIA, S. Bodine St. Community Garden. 88 CHRISTOPHER CAPPELLO ........................ 92 MICHAEL LEGACKI ............................. 93 BILL 030284 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 94 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission .... 95 BILL 030285 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 96 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission .... 99 KATHLEEN MURRAY, Special Assistant to Council President Verna ................. 99 EARL PACE, Universal Community Homes ........ 102 CLAUDIA SHERROD, Point Breeze Development Coalition and South Philadelphia Homes.. 103 CHARLENE WILSON-DOFFONEY, Mitchum-Wilson .... 104 ROBBIE MAZE ................................. 104 BILL 030286 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 106 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 107 BILL 030287 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 109 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 110 BILL 030288 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 112 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 114 AIESHA BEY .................................. 119 JAMES RENWICK ............................... 120 CAROLYN THOMAS .............................. 122 MATTHEW ROWAN ............................... 137 AUDREY S. HICKMAN ........................... 146 MICHAEL HORSEY, State Representative ........ 222 4 ¡›î› I N D E X (continued) BILL 030297 PAGE HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 159 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 161 SHIRLEY HAVERFORD ...........................
162 MELISSA LONG, People's Emergency Center CDC.. 165 BILL 030294 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 170 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 172 THERESA BROOMFIELD .......................... 174 PHILIP MILLER ............................... 180 EVA GLADSTEIN, Empowerment Zone ............. 180 BILL 030301 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 183 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 185 MICHAEL KUNTZ, Redevelopment Authority ...... 186 EVA GLADSTEIN, Empowerment Zone ............. 189 MICHAEL KUZMA ............................... 190 KEN KNIGHT, Voters Coalition ................ 207 YIN TANG (ph) ............................... 219 BILL 030302 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 233 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 234 WENDY HUDSON ................................ 241 BILL 030303 MICHAEL KUNTZ, Redevelopment Authority ...... 249 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 253 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning Commission ... 262 MICHAEL KUNTZ, Redevelopment Authority ...... 264 STEVE KAUFMAN, Community Ventures ........... 264 TIM MCDONALD, Onion Flats ................... 267 JAMES MCMASTER, ESQ. 269 ROSEMARY KUVAS (ph) ......................... 275 WILFREDO CARRASQUILLO ....................... 276 CAROLYN BROWN, RDA .......................... 284 KATHY CALAFANO, Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation .............. 288 WALTER TRUE, Councilman Mariano's Office .... 289 CAROLYN SMITH ............................... 296 ROBERT WILLIS ............................... 303 BEATRICE SMITH .............................. 309 ELDRIDGE BROWN .............................. 316 SWEENEY BROWN ............................... 325 5 ¡›î› I N D E X (continued) BILL 030303 PAGE CECILIA SUAREZ (ph) ......................... 332 GEORGE W. DAVIS, SR. 335 ANNIE ALVIN ................................. 338 KEN KNIGHT .................................. 344 THOMAS H. HUGHES, SR. 346 VERA WALLACE ................................ 351 DELORES CARSON .............................. 352 GEORGE MCCLAIN .............................. 353 MONTEZ LAMONE (ph) .......................... 354 VERNETTA SCOTT .............................. 357 BILL FOSTER ................................. 361 BILL 030290 STEVE CULBERTSON, Frankford CDC ............. 362 BILL 030293 RON HINTON, Allegheny West Foundation ....... 365 BILL 030289 SISTER MARGARET TAYLOR ...................... 367 BILL 030293 ED FRANKLIN ................................. 367 DIANNA DUNSUN (ph) .......................... 369 6 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a quorum. City Committee on Rules is now in Session. Before we get started, I want to make an announcement. The RDA bills will not be heard until probably about or 12: 30. So we're going to do a 8 number of zoning bills and some other extraneous 9 matters before the Committee. We'll do all the RDA 10 bills together, probably not until 12 or 12:30. 11 Again, anyone who has dispute relative 12 to a property address should go to the Conversation Hall on the 2nd floor of City Hall now. RDA staff is there to discuss those issues with you. So thank you for your patients. The first Bill 030186, which is an Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Clearfield Street, Trenton Avenue, Westmoreland Street and Richmond Street. Anyone from the Administration to testify, please? I'm go to have to request that any side-bar conversation take place in the hallway. 7 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES It's a very crowded room today, and even a whisper multiplied is going to be distracting. Thank you. And I would ask the Administration witness on non-controversial zoning bills we keep the testimony to a bear bones minimum. Thanks. Please identify yourself.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Tom Chapman, I'm the Director of the Development Planning Division for the City Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 030186. This Bill re-zones portion of an area bounded by Clearfield Street, Trenton Avenue, Westmoreland Street and Richmond Street. The purpose of this Bill is to more accurately reflect the existing pattern of land use for properties located on Allegheny Avenue that are currently zoned C-2 Commercial. These properties would be rezoned to zoning designation of C-1 commercial. The changing designation would be consistent with the pattern of existing uses on Allegheny Avenue and will allow commercial uses that are more compatible with the existing residential area immediately to the north and south of Allegheny 8 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Avenue. The Planning Commission at its meeting of May 20, 2003, considered this Bill and recommended that it be approved.
Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Chapman? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 030187, an Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Broad Street, Cecil B. Moore Avenue, 15th Street and Oxford Street. Please identify yourself for the record.
Once again, for the City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. This Bill re-zones the area bounded by Broad Street, Cecil B. Moore Avenue, 15th Street and Oxford Street. The purpose of this Bill is to change the zoning designation of this area from partly C-2 9 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES and partly R-10 Residential to partly C-2 Commercial and partly C-3 Commercial. The prime focus of this Bill is the C-3 portion of the re-zoning. This change will facilitate the redevelopment of these blocks with a proposal that would include the construction of approximately 144,000 square feet of retail commercial space, including a movie theater as well as 125,000 square feet of residential construction. This proposal also includes the construction of a 360-space parking garage. To the best of my recollection, this proposal is known as the Broad Moore proposal. It's had a number of name changes over the recent year. This Bill is consistent with previous redevelopment actions approved by the Commission specifically at its meeting on October 22, 1998. The Planning Commission approved changes to the North Philadelphia Redevelopment Area Plan to allow for the construction of this proposal. Accordingly, we recommend that Bill No. 030187 be approved.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions for Mr. Chapman? 10 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES (No response.)
Seeing none, anyone to testify on this Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 030221, an Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Lehigh Avenue, Aramingo Avenue, a railroad right-of-way and the Delaware Expressway. Please identify yourself.
Once again, for the City Planning Commission, Thomas Chapman. This Bill re-zones an area bounded Aramingo Avenue, a railroad right-of-way, Delaware Expressway and Lehigh Avenue. While much of this area is zoned G-2 Industrial, in many instances, the G-2 abuts single family row homes zoned R-10A Residential and occupied as single family dwellings. Considering the proximity of homes to G-2 zoned properties, the community had concerns about the type of uses that would be permitted in the area zoned G-2 that abut their homes. This re-zoning Bill will more 11 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES accurately reflect the existing pattern of land use for these blocks and will give the homeowners some level of protection regarding uses that could instituted next to their home. This Bill recognizes the existing G-2 properties that are primarily owned and operated by the railroad but also institutes changes where the existing property is vacant, under-utilized or used commercially. The Planning Commission at its meeting on May 20, 2003, considered this Bill and recommended that it be approved.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco.
You're familiar with my request for these 030221 and 030186, the purpose of that request or those requests. Are you familiar with why we made the request for these changes? We had a meeting in my office -- I don't 12 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES know if you with there -- several months back.
The general concern, without words in your mouth, was because the community had a growing concern that many of the former industrial buildings where the businesses have left were being purchased by individuals who were converting those properties into repair and auto body shops; is that correct.
That's right. And as I stated, Councilman, G-2 would allow some of those uses right next single family dwellings, and I don't think that that's something that any of us want to see.
I just wanted that for the record because there's a suggestion that this may be an attempt to change it for other purposes, but the real intent was to protect the community from any additional auto body and auto repair shops from proliferating in their community.
There also, Mr. Chairman, will be an amendment to Bill No. 030221.
Thank you very much. Any other questions for Mr. Chapman? (No response.)
Seeing none, we'll move to Bill No. 030248, an Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Sixth Street, Randolph Street, Fitzwater Street and East Passyunk Avenue. Please identify yourself for the record.
Once again, for the City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. This Bill re-zones the block bounded by Sixth Street, Randolph Street, Fitzwater Street, and Passyunk Avenue. 14 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES The purpose of this Bill is to change the zoning designation of this block from C-2 Commercial to a designation of R-10 Residential. Though this block has been zoned C-2 Commercial for many years, there is not a single commercial use in this block. This change will accurately reflect the existing pattern of land use. The Planning Commission at its meeting of May 20, 2003, considered this Bill and recommended that it be approved. I understand that there's also going to be an amendment offered to this Bill. And, Councilman DiCicco, if you'd like, I could read that into the record.
It's an amendment to Section 1 of the Bill, and it adds these words at the end of that paragraph. That paragraph ends with the words "map B set forth below," and what is added is "and by changing the zoning designation of properties fronting on East Passyunk Avenue between Fitzwater Street and Catherine Street to R-10 Residential." What this amendment does is that it will 15 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES change the zoning in this block, which is immediately across the street from the block that I previously described to the same R-10 Residential that's being applied on the other side of the street.
Mr. Chapman, should we not make that R-10A? Because R10 leaves the opportunity for multi-family dwellings. You might rather the process be if someone did want to do a conversion that the community would be part of the process.
I would prefer that the change be made to R-10A Residential.
We'll clean it up in the meeting. Queen Village Neighbor Association. Anyone else to testify on this Bill 16 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES besides Queen Village? Please identify yourself.
Good morning. I'm Carla Puppin, the Director of the Queen Village Neighbors Association. I'm here to express the Association's support for Bill No. 030248 which will reflect the actual residential character of the neighborhood. I also have here e-mails from residents on the 700 10 block of Passyunk, the 500 block of Queen and 11 Fitzwater that express their support for the Bill. 12 And there also, I believe, three residents from the 13 700 block of Passyunk to support this Bill. 14
Thank you very much. 15 Any questions? 16 Please come forward. Good morning. 17 Please identify yourself for the record. 18
My name is Catherine Serick, and I'm a resident of the East Passyunk block. And I'm here to support this Bill and the efforts of the community to get this Bill passed.
Thank you for coming in. Thank you for waiting. Any other witnesses for this Bill? (No response.) 17 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
We will now move to Bill No. 030386, an Ordinance amending Title of 4 the Philadelphia Code, relating to "Zoning and 5 Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1600, entitled 6 "Miscellaneous," by amending Section 14-1610, 7 entitled "Old City Residential Area Special District 8 Controls," by extending the boundaries of the area 9 subject to special controls and by specifying uses 10 not prohibited in this area, under certain terms and 11 conditions. 12 Please identify yourself for the record. 13
Good morning, Mr. Chairman 14 and Members of the Committee. For the City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. This Bill amends Section 14-1610 of the Philadelphia Code entitled Old City Residential Area Special District Controls. The purpose of this Bill is to extend the district controls to include the area bounded by Market Street, Fourth Street, Chestnut Street and Front Street. The Bill further specifies the prohibited in the newly defined control area which includes cabarets, dance halls, establishment of guests and patrons as a main use, fortune teller 18 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES establishments, nightclubs, palm reads, tarot card readers and other related types of so-called psychic personal services, private clubs, restaurants, take-out restaurants, tatoo and body piercing establishments and telemarketing. The Bill further prohibits the expansion or extension of any of these uses. The Planning Commission has not yet considered this Bill but will consider it at its meeting of June 17, 2003. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Chapman? (No response.) Seeing none, I call Cynthia Philo and Richard Thom. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Committee members. My name is Cynthia Philo. I'm the Executive Director of the Old City District here in Philadelphia.
As you are aware, the 19 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES district has been in effect now for five years, and we work to keep Old City clean, safe and prosperous seven days a wee. We are soon to welcome the opening of the National Constitution Center in July, look forward to the completion of the Penns Landing Waterfront, and expect that the Independence Harbor plan put forth by the Delaware River Port Authority will bring even more tourists, diners, shoppers, and in the long-run, new businesses and residents to the Old City District community. There are very exciting times that we have. Therefore, the Old City District is committed to keeping the area the best that it can be that it can serve Philadelphia as an outstanding example of what Center City has to offer. I'm here testifying in favor of Bill 18 030386 which will allow us to do this job. Over the past five years, we've seen a dramatic increase in the number of restaurant bar and nightclub establishments located south of Market Street. In the 13 block area, there are 91 types of this businesses. In fact, 72 of them are located south of Market Street. Of these businesses, 67 of them have liquor licenses. In addition, within a smaller 20 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES two-block area there are 56 licensed establishments. A large number of these places have been in the community for a number of years. They operate reputable establishments providing wonderful services for their customers. They are part of the community and they act as good neighbors. The others choose not to act in this way, to the detriment of their neighboring businesses and residents. It is because of this that we are here today for this Bill. The Old City District is committed to having positive economic growth of this area, but not without the concern for the negative impact that some of businesses have on the community at large. We are seeing the change every night in the delicate fabric of our historic community: Large, unruly crowds spilling off the sidewalks into streets, fights breaking out among drunken patrons, public urination, damage to public and private property in the form of paint and acid graffiti, and of course, our first drive-by shooting. This is not what our community, business or residential wants or what the City needs. In fact, there's been a 11 percent increase in the 21 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES arrests in the area of Arch to Chestnut Streets and from the Delaware River to Fourth Street from June 2002 to just the end of last month. This is a disturbing trend which we as a district look to proactively deal with instead of reacting to quality-of-life issues after they've occurred. We've seen an increase in the police presence nightly. It's one thing to have an entertainment area, but to have absolutely no controls over it just leads to the demise of existing business values. Currently, there exists overly protections in other areas of the City that this Bill now sets forth for Old City. This does not prevent restaurants, bars or nightclubs from coming into the area in any way. It does not act as a moratorium on business. This is the same way that Delaware Avenue and South Street have protected their vital commercial corridors for this years. This just gives the community, our Old City community, the opportunity to be heard before the new business goes into the area. This Bill will ensure that the Old City District will continue economically vibrant and safe. It will require 22 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES those who choose to do business in our entertainment area to be willing to play by the rules. It will enable the creation of a positive environment for current and future commercial and residential development. I urge this Committee to approve Bill 8 No. 030386. I thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify here today on behalf of the Bill. I respectfully request a suspension of the Rules and will answer any questions at this time. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Please identify yourself for the record.
Richard Thom, Chair of the Developments Committee, Old City Civic Association. The Old City Civic Association this morning voted to support Bill 030386, as introduced by Councilman Frank DiCicco, recognizing that some sort of legislative and zoning controls on restaurants south of Market Street were necessary. The original zoning overlay that this amends, I created in 1990 in front of Council back in those days. And we recognized as far back as 1990 that 23 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES the proliferation of too many liquor licenses and restaurant activities would be detrimental to the area. And we, therefore, feel that this is a step that must be taken in order to get our arms around the problems that have occurred south of Market Street, and we wholeheartedly support this legislation.
Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.) Seeing none, anyone else to testify on this Bill? Please come forward.
My name is Mike Nasons, the owner of Eulogy Belgian Tavern. I opened four months ago and I voluntarily went through a review process similar to what they're trying to put in place. And I thought what they asked for was very reasonable and I thought it would be in interest of the business community in the neighborhood. And I want to offer up my support for the Bill.
Thank you. Anyone else? (No response.) 24 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just, for the record, have in my possession -- I believe copies are being circulated to the members of this Committee -- 2 letters of support for this Bill; one by Mr. Donald Haskin and the other by Lynn Martin Haskin. I will give a copy of these to the stenographer so they can be placed into the record.
Great. Anyone else to testify on this Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will move to Bill No. 030389, which is an Ordinance 16 amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, relating to "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 18 14-1612, entitled "South Street/Head House Square Special Services District Controls," by extending the said controls to conform with City Council Ordinance (Bill NO. 010069, approved June 14, 2001), under certain terms and conditions. Mr. Chapman, please identify yourself.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Once again, for the 25 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. This Bill amends the existing South Street Head House Square Special Services District Control zoning overlay section of the Philadelphia Code by extending the area that is subject to the controls to conform to the boundaries of the Special Services District. The boundaries of the Special Services District had been extended through the passage of City Council Bill No. 010069, which was enacted on June 14, 2001. However, the boundaries of the zoning overlay were not extended to conform to the boundaries of the Special Services District at that time. Therefore, this request has been made to Councilman DiCicco. The Planning Commission will consider this Bill at its meeting of June 17, 2003. I'd be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Chapman? (No response.)
Seeing none, anyone else to testify on this Bill? Please identify yourself.
My name is Michael 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Samschick. I'm the Chairman of the South Street Head House Business District.
I would like to first thank Chairman Kenney and Members of the Rules Committee for allowing me to testify on Bill 030389. We are requesting that you allow us to expand the overlay to within the boundaries of the district. We have worked feverishly with the neighbors as well as with Councilman DiCicco to try to make South Street a softer, more friendly place to visit and enjoy. We are just starting to see those results by the efforts we put out, and by allowing this Bill to pass, will be able to continue those efforts.
Great. Thank you. Anyone else to testify on this Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 030339, an Ordinance amending Title 20 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Officers and Employees," by enacting the "W. Thacher Longstreth Memorial Survivors and Dependents Medical Care Ordinance," providing certain health and medical benefits to the spouse 27 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES and dependent children of deceased City officers and employees, all under certain terms and conditions. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Councilman Kenney and Members of the Rules Committee. I am Lynda Orfanelli, Personnel Director for the City, and I'm here to testify on both Bills 030339 on 030340. And I can't wait until you get back to the Council room; it's less crowded than this. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to testify. Unfortunately, I have some problems with these bills. I actually have two concerns about them. One is the potential impact on the City's ability to negotiate with labor unions, and the other one is the magnitude of financial impact on the City. Regarding Bill 030339, the Budget Bureau has done a preliminary estimate of the five-year cost using the percentage increases in the Five-Year Plan. If you would look at Chart No. 8 million. However, this does not reflect full participation the first four years of the cost projection. If you 28 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES multiply the fifth year which represents full participation without adding an inflation escalator, the cost would be more than $7 million. We have not been able to determine at this time the universe of individuals who would be eligible for the health and medical benefits under Bill 030340. I'd like to emphasize that beneficiaries of employees who die active are entitled to a greater amount of life insurance than retired employees. And if you look at Chart No. 2, it shows you that difference for each category of employee. This additional life insurance could be used by the beneficiary to offset the health benefits if need be. In addition, when an employee dies active, the pensioned beneficiary automatically is entitled to a more generous survivorship option, which is Option 2, which provides survivorship benefits which equal the members retiree benefit for the remainder of the pensioned beneficiary's life. On the other hand, the pension selection most commonly made by active retirees are Options or which are not as generous for the beneficiary. Option 3 on 4 reduce the survivor's benefit by half. 29 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES And I also a chart there showing three different examples based on different ages of retirees and their beneficiaries, their survivors. The trend is that fewer retirees are receiving health coverage and/or personally contributing more to their coverage. Current trends in the Mercer/Foster Higgins National Survey of Employer Sponsored Health Plans -- and that's all employers, that's both private and public -- show the decline in employers offering retiree health coverage between '93 and 2000. Employers offering pre-Medicare eligible retiree coverage declined from 46 percent in 1993 to 29 percent in 2001. And employers offering coverage to Medicare eligible retirees declined in 1993 from 40 percent to 17 percent in 2001. The 2003 Healthcare Cost Survey 18 report of key findings by Towers Perrin shows trends 19 consistent with previous years. Retirees are being 20 asked to take on an even greater proportion of their 21 average monthly cost than their active counterparts. 22 If the City is to remain competitive with the 23 private sector, continuing to implement right-sizing government initiatives and looking to lower tax burdens, we cannot buck a trend that many others are 30 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES now embracing. Of even more concern, however, is that these Bills will compromise the City's ability to effectively negotiate with labor unions. According to current labor law, compensation is subject to monetary bargaining and health and welfare benefits are a part of the City's compensation package. As I am sure you are all familiar with, in the course of collective bargaining, demands are placed on the table and removed based on priorities of the parties. By passing these bills, Council will preempt the collective bargaining process. The current collective bargaining agreements expire June 30 of '04 for District Council 33, District Council 47 ,and the Fraternal Order of Police.
Medical coverage for beneficiaries of employees who are pension eligible and who die active have been included in past amends and will most likely be included in the 2004 negotiations. As you are aware, the fire fighters were awarded this benefit in the most recent Act 111 acquisition award. In order to reach the final package agreed upon, the unions determine what is most important to their members. This legislation would eradicate an 31 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES important tool that the City relies upon when bargaining with the unions. Now is a time when we must make difficult choices in how to spend our very limited budget dollars. I need not remind you of all the fiscal pressures facing the City in the Fiscal Year '04 budget and the Five-Year Plan that was approved by this Council. The City has had to face several unexpected fiscal challenges recently, including the fire fighters' award and the reduction in the State budget and they have resulted in cuts of 85 million in that direct financial support to this City. Together, the Administration and this Council must make the hard responsible fiscally intelligent choices to ensure that the City remains fiscally strong and we can continue offer high-quality services to our citizens and high-quality benefits to our employees. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognize Councilmember Nutter. 32 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Let me just ask this question quickly: When did this testimony come over?
This morning. Okay. And the Administration's position is, succinctly, you're against this Bill?
When we do the next Bill, you can add anything you need to add in addition.
So let's go back 33 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES through what drove this. The present City employee plan has a situation where if you are of retirement age -- this is on the survivor benefit Bill.
If you're of retirement age but stay with the City and keep working and die, your family does not get the five-year health benefit package; but if you are of retirement age and retire, leave the City workforce and die the next day, your family does get the five-year health benefit package? Is that the current situation?
Right. And the fire fighters one that in 111 arbitration; and police in prior arbitration.
So let me try to understand the logic of this illogical situation. I reach retirement age and then I say, "Well, I've given my time and I'm just going to go." And something unfortunate happens; my family is taken 34 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES care of. But if I have the audacity at retirement age to stay with the City and I'm not smart enough to anticipate that I'm going to die, or something happens or you're hit by a bus or fall out a window, and on the way down I don't announce that I'm retiring, my family gets nothing?
They don't get the five-year that they would have received if I had been smart enough to retire when I was of retirement age.
However, if you look at Chart No. 3, if that happens to someone who's -- a retiree who dies who is 55 with a 50-year-old survivor, instead of getting the normal pension survivor benefit of 1600, they'll get $2786.98, which is significant.
I understand that. We're talking about health benefits.
I understand that. We're talking about the five-year health benefit that all retirees' families receive if they retire 35 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES and then subsequently pass away. So let's talk about in the current situation or what brought us to this point. In the case of our fallen colleague, Councilman Longstreth who was of retirement age; had he retired, his and then passed away, his family would receive five-year healthcare?
That's fairly major consideration. And since he did not retire and passed away, that benefit is not available to his spouse?
Yes, it does, because there are other overriding factors that trump his need for the medical -- his survivors' need. Excuse me.
I just think it is a quirk of a situation. It does not make good public policy. It is certainly not a humanistic policy that the employee, again, having the temerity to stay around and continue to provide service past retirement age now has to decide whether they want to stay or not and factor into their situation whether they think they're going to die in order to ensure the five-year healthcare benefit for survivors. And I think that we should correct it and fix something that at this point in time just doesn't make any sense. So, I mean, I appreciate the City's position. Did the gentleman have something that wanted to say?
Could you please identify yourself, sir. Do you have anything add to this testimony.
My name is Dennis Norwood. I'm the Benefits Administration Supervisor for the City Administered Healthcare Plan. I don't see anything bad in the proposal. The only thing that I would say is that 37 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES we need to be careful to balance generosity with stewardship. We have to manage the available resources. And at this particular time, we all are aware that there are limited resources for --
I understand that. Let me ask this question. In the past year, how many City employees of retirement age stayed in service and passed away?
The dollars are still significant even though it's a small number of people.
I understand. I mean, everything does cost something. But we don't do everything we do just based on the dollars and cents, right? I mean, we have policies -- if that were the case, you probably wouldn't have the five-year benefit. Didn't that change in the past year or two? 38 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Right. Well, we're not in labor negotiations. Many of us are not in that particular class or category. I mean, who negotiates for me? This is not for me. Hopefully, one, I'm not near retirement age. There are some who probably would like me to, but I'm not near retirement age at the moment. So I'm not trying to get anything for myself. But who negotiates for the unrepresented people in the government?
We know that. That's why we have one of the worst health plans. Let's talk about the other Bill.
Let me, for the record, read Bill No. 030340, which is an Ordinance 19 amending title of Philadelphia Code, entitled 20 "Officers and Employees," by providing for certain health and welfare benefits for pensioned employees, all under certain terms and conditions. If there's any additional comment you'd like to make for the record on 030340 you can please do so now so we can maintain the line of question 39 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES with Councilman Nutter.
All my comments were in the single testimony. Councilman Nutter.
Mr. Chairman, why don't we have Ms. Blackman come up and talk about her situation.
I'm Libby Blackman. I'm a retired librarian from the Free Library of Philadelphia. After working and a half years 14 with the Free Library of Philadelphia, I'm now a 15 retired City employee. I worked 14 and a half years 16 first from 1974 to 1989. I left to become an RN. 17 Worked as an RN for 10 years, and I'm a widow. Due 18 to my son's school schedule, I came back to the library in 1989 and worked four more years. When I went to the pension counselor, I was told that I was not eligible for five years of health benefits because I had not worked 10 years on coming back, I had only worked 4 and a half. This means that someone who has worked 10 years and a day is eligible for five years of health benefits; and I 40 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES who have worked and a half years am not. I've asked to be considered to rectify that regulation.
Thank you, Mr. 6 Chairman. 7 So Ms. Blackman, let me make sure I'm 8 understanding here. The current provisions of -- I 9 think this is regarding a Civil Service regulation. 10 You have to have 10 years of continuous service 11 prior to your leaving? 12
If you have left for more 13 than one year when you come back, you have to work 14 ten years, according to the regulation. 15
So if you had worked 16 4 years or 4 and a half years during your first 17 tour, left and came back and worked 14 and a half -- 18
But because you gave 14 and a half years first, and again you -- and I mean this cheerfully -- then had the audacity to go 41 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES and do something else with your life, get additional education, training, other experiences and then come back for four years -- you never took your pension, right?
I left my pension, and I was a union member all those years.
So from the pension system standpoint you are an 18-and-a-half-year employees; is that correct?
Yes. They used my pension money for the 10 years that I was not here.
You came back and you only did four more years with the City, therefore, not making you eligible for the five-year healthcare benefit which, again by way of the example, if you had switch your tours of duty, you would be eligible?
Ms. Orfanelli, can you explain the logic of such a system? Why do we care so much when the person does their time or how they do their time, as long as they do their time? What why does the matter?
Well, first, I want to 42 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES mention that the way this Bill is currently written, it's talking about credited time which means it may be time that they bought from prior work, not just work with the City, which is problematic.
Well, the current situation is years of continuous work. 10
No, I understand. That's not Ms. Blackman's situation, right? She didn't buy any time --
She's got and a 16 half legitimate years of City time, right? 17
This provision has been 18 in existence before I even arrived at the City. And it is our belief that it was done for fiscal reasons. There are people that come and go and there was apparently a decision of a long time ago to reward people who worked for the City --
Would you consider Ms. Blackman to be a come-and-go person, 18 and a half years of City service? 43 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Fourteen at one, four at another; is that a come-and-go kind of person?
With the proposed Bill, it would apply to many variations on the theme.
People who come and go. People who work for the City for a couple years and buy the rest of their time and we'd still have to give them medical. You can buy military time. You can buy teaching time. You can buy other governmental time.
You could buy that time now and be credited for pension system, right?
But you get the medical if you have 10 years of service prior to retiring.
My understanding is that you wouldn't get it. You need to have 10 years of active service. 44 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
But your testimony is that if she had done the and a half the first 4 go-round, took a break of however much time, came back and did another 14 and a half, she would get it?
So under that scenario, though, what difference does it make to the City? She did and a half years. We're only 12 now talking about how the time is split up. You 13 can't deny that she performed her time. You can't 14 say that she was an in-and-out person. You can't 15 say that the time is any different than anyone 16 else's time. 17 And is it also true that exempt 18 employees are not subject to that same rule?
Exempt employees are not required to have continuous time.
But I don't know about for medical. Not for vacation and other benefits, but I'm not sure -- medical I think they need 10 45 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES also.
Ms. Blackman, do you have anything else you'd like to add?
Thank you very much for your testimony. Good morning please identify yourself for the record. 46 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Good morning, Councilman. Bobby Eddis, FOP Lodge President. Along with me I 4 have Tom Lamb from our medical health plan and Jim 5 Wheeler also with the FOP and Gene Blagman (ph), our lobbyist is also here.
We're coming here, first off, to thank you for taking on this issue because what has happened over the years is there's been an awful lot of our members who have been eligible to retire and haven't because of wanting to give more dedicated service to the City. And unfortunately, they passed away when they would have had the opportunity to leave sooner and been able to collect the benefit. One of our family members is here today, the Farley family. I'd like to point them out in the courtroom. Dan Farley worked for the Philadelphia Police Department for 34 years and was hoping to continue on and, unfortunately, he had a heart attack and his family was only eligible to have health coverage for one year as a result of that. And that was one of the issues that brought 47 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES us here today. And also the other issue was in regards to trying to have it retroactive back to July 1, 2002 which will basically mirror the fire fighters' contract. And also another problem that we have is sometimes with the way it's written if one of our officers were to die in the line of duty, their children are in a situation that we find that they don't always go to college and they're in their late teens and early twenties and they don't health coverage anymore. We're not talking about a large amount of people. We're only talking about very few. But we think we would be remiss if we didn't come forward and try to dress these issues at this time. The other issue we have is in regards to the mental health issue. Some family members of our officers who've given their lives in later years have problems as a result of them not having their father or in this day and age also their mother present with them. They have problems that arise later on for which we don't have the vehicle to be able to help them. So we're coming in front of you 48 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES today requesting assistance in this area.
Would either of the gentlemen at the table like to add anything like that? Please identify yourself.
Jim Wheeler, Vice President of the FOP. I'd just like to follow up on what Bob Eddis said as far as dying on an active duty status. If Dan Farley had chosen to retire the day before, his family would have enjoyed the benefits of the contract, which is a five-year health coverage for his family. The fact that he was still active duty, they only had one. So I just wanted to clarify that a little bit.
Bob, you may have so in your testimony. How many years did he serve?
Mr. Wheeler, I'm sorry, I missed the tail-end of what you said. You made a distinction between an active-duty officer and a retired officer. Could you go back through that again, please? MR WHEELER: If the active-duty officer 49 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES passes away while still in the active status, the benefit that his family will receive is one year of health coverage from the day of death. If the day before his death the active-duty officer had retired, his family would then --
And of retirement age, his family would have enjoyed the five years that everyone else does that retires. So the one point that Bob is bring out is maybe the inequity there could be cleared up and retroactive to July 1, 2002.
You're looking at the start of the Fiscal Year? Is that what you're --
This weekend I had the opportunity to represent our organization down in Wildwood for a tribute service. And while I was in mass afterwards, I was stopped by one the widows. And she was actually very emotional, and she was 50 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES explaining to me the problem that she has because one of her children has had mental problems ever since their father passed away back in 1992. I think Councilman Kenney is also fully aware of the situation. And she just said to me, "If you could do anything, I would appreciate so much if you could try to help because where do I turn? What is it that I'm able to do?" And it was kind of hard sitting there not able to tell her that we had been able to resolve this. I did tell her how important it was and how much we appreciated that the Members in Council had taken on their own to try to address these inequities. But we know that we're only dealing with a very few amount. And I believe that it's the interest and the concern of the City, as they have shown us all the time in the past, that situations like this they appreciate when we do bring it forward. Because I don't think anybody wants a child who was subjected to losing their parent at an early age not having a support network to help them through the key times. And that's the same thing too. A lot of times their life isn't normal any more so it's not like they graduate from 51 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES high school and they go on to college and they keep their medical for the next few years. A lot of times they feel the burden of helping their parent out. So they may not go to college the standard way that everybody does. Or they may go back to part-time and then it's a matter of a game of justifying by having so many credits and then it becomes confusing. And we're not everyone, we're just asking for the members of the people who gave their life in the line of duty to have the opportunity to have the medical go the same as if it would for any other child who had the ability to go to college. That's all.
Seeing none, thank you. We will now move to Bill No. 030331, an Ordinance declaring that it is desirable for the 52 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES health, safety and welfare of citizens of the City of Philadelphia that the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority of Philadelphia undertake a project involving the current refunding of the Authority's Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series of 1993 (Philadelphia MR Project) that remain outstanding, and to issue and sell Revenue Refunding Bonds for the purpose of financing such refunding project; authorizing the Authority to undertake the refunding project; authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City, to enter into a supplemental lease with the Authority providing for such refunding project. Please identify yourself for the record.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Donald Cramp. I serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the Hospitals and Higher Education Authority. If I may, Mr. Chairman, just read for our process, a mere formality, a very short statement inasmuch as this is an entirely refinancing. There's no proceeds, no new construction, but it is necessary for our process to appear before you, and if I may be very quick. 53 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
We do have other person to testify should you have questions. On March 11, 2003, the Board of Directors of the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority of Philadelphia accepted the refunding application of the Department of Public Health, Office of Metal Health and Mental Retardation. A public Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) hearing on behalf of the Department of Public Health is not necessary since the 2003 project is strictly a refinancing of the 1993 bond project. There will be no new monies raised in this offering. Today we have the privilege together of assisting the Department of Public Health, Mental Health Mental Retardation Office and the many people associated with this successful project. To close, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to express appreciation to each member of the Rules Committee, to Councilman Kenney for his introduction of this Bill, and to the Council on behalf of the Board of the Authority for your important assistance to this meaningful financing. Thank you. 54 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
My name my name us Austin McGreal. I'm Counsel of the Hospital Authority. And I request a suspension of the Rules in the event that you vote this in the affirmative. Thank you very much.
Good morning. My name is Kathy Sykes. I'm the Director of Mental Retardation Services for the City of Philadelphia, I'm here in support of this.
Thank you very much for coming. Anyone else to testify on this Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you very much. We will now move to Bill No. 010500, an Ordinance authorizing the President of Fairmount Park Commission and the Executive Director of 55 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Fairmount Park, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to enter into a ground lease with the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, a body corporate and politic organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, under which the City would lease approximately seven acres of Gustine Recreation Center to PAID and pursuant to which PAID would enter into a ground sublease with Philadelphia Youth Tennis, Inc., a private, not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Representatives of the Fairmount Park Commission, please.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
I am Karen Lloyd Borski, Executive Director of Fairmount Park Commission.
I did prepare a short statement. Maybe that would just be the thing do to do. I'm not sure whether the Department of Recreation is joining me or not. 56 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Are there any representatives of the Department of Rec? (No response.)
I am the Executive Director of Fairmount Park Commission. I'm pleased to be here today to testify in support of Bill 010150 which would authorize the Fairmount Park Commission to have a sublease agreement with the Arthur Ashe Youth Tennis and Education Organization to construct an indoor/outdoor tennis on the grounds of the current Gustine Rec Center. The site of the facility is a 7-acre parcel of park property on Ridge Ave. at the intersection of School House Lane. While the Gustine Recreation Center has become a Mecca for Philadelphia area amateur basketball in the last 30 years, the surrounding grounds provide open space and athletic fields where a huge swimming pool and the original Gustine Lake once stood. The Commission has been working on the tennis center plan with the Arthur Ashe Youth Tennis Center since 2000. There is tremendous benefit to 57 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES be realized by the City and region in making this idea come to fruition. The new state-of-the-art indoor/outdoor tennis facility will support a wide variety of tennis opportunities and serve thousands of children every year. Although the facility is primarily designed for use by young people, the community will also be able to take advantage of the new courts and amenities. Most importantly, however, may be the fact that in concurrence with building the tennis center, the existing recreation center, now 40 years old, will be replaced with a brand-new gymnasium and community center. The new Gustine Center will be a local and regional destination for athletic endeavors and a focal point for the East Falls community activity. On behalf of the Park Commission, I am pleased to express the Commission's support for this project, and I can ensure Council that this project, like all those considered by the Fairmount Park Commission, has been reviewed with the best interest of Fairmount Park, the local community, and the City of Philadelphia as its highest priority. Thank you.
Thank you very much. 58 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Mr. Bloom, do you have anything to add?`
No, I don't, except to introduce myself. My name is James Bloom, and I'm the Treasurer of the Fairmount Park Commission. Also with us in the audience is Robert Swift who is the President of the Arthur Ashe Youth Tennis and Education Center.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Bloom and Director Borski, let me say first I greatly appreciate the amount of time, effort and work that the Commission in general and Commissioner Bloom in particular and Director Borski have put into this, working along with the East Falls Community Council and special committees as well as Philadelphia Youth Tennis or the much longer name which I'll just mess up, so I'll leave it at PYT. We at the same time know that we have still a fair amount of work to do, and I appreciate Commission's action with regard to the lease. But we know we have more work to do on a number of components of the lease. So let me say to you that 59 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES without all the particulars of the document, what I will look to do is move this Bill along through our process. We need to make an amendment to the Bill 5 requiring the final and complete lease to come back to this Council for approval by Resolution. When that document is finalized, at that point you'd then be able to execute it. But we do need to see a full and complete laid-out lease, and that's a particular provision that we utilize, for instance, in our stadium transaction which needed to move along for financing purposes and to get the project going. But ultimately this Council has to see what the particulars are of the fully executed lease. And you can't have a fully executed lease until we see it and approve it by Resolution, which will naturally be a relatively simple and painless process.
Sounds great. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you also for all your help in getting to this point. We will continue to monitor this and move.
Ultimately it's going to be a great project for the neighborhood and for the City. So I think we've taken an important 60 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES step here today. We'll keep this process moving along to completion.
Thank you very much. I just want to say too, since you've been there, you guys are really doing a good job. Congratulations. With limited resources, which we understand are very limited, but the grass is getting cut and the things are getting fixed and things look much better, so thanks.
We're going to have to take a two-minute recess until the members of the RDA staff come back from the second floor to the room because we're going to start the urban renewal bills and I'd like to have them standby here to answer any questions. So we'll just take a two-minute break. (Brief recess.) 61 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
The next Bill for consideration is Bill No. 030283, an Ordinance 4 approving the fifth amendment of the redevelopment proposal of the Franklin Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at the intersection of the southerly side of Spring Garden Street and the easterly side of Sixth Street, including the sixth amendment to the urban renewal plan and the relocation plan, which provide, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately three properties for commercial and related reuses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring the condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia.
Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 030283, the fifth amended redevelopment proposal and the sixth amended urban renewal plan for the Center City redevelopment area and the 62 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Franklin Urban Renewal Area. His will Bill authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire three properties, two vacate lots and one vacate structure which will be used for commercial and institutional development. All properties will be acquired with bond proceeds from the neighborhood transformation Initiative. The properties will be acquired on behalf of the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation which proposes to construct a mixed-use development that will include a community center and retail uses. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 030283 and would ask for the suspension of Council Rules to allow a first reading on June 5, 2003.
Thank you very much. Is there anyone from the Planning Commission here? Mr. Redding?
We should get him though because the Planning Commission has reviewed and approved this, but we can continue and let him come in. 63 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
He's MIA, so we'll proceed. Anything to add? Anyone to testify on this Bill? (No response.)
Are there any questions for this witness? (No response.)
Seeing none, we move to Bill No. 030295, which is an Ordinance approving the first amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Jefferson Square Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Washington Avenue on the north, South Fourth Street on the east, Dickinson Street on the south and South Sixth Street on the west, including the first amendment to the urban renewal plan and the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 45 properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the project. Please identify yourself for the record. 64 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
My name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I'm here to speak in support Bill 030295, the first amended redevelopment proposal and the first amended urban renewal plan for the Jefferson Square Redevelopment Area and the Jefferson Square Urban Renewal area. This Bill will authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 45 properties, 43 vacant lots and 2 vacant structures, on behalf of the Jefferson Square Community Development Corporation. Jefferson Square CDC plans to use the properties to support a 93-unit homeownership project. The homes would be sold at both affordable and market rates. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 030295, and would ask the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June 5, 2003.
Any questions for this witness? 65 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES (No response.)
This is an area which is generally bounded by Washington Avenue on the north, South Fourth Street on the east, Dickinson Street on the south and south Sixth Street on the west.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I'm Richard Redding, Acting Director of Community Planning Division.
295. I should be listed for all of these. I didn't expect testimony to 66 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES begin so soon, so I'm just arriving. Please accept my apologies. I'm here to testify in support of the Bill.
Okay. Thank you. Anyone else to testify on this Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we'll move to Bill No. 030296, an Ordinance approving the tenth amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Whitman Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at a point of intersection of the northerly side of Snyder Avenue and the easterly side of Front Street, including the tenth amendment to the urban renewal plan and the amended relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of one property for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project. Please identify yourself.
My name is Herbert Wetzel, 67 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 6 030296, the tenth amended redevelopment proposal and the tenth amended urban renewal plan for the Whitman Redevelopment Area and Whitman Urban Renewal Area. This Bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire one vacate lot located at 372 Cantrell Street for the use as a side of the adjacent owner. The property will be acquired with bond proceeds from the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 030296, and would also ask for the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June 5, 2003.
Morning again, Mr. Chairman and Members. Richard Redding, Deputy Director Community Planning testifying in support 030296 for a side yard in the Whitman Urban Renewal 68 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Area.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can just go back to 030295, Jefferson Square ordinance. There are 45 properties, am I correct, Mr. Wetzel?
I'm pretty sure I know what they are. I want to make certain that there are properties that originally asked to be included in there are in there.
Councilman, the book that you have is sorted a little differently. We'll get you the 45 addresses. These are properties currently owned by Jefferson Square CDC that they acquired from Bankruptcy Court that have clouded title.
These aren't any additions? 69 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
No. That will come in the fall. These are the 45 properties they acquired from Bankruptcy Court.
Part the problem is the volume of this work for today and yesterday and tomorrow and Thursday morning is creating a very confused record. Now I've got people who have come -- first of all, a lot of people don't even know what the Bill number is that they're here to testify on because they haven't been able to match their property with the Bill. So that's the first confusion. The second confusion is we have people coming to testify for Bills that we've already heard. So the record is going to be jumbled. This is not the way we should be doing this. I know we're stuck with what we're have and we're probably going to walk through this and do it, but this is not the way we should be doing this. This is not the way in which this Council should be dealing with these issues. They're very important issues. They're very complex, some of them, and we have just got a dump truck full of dirt thrown on 70 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES the floor here in the last three or four days and we're trying to wade our way through it. I do not appreciate having to work like this. I don't appreciate having to consider issues like this and to go through and to cast votes in what I think is a responsible way with this type of activity. It's just not fair. Now, if this is what this is going to be forever, I guess there's nothing I can do about it other than express my disdain and concern about this on the record. This is the not the way you should do government. This is not the way we should be doing this. We're stuck and we're going to do your job and work our way through this, but this is unfair and unreasonable. And I think it really stinks compared to what happened yesterday and what's now going to happen now. So I want the record to be clear that this is not the way this should be conducted. I don't need any comment. I would like to ask Mr. Chin if he could come forward because now we're going to go back to Bill 030283 and hear testimony on that. I hope whoever reads this record 71 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES understand, because I don't understand it listening to it. Let the record show this testimony is for Bill No. 030283, which is an Ordinance dealing with the Franklin Urban Renewal Area. So anyone reading this record, please go back a couple pages to see the title of the Bill. Could you please identify yourself for the record.
And please, don't think -- you're not at fault here. Don't in any way think anyone here from the public that's testifying is at any fault in any way.
It's fine. It's this room, it's this process, it's just the way life is these days.
My name is John Chin, and I represent the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation. I just want to thank the Rules Committee for allowing us to speak today on behalf of a project that we're trying to develop in 72 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Chinatown which compromises three properties that's included in the Franklin Urban Renewal Plan today. I just want to state that we are non-profit 501(c)(3) and have been working on this project for several years now. We envisioned this project a little over a decade ago. And these three properties that have been presented to you today are key to the development of the Chinatown Community Center, which is a much-needed facility for our community. We currently have over 4,000 people living in Chinatown with a variety of needs. Many of them are recreation, social, health needs. We have an overcrowded situation in Chinatown which over the last couple years more and more apartments have development so there's less recreation space, less living space for our most concerned population which are senior citizens and youth. So what we're asking you here today is to support the acquisition of these three properties so we can move forward with the development of Chinatown Community Center. We already have funds that have been identified for the development of the center, and this will enable us continue the 73 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES development of it. It will be a combination of commercial and non-profit use at this site and is key to the further expansion and growth of the Chinatown community. So, again, I ask that the Rules Committee support this acquisition request.
And I do want to introduce Anna Chan who represents the Chinese Gospel Church in Chinatown, and she will give you a very brief testimony. Thank you.
My name is Anna Chan, C-H-A-N. I'm working the Chinese Gospel Church as an administrator. Dear Honorable Kenney, I'm a member of Chinese Gospel Church, an established church in Chinatown community. I'm asking for yours and your community's support for the proposed amendment to the Franklin Urban Renewal Area as presented by Bill 23 No. 030283 and prepared by the City Planning Commission and to be carried out by Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia. 74 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES The proposed amendments call for acquisition of three properties. The City assistance in the acquisition is necessary and will allow the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation, PCDC, to move forward on the development of Chinatown North Phase III Project, the Chinatown Community Center. The Center will be mixed-use facility that will address a multitude of social service, health, recreation, language, and cultural education needs of the community. The need for such a facility continues to grow as the emigrant population increase every time. Our church is currently running after school programs for the school-aged immigrants. The program is limited with space as well as no 18 playground facility. The Center will allow us to provide more extensive activities in a safe environment to the children and even the parents. Our church also handles numerous inquiries on social and health issues. Surely, the needs are growing and a centralized community center will be positive for us to handle the needs. Thank you for your time and 75 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES consideration.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Is there any questions for these witness? (No response.)
Seeing none, we thank you for coming in and for your testimony. Do we have a Spanish translator in the room? Because the next Bill I think is a Bill 12 that's going to need it. Going back to our initial problem, many of the people in the room do not know based on the title Bill whether or not their property in fact in that particular proposed ordinance. There's got to be in your testimony some more defined way of allowing people in the room that are sitting here waiting to know that their properties are going to be taken or not. So I need, in addition to when I read the title, I'm going to need a little more information that people can have an understanding whether or not their property on that list. I also need to have this particular Bill or just about every Bill after this translated. 76 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
You're going to have the titles translated, Mr. Chairman?
Sure. Let me ask either the RDA, the Planning Commission or the Secretary of Housing. The gentleman just put up a map. Do we have maps of each of the areas?
When the Chairman returns, what we may seek to do is have that map, at least briefly, raised so that people in the audience can see it. And I think most Philadelphians, if they see a mapped area, they can pretty much figure out whether they're in that area or not. You only have one map of each area?
Yes. Would you like us to sort of announce the general neighborhood?
Yes. Just give us more information. The way the Bills are written, or at least the titles of the Bills, do not indicate clearly -- the last Bill, for example, you wouldn't know it was 372 Cantrell unless you had read it. 77 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
And then we're going to do our best to get some translation. Next, Bill 030298, an Ordinance 6 approving the fourth amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the New Kensington and Fishtown Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by the rear property lines on the northerly side of Lehigh Avenue on the north, the centerline of Delaware Avenue and I-95 on the east, the southerly side of Laurel Street on the south and the rear property lines on the westerly side of Front Street and Kensington Avenue on the west, including the fourth amendment to the urban renewal plan and the second amendment to the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 66 properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law; and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project. (Title of Bill 030298 read in Spanish.)
Gracias. Please identify yourself for the record. 78 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
My name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I'm here to support Bill No. 030298. This Bill involves the New Kensington and Fishtown area. Those are the particular neighborhoods in which the acquisitions will take place. This is the fourth amended redevelopment proposal and the fourth amended urban renewal plan for the new Kensington Fishtown Redevelopment Area in the New Kensington and Fishtown Urban Renewal Area. This Bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 66 properties, 65 the properties are vacant lots and one vacant structure, which will be used for open space and new residential development. All properties will be acquired with bond proceeds from the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative unless otherwise specified. One vacate structure on the 900 block of Marlboro Street will be acquired on behalf of adjacent Frank Spasono (ph) and Joan Morgan for 79 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES rehabilitation rental housing. In this case, the developer will pay for all acquisition and costs. Forty-five vacant lots will be use as side yard, recreation areas and supplemental open space. The properties constitute the fourth phase of the Open Space Management Program and Initiative that the New Kensington Development Corporation and the Office of Housing and Community Development that targets the systematic acquisition and reuse of vacant derelict properties. All acquisition costs will be paid by OHCD. Twenty vacate lots will be acquired for use as side yards by adjacent homeowners in scattered sites throughout Kensington and parts of Port Richmond. Passage of this Bill would lead to the creation of new affordable rental units as well improve in the quality of life for 65 families through the provision of side yards and open space. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 030298, and would also ask for the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June 5, 2003.
Thank you very much. 80 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Any questions for this witness? (No response.)
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members. Richard Redding from the City Planning Commission, testifying in support of Bill 8 030298, involving the continuation of the very successful Open Space Program in the Kensington area. This was approved by the Planning Commission at its April meeting of this year. Thank you.
Good afternoon. I'm sandy Salzman from New Kensington Community Development Corporation, and I'm here to ask your approval for this Bill. As you may know, this side yard program has made a tremendous different in our neighborhood and it has also allowed these properties to be put back on the tax rolls. So we are very thrilled to be having this happen. Thank you.
Thank you very much. 81 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Any questions for this witness? (No response.)
Thank you very much. Bill No. 030299, an Ordinance approving the 14th amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the South Central Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at the intersection of the southerly side of Washington Avenue projected and the easterly side of Delaware Avenue, including the 14th amendment to the urban renewal plan and 12 amendment to the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately four properties for residential and related reuses; the additional land acquisition of one property for commercial and related reuse; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project. (Bill 030299 read in Spanish.)
Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record. 82 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
My name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia.
Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 030299. The affected areas of this particular Bill are Southwark and -- I'm trying to identify the neighborhood. I generally call it southwest Center City, and I think I might be accurate. This Bill is the 14th amended redevelopment proposal and the 14th amended urban renewal plan for the South Central Redevelopment Area and the South Central Urban Renewal Area. This would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire five vacant lots to be used for side yards, open space, and commercial development. All properties will be acquired with bond proceeds from the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. Three vacant lots will be acquired for use as side yards by adjacent homeowners. Two of the lots are located in southwest Center City at 1820 and 1824 Christian Street. The third lot is 83 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES located at 1025 South Randolph Street in the Southwark neighborhood. One vacate lot located 939-41 South Third Street will be acquired for use as a community garden. And one vacate lot located at 1212 South Street will be acquired for new commercial development. Upon acquisition the Redevelopment Authority will immediately market the property to a redeveloper. Passage of this Ordinance will lead to an enhanced quality of life for three homeowners through the provision of side yards and numerous families in the Southwark neighborhood through the creation of open space community garden. It will also lead to new commercial development on one of the City's most vital commercial corridors, South Street. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill 030299, and would also ask for the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June 5, 2003.
Good afternoon. Richard 84 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Redding, City Planning Commission, testifying in support of this Bill 030299 involving a redevelopment proposal in South Central Section. It was approved at the Planning Commission of April of '03. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Is Rob and Lisa Buscaglia here? Before that, though, Kathy please come up for Council President Verna. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Chairman Kenney and Members of the committee. My name Kathleen Murray, and I'm Special Assistant to Council President Verna. As it pertains to Bill No. 030299, there are two referenced properties in the Council President's district in the 1800 block of Christian Street. These properties have recently been sold at Sheriff's Sale and the party for whom the properties had been intended through condemnation has indicated that he cannot pay fair market value, so we will not support the acquisition.
We will not support the 85 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES acquisition through eminent domain because they have been purchased through Sheriff's Sale recent. These are two properties on Christian street.
So I understand, do you want the Bill to move forward?
We want the Bill to move forward, but we're just making it known for the record that we can't support the acquisition of those two properties. The Bill, we understand, is to move forward for Councilman DiCicco's properties.
Our understanding of the Redevelopment law is that Council is required to approve them as the plan is submitted, but the Declaration of Takings not be filed on these properties.
Mr. Wetzel, could you come back and explain why we're doing what the 86 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Council President doesn't want us to do, or what the Council President is not supporting.
We had actually initially made the request. And in the interim, they have sold it at Sheriff's Sale.
Let's try to clear up the record. Would Please respond to that or elaborate on that situation?
Yes. Under state statutes a redevelopment proposal that's approved by the Redevelopment Authority Board then goes to the Planning Commission and then is conveyed to Council in the form of an Ordinance. It either has to be accepted or rejected in total or we have to go back and start the process over again. We have historically and will continue with each Council district, if there's something in the ordinance that the Councilperson does not want taken after the ordinance pass, we will not proceed and take that property. Councilman DiCicco, we've worked together on that and the Council President's office recently on that where properties are in an ordinance. I think we're in an area here where real estate is not 87 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES static. Things are changing rapidly. What was vacant lot and tax delinquent three months ago now has been bought at Sheriff's Sale and probably plans for redevelopment. At that point, if the private sector is going to fix up the property, we don't need to take it.
Okay. Would you plead identify yourself for the record.
My name is Rob Buscaglia at 939-941 South Third Street. I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 030299. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Kenney and the Committee on Rules for taking this opportunity to let us present our testimony today. The gardeners have been using the property that I stated at 939-941 South Third Street for the last years. Formerly a vacate lot, 20 trash-strewn, dirty, unsightly, dangerous. The 21 neighbors of the community had erected a fence in 22 the '70s to protect against health and crime issues. 23 And in June of 1980, Philadelphia Green helped the neighborhood start a community garden there, and it's been flushing and existing there for the last 88 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES years due only to the hard work and personal resources of the gardeners and neighbors themselves. Over the course of those 23 years, we've made substantial improvements to the property. We've maintained the property, putting in paths flowers, plants, obviously vegetable gardens, but then also doing things to promote a better community for ourselves, including a trap and spay program for stray cats. And it also has become a center where we commune, where we come together as a community to figure out how we can better improve our neighborhood. And I think over those years we've 14 made significant improvements. In the absent of the 15 land owner, we've made this into a flourishing and 16 vibrant place to live by having green space. 17 The owner has not been around, has not 18 paid taxes that we can tell on the property. And in 19 his absence, we've made it our home. 20 Speaking on behalf of the community, I'd 21 like to list a few of the improvements we have made. 22 We actually cleaned up the rubble and trash left 23 behind from the times to it prior to it being a community garden, you know, daily weeding, the plantings that we've done, made pathways, tool 89 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES sheds, we have a park bench out there, table and chairs. We have a mosaic mural made my Isaiah Zagar that was made in the year 2000 which attracts people from all over Philadelphia, and even visitors. And we've erected a fence to stop the flow of dangerous traffic through the neighborhood. As you can see, it's not just a place where one can go to grow fruits and vegetables or plants, it's a resource to the community. It's a place where we share mutuality. I think that's an important thing kind of left behind in some communities. It's an area that people share together. And that commonality creates a lot of vigilance in our communities. So we're out there and about and people see that there's community there and this isn't a place to just loiter or to commit crime. We've also taken many environmental steps. We recycle our own water. We made a barrel system that collects rain water and we use that for our garden. We've created our own form of recycling program where the neighbors get together and bring cardboard and glass and other recyclables to a recycling center on Saturdays twice a month. And 90 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES then we also partake in the City's Fairmount Park Recycling center rather than buying mulch and compost at a local home center, we use the Fairmount Park Recycling Center for that as well. It's also a place for other community members, workers, church members, neighbors can come to have lunch, to drink their morning coffee, to read a book, to have a quiet barbeque. So we've made this into something much more than just a garden for a few people. It is an actual community green space, recreation space, good for psychological and physical health of the community as well as the financial health of the community. Because we do realize that all of the wonderful commercial and residential development that has happened is very beneficial to us, but at the same time without the green space I don't think that that community has the value that it would have.
And during the time when that wasn't such a nice place to live, that was one of the things that was an anchor of peace and reprieve, and continues to be and it continues to increase the value of our community both ecologically and socially. We'd like to ask on behalf of the 91 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES community garden neighbors and the Queen Village Neighborhood Association that this land be confiscated through the RDA and turned over to the Neighborhood Garden Association who would in turn put in their land trust and let the neighbors use that as ongoing green space.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Cappello, please come forward. Is Mr. Legacki here? Please identify yourself for the record.
I'm Christopher Cappello, and I live at 1023 South Randolph Street. And I would kindly request that the City acquire the lot at 1025 South Randolph Street on behalf of my wife and me. We've been taken care of the lot for the last two years, made drastic improvements on the land, taken away truck loads of debris. There are five other abandoned lots on our block. And without caretakers of the lots, they add to the blight depresses home values and morale of the neighborhood. I have photo reference, if you would like, but that's all I have to say. 92 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Michael Legacki, representing the South Bodine Street Garden. I'd just like to echo the sentiments stated by Rob Buscaglia earlier, that this is a very important issue for us for quality of life issue in this neighborhood. And I respectfully request that Council approve this Bill.
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else to testify on this Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we'll now move to Bill No. 030284, which is an Ordinance 17 approving the first amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Kingsessing Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Chester Avenue on the north, South 52nd Street on the east, the AMTRAK right-of-way line on the south and South 61st Street and 62nd Street on the west, including the first amendment to the urban renewal plan and relocation plan, which provide, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 18 93 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project. (Bill 030284 read in Spanish.)
My name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 030284. The particular section 14 of the it City and neighborhood would be the Kingsessing section of Southwest Philadelphia. This is the first amendment to the Southwest Schuylkill Redevelopment Proposal and the first amendment to the Kingsessing Urban Renewal Plan for the Southwest Schuylkill Redevelopment Area in the Kingsessing Urban Renewal Area. This Bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 18 vacant lots on the 6100 block of Reinhard Street in Southwest Philadelphia. These formerly blighted and trash-strewn lots were redeveloped as green space 94 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES under the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative Early Action Program. A joint initiative of the NTI Office, the Philadelphia Horticultural Society, and the William Penn Foundation. The sites will eventually be conveyed to community organizations for long-term maintenance and use. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable considerable of Bill 030284 and would ask for the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June 5, 2003.
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. I'm Richard Redding, City Planning Commission, testifying in support of Bill No. 030284, involving a redevelopment proposal which proposes to acquire properties for early action greening in the Kingsessing area. This was approved at the April Meeting of our Commission. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.) 95 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Seeing none, we'll now move to Bill No. 030285, which is an Ordinance 7 approving the third amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Point Breeze East Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by the southerly side of Washington Avenue on the north, the westerly side of Broad Street on the east, the northerly side of Moore Street on the south and the easterly side of 20th Street on the west, including the third amendment to the urban renewal plan and the second amendment to the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 119 properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring the condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project. (Bill 030285 read in Spanish.)
My name is Herbert Wetzel, 96 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority City of Philadelphia. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I'm here to speak in support of No. 030285. The particular neighborhood or section 6 of the City is the Point Breeze area. The third amended redevelopment proposal and the third amended urban renewal plan for the Point Breeze Redevelopment Area and the Point Breeze Urban Renewal Area. This Bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 118 properties, vacant lots, 53 vacant structures and 15 occupied 14 structures, for residential, commercial, and 15 institutional development. All properties will be acquired with bond proceeds from the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative unless otherwise specified. For home ownership, seven vacant structures on the 1200 block of South 23rd Street will be acquired on behalf of Habitat for Humanity Philadelphia. The properties will be rehabilitated by Habitat volunteers and sold to low and moderate-income families. Three properties, two vacant structures 97 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES and one vacant lot, will be acquired for future residential development by South Philadelphia Homes and other local developers. On rental, 78 properties, vacant 6 lots, 41 vacant structures and 15 occupied 7 structures, will be acquired on behalf of Universal 8 Community Homes. The properties will be part of 9 Universal 16th and Federal Phase III Affordable 10 Rental Housing Development, a plan as a 50-unit 11 rental project to be financed with low-income rental 12 housing tax credits. 13 Commercial and institutional. 14 Twenty-six properties, vacant lots and vacant 15 structure located on the 1300 block of South Capital 16 and the 2000 block of Reed Street will be acquired 17 on behalf of the Mitchum Wilson Funeral Home which 18 is expanding its current business in the Point 19 Breeze community. 20 Four properties, two vacant structures 21 and two vacant lots, located on or near the 1600 22 block of South 20th Street will be acquired on 23 behalf of Tasker Street Baptist Church. 24 Tasker Street Baptist church plans to 25 use the properties to develop a community center and 98 1 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES will provide senior services, child care, and information and referral for community residents. The passage of this Bill will lead to the creation of approximately units of for-sale 6 housing, 50 units of rental housing, new community 7 service space and the expansion of one existing 8 business. 9 Mr. Chairperson and Members of the 10 Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 030285 and would ask the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June 5, 2003.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members. I'm Richard Redding from the Planning Commission testifying in support of Bill 19 NO. 030285. It was approved at the May meeting of the Planning Commission. It involves acquisitions in the Point Breeze area for a variety of community development projects. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Ms. Murray, please identify yourself.
Kathleen Murray from 99 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Council President Verna's office. Bill 030285 authorizes the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 119 properties. It is our office's understanding that there are occupied properties contained in 6 this Bill. At this time, we have not reached an 7 agreement on those. So again, we will be asking the 8 Redevelopment Authority to work with them before any 9 Declaration of Taking is filed. Generally, unless 10 there's a compelling to take an occupied property, 11 Council President Verna won't support that. 12 Finally, we have worked with the Tasker 13 Street Baptist Church, Mitchum Wilson Funeral Home 14 and Habitat for Humanity South Philadelphia Homes, 15 and we support those acquisition requests.
What's the Authority's commitment to not taking of property -- as you know, Ms. Murray, once we pass this, they can do whatever they want. So I mean, the sentiment is understood, but I need for the record confirmation of that arrangement.
If we receive any letter from a District Councilperson after an ordinance has been passed, after it's been signed into law by the Mayor to not proceed with the taking of the 100 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES property, Redevelopment Authority will not proceed with the taking of the property.
Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses? Councilman Cohen.
Mr. Wetzel, did I hear you make a distinction between District Councilmembers and Councilmembers-at-Large?
Well, I would say that's totally unacceptable and I will be voting against your efforts. I don't understand how you can distinguish between the powers of the two. I would like you to amend your statement so that it reads that if you have any objection from any Councilmember. You have no power and no right to distinguish between a District Councilmember and a Councilmember-at-Large. And if you want to forfeit seven votes from Councilmembers-of-Large, go ahead and do it and we'll see where it stands.
My question, sir, would be if the District Councilperson would like this 101 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES acquisition to proceed and another Councilperson doesn't want it to proceed, who referees?
I'm just asking a question. I'm not sure how would -- how do I handle that when the District Councilperson says, "I want it to happen" and it's been passed?
You would refer it to the Council President. That would be the Council's problem to deal with.
Well, I would still like to hear a statement that you will honor any Councilmember's objections, at least to the tune of not acting until you get further advise from the Council President.
I'm trying to figure out how to phrase it right. If there is an objection on the taking of any property by any Councilperson and there's any conflict as a result of that objection, as another Councilperson wants to proceed, we would refer that to the Council President's office for disposition. 102 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Is that acceptable?
Thank you. We have know distinctions. We in Council recognize certain priorities that go with different offices, whether it's Council-at-Large or District Council. But that's for Council to make the decision on. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Abdur Rahim Islam, if he's here. I don't think he's here, but if there is any other representatives from Universal Companies. Good afternoon.
My name is Earl Pace, and I represent Universal Community Homes. We're here in support of this item because it's a part of the Universal project to build 400 housing units over the next five years. That will be for low and moderate-income properties. This passage at this time would enable the tax credits to applied for in October, and it wil result in 50 units that will have 12 two-bedrooms, 28 three-bedrooms, and 10 103 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES four-bedroom units. And we will be decreasing the density in the area provided off-street parking, energy inefficient homes. And we encourage you to support this.
Thank you very much. Any questions for this witness? (No response.)
None. We'll ask Claudia Sherrod, if she's here. Or Charlene Wilson-Doffoney.
Claudia Sherrod, the President of the Point Breeze Community Development Coalition and the Executive Director of South Philadelphia Homes.
I support the present Bill 20 intact, providing any amendments that City Council President has to go along with the changes.
Charlene Wilson-Doffoney, Funeral Director, Mitchum-Wilson 104 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Funeral Home.
Thank you very much for coming in. Alice Sheppard and Tim Block. Is Mr. Block here? Please identify yourself.
Good afternoon. I'm Alice Sheppard, I'm from Tasker Street Baptist Church and the Tasker Street Baptist Church Community Organization. We support this Bill.
My name Robbie Maze. I own property on 17th and Annin, which is 1651 Annin. I can appreciate what they doing in the area because I'm a property owner, but I would like to exclude my property because I'm trying to do something also. I was there before they built them properties in the area, fixing up the area, and I wanted to know if it's any way possible I can get some help to exit my 105 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES property in it. It's not vacant. I'm living in the property. It's not like an eyesore in the property.
Is Kathy Murray still here? She just left. If you want to wait here a few minutes, and then we'll hook you up with Council President office and I'm sure they can accommodate you. Anyone else to testify on this Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we'll move to Bill No. 030286, which is an Ordinance 14 approving the first amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the 45th and Sansom Urban Renewal Area, bing the area generally bounded by Chestnut Street on the north, South 44th Street on the east, Walnut Street on the south and Farragut Street on the west, including the first amendment to the urban renewal plan and the first amendment to the relocation plan, which provides inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 19 properties for residential and related uses; and provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with 106 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES respect to the Project. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 030286. The neighborhood or section of Philadelphia would be University City. The first amended redevelopment proposal and first amended urban renewal plan for the 45th and Sansom Redevelopment Area in the 45th and Sansom Urban Renewal Area. This Bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire properties, 18 15 vacant structures and 1 occupied structure, which 16 will be used for residential development. All 17 properties will be acquired with bond proceeds from 18 the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. The 19 19 properties which are located on the 4500 block of Sansom Street and the 100 block of South 46th Street are to be acquired on behalf of the Partnership CDC. The properties will support the development of 11 single-family town homes and 8 duplex condominium units which will be sold both at affordable and market rates. 107 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES The passage of this Bill will lead to the creation of new homeownership opportunities 4 for families in the University City community. 5 Mr. Chairperson and Members of the 6 Committee, I respectfully request favorable 7 consideration of Bill No. 030286, and would ask the 8 suspension of Council Rules for a first reading on 9 June 5, 2003. 10
Hello. Richard Redding 13 from City Planning Commission, testifying in support 14 of Bill 030286, involving the housing rehab 15 initiative in the 45th and Sansom vicinity. This 16 was approved at the April meeting of the Planning 17 Commission. And previously the Planning Commission 18 produced a blight report and redevelopment area plan 19 to facility the rehab initiative thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
I Mr. Stoddart in the room or anyone from The Partnership CDC? (No response.) 108 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we'll move to Bill No. 030287, which is an Ordinance 7 approving the eighth amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the West Mill Creek Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at a point on the southerly se of Haverford Avenue, 373 feet more or less, west of the westerly side of 43rd Street, including the seventh amendment to the urban renewal plan and the relocation plan, as amended, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately properties for residential and 16 related uses; the provision of certain relocation 17 services, as required by law; and declaring the 18 condemnation is not imminent with respect to the 19 Project. 20 Pleas identify yourself for the record 21 and explain to me what "more or less" is. Not 22 exactly a very precise term. 23
Okay. Please 109 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES proceed.
My name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, there are actually two ordinances that affect the Mill Creek area. This is the first. The second one is 030289. That's because there are two separate urban renewal areas for this project area. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 13 030288, the eighth amendment to the redevelopment proposal and the seventh amendment to the urban renewal plan for the West Philadelphia Redevelopment Area and the West Mill Creek Urban Renewal Area. This Bill would authorize the Authority to acquire properties, 19 vacant lots, 3 vacant 19 structures and 3 occupied structures, for 20 residential development. All properties will be 21 acquired with bond proceeds from the Neighborhood 22 Transformation Initiative. 23 The 25 properties will be acquired on 24 behalf of the Philadelphia Housing Authority in 25 support of the Mill Creek Hope 6 Revitalization 110 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Project. The project will create 125 new affordable rental units and 60 units of affordable for-sale house. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 030287, and would also ask the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June 5, 2003. Mr. Redding.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members. I'm Richard Redding from the Planning Commission supporting 030287, involving acquisition in support of the rebuild and redesign the Mill Creek public housing and surrounding neighborhood. It was approved by the Planning Commission at its April meeting. Previously, the Planning Commission prepared a blight report and redevelopment area plan for the same area. Thank you.
For the purposes of those who came out today, there are three property addresses that I have of the three occupieds in this 111 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES particular Bill. Would you like to have them read?
Is there anyone here in the room whose property is involved in this particular Bill?
708 North 44th Street, 716 North 44th Street, and 726 North 44th Street.
Seeing none. Is there any representative here from the Housing Authority? Is there anyone representing State Representative Horsey here? He had requested an opportunity to testify. If not, is there anyone else to testify on this Bill?
Seeing none, we'll move to Bill No. 030288, an Ordinance approving the redevelopment proposal of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the 44th and Aspen Urban Renewal Area being the area generally bounded by Lancaster Avenue, Belmont Avenue, Pennsgrove Street, 42nd 112 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Street, Haverford Avenue, 44th Street, Fairmount Avenue and 47th street; approving the urban renewal plan and determining that such plan and redevelopment proposal conform to the general locality plan and make adequate provisions for individuals, business concerns and families who are displaced; determining the necessity for changes in and for zoning, streets, alleys, public ways, street patterns, location and relocation of public utilities; determining that the urban renewal plan and redevelopment proposal meet all non-discrimination requirements of Federal, State and Local Laws and the regulations and policies promulgated with respect thereto; declaring that certain expressly designated and provided for condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project; and declaring the redevelopment undertakings in the Project to be an important part of the City's program to remove and prevent and spread of urban blight.
My name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the 113 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill 3 030288. Again, this would be considered the Mill Creek neighborhood of West Philadelphia, which authorizes the redevelopment proposal and urban renewal plan for 44th and Aspen Redevelopment Area and the 44th Aspen Urban Renewal Area. This Bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 339 properties, 207 vacant lots, 66 vacant structures and 66 occupied structures, for residential redevelopment. All properties will be acquired with bond proceeds from the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. 326 properties, 204 vacant lots, 66 vacant structures and 66 occupied structures will be acquired on behalf of the Philadelphia Housing Authority in support of the Mill Creek Hope 6 Revitalization Project. The project will consist of approximately 125 affordable rental units and 60 units of affordable for-sale housing. Three vacant lots will be acquired on behalf of Saint Ignatius Nursing Home. The lots will become part of a larger redevelopment plan which calls for the construction of 180-unit rental apartment building for low and moderate-income seniors. 114 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Passage of this Bill would lead to the creation of approximately 60 new ownership homes, 125 rental units, and 180 units of affordable housing for senior citizens. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 030288 and would ask the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on June 5, 2003.
Good afternoon again. I'm Richard Redding, Deputy Director, Community Planning Division, speaking in support of Bill 030288, involving creation of a new urban renewal area in the 44th and Aspen and Mill Creek area of West Philadelphia. It was approved at the April meeting of our Commission. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen.
This is probably directed to you Mr. Wetzel. For years now we've been having these kinds of ordinances, and Council 115 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES has dutifully done its part to make this possible. I'm wondering, do you have idea of how many people in Philadelphia or how many families there are that are living in homes as a result of this kind of legislation? What have we done in Philadelphia?
Councilman, I can get you a list of that, but it's in the thousands.
Could you get something to present it the next time we have a hearing on this kind of matter?
There are literally thousands of units both rental and affordable rental and homeownership and seniors and special needs housing projects that have come from this type of action.
Because I think that would be the most dramatic kind of evidence to tell us whether what we're doing has any meaning or not.
Would it be acceptable that if we said urban renewal taking, this location, 50 116 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES homeownership units were built; urban renewal taking, this location, 28 senior citizens rental units; would that be an acceptable format to you?
Councilman Nutter said that any information you provide would be helpful.
Because otherwise, we work in a vacuum. We never get the results of the action that we take.
And then I think it will be very comforting to the people who are involved in new situations to understand whether the part of successful ongoing program or whether this is just talk by a City Administration. If the City Administration deserves credit for achieving wholesale betterment, we ought to know about it. If it doesn't, we ought to also know about.
Councilman, I agree. I think the one thing that we don't do as well as we 117 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES need to do is talk about the successes. And there are literally thousands of units have been built as a result of this.
Well, I think that would be very heartening and people could test to find if that's true or not.
Could you add in there how many market rate houses have been built as a result of that?
Market rate is a new initiative, so -- but there have been some market rate, but that was in the older urban renewal days, if you recall.
Those are the older urban renewal areas. I think the new initiative -- they go back too far to have any relevance to today.
Mr. Wetzel, may I ask you also at the same time, since the market rate question has come up, could you tell us when there was instituted the rules that permit different rates 118 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES to be paid labor for residential and for commercial, and do they apply in the City of Philadelphia? We understand that in suburban areas that building is more effective at market rate levels than it is in the City because simply in the City as soon as something is built, it's worth about that half that amount on the market. Whereas, in suburban areas because of, among other things, lower labor costs, sometimes lower technical requirements, whatever the purposes, there's only one rate that applies. And it does seem to be possible to build market rate housing in the suburbs but not in the City. I think all the citizens of the Philadelphia would benefit if the same were possible here in the City, and we ought to be taking advantage of the fact that a City built to house 2 million and a half people now houses only a million and a half, so we ought to be able to give each home the kind of room 20 that maybe the suburbs get. So if you could get us that information in addition. But don't wait, you give us the first part; that will be easier. If you collect the second piece of information, we would very much like to have it. 119 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Thank you very much. Mr. Redding you testified on this Bill, didn't you? MR. REDDING, yes, I did.
Anyone else to testify on this Bill? Could you please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Aiesha Bey, and I am the homeowner of 820 North 47th Street. Downstairs, they sent us to the second floor. They didn't give us a full understanding of what was going on. Everybody is talking. The lady wasn't even talking on the microphone. She's talking; you can't even hear her. I don't know what's going on. I wasn't aware of an April meeting. This is the first time I received a notice. I need to know what's going on. My address is on this list here. The block that I live on is -- I'm the only person on the block. Across the street is an abandon lot and next door to be is an abandoned lot which I was trying to apply for for four years. I'm in the last stage of applying the 120 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES deed from the property, and they put it on hold and tell me, you gotta go see Jannie Blackwell. And they tell me they're trying to acquire my property. I need to know what's going on because I've been cleaning this block for eight years and cutting the grass for four years, I need to know what's going on here.
Yes. I will have my staff member, Alisa Snead, come upstairs and speak with you, certainly, in the back of the room. Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to do that and have her talk with them now.
Thank you, Councilwoman. Sir, could you please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Blackwell, officers, and my fellow citizens. My name James Renwick. I'm a property owner, investor. I own and rent out houses and apartments in the community. My concern is that a lot of the 121 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES neighbors or the community members have no idea of what's going on. For my tenants, I would like to be able to come back and convey information to them about what's going on with this. We'd like to know so that there can be some type of rest as to what's going on. I have been told that some of the notices that were sent out were actually erroneous and that, in fact, these houses aren't going to be slated for acquisition by the City, but it's kind of more so in a random state, or that it's a targeted area but all of the properties won't be slated for demolition or whatever the City plans to do. I'd like to know if some information could be given to us today, some literature, some things that we could take back that are formative and would set some of the community at rest as to what's going on.
Yes. Again, we're happy to. Ms. Snead is on her way up, and she'll speak with you. We have other members of the NTI team who will be able to review your case and the other case individually. 122 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Now, we spoke to them downstairs and they had informed us that there was some literature here. There was literature for some of the other areas, but nothing that targeted the Mill Creek area. Most of the people that came up for information on the Mill Creek area have not received any information at all.
Yes. I understand that downstairs we had everybody across the City who was involved in a meeting in Conversation Hall, so I'm sure you didn't get that much specific information. But we'll do our best to talk with you. Both of you, this Alisa Snead, and she can step to the side and she'll be glad to talk to you. Or outside maybe since our hearing is still going on and we'll see what can happen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, everyone. My name Carolyn Thomas, and I live in the 4500 block of Hoop Street. I received two letters; one that you were going to have this hearing today, and the 123 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES other one was to go to a meeting on Thursday and Saturday. My question to you is that they kept telling us, if you qualify that they will give you referral money to be moved. When we asked me what were qualifications, they could not tell us. We want to know what it is that you're offering us to move out of our homes, which we are elderly. I am a personally a person that has done my house over last year to get ready to retire this year. My home is paid for. I don't any taxes. I don't owe any water bills. What are the qualifications for people like us who own our homes that have been living 50 years?
Let me just sort of step through. It will just take a couple of minutes. If a person's property that they own and occupy is taken by eminent domain, the redevelopment is required to follow the Federal Uniform Relocation Act. Sort of the following or basic elements of that. One is we must pay fair market value for the property that we're acquiring. That's a result of an appraisal, but also the owner can contest our appraisal. If they think our appraisal too low, 124 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES they can a Board of View appointed, get an appraisal and argue that their property is worth more than our appraiser said. The key factor here, though, is they're entitled to a replacement house. In other words, the federal statute does not allow you to just pay somebody for their house and say, "See you later. That's your problem." We have an affirmative obligation under the federal statutes to work with these individuals to find a replacement house. If hypothetically -- and please just understand it's hypothetically -- that if somebody's house were appraised for $20,000 and we can find a replacement house, a similar type house on a good block that's selling for 45,000, hypothetically again, we have an obligation to not only pay them the $20,000 for the house they live in now, we also have to give them a replacement payment of $25,000, the difference between a decent safe and sanitary replacement house and the house we're taking from them. Further, we're obligated to pay all their moving expenses associated with moving to the new property. We're obligated any pay any utility 125 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES re-connect costs. If the phone company charges, if the cable company charges, we have to pay those costs. And we have to pay all closing costs associated with the purchase of the replacement house; transfer tax, title and recording fees. We have to pay all those costs so that the owner doesn't bear any of the burden of the move.
How does this individual citizen know whether or not she's in fact slated for that particular action and whether she qualifies for what was just explained?
Every condemnee who is the owner of the property qualifies. There is no income qualifications for relocation benefits. You could make a hundred thousand a year and if your property was condemned, you're still entitled to relocation benefits. So there's no income test for relocation benefits. And further, her property is on the list, am I correct on that?
I think I looked at the list here. What happens -- and the process would 126 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES be, if this ordinance is passed and if the Mayor signed the ordinance, the next step is the Redevelopment Authority orders appraisals and title reports. We would send a letter to the owners of the property saying, "You're going to be contacted by an appraiser." Especially if you've fixed it up, you should let that appraiser see the improvements you've made to the property to get the maximum value out of your property. We would also then, having the appraisal in, after we get the appraisal we would send an offer letter saying, "This is how much the property is appraised for." And then the owner can decide whether they want to accept that offer or they want to challenge that offer. Even during that period, though, we could be working -- some people have expressed a desire to move already. We can begin the work with individuals in the process of finding replacement houses earlier on in the process, but not until we have the appraisal so we know how much they're going to get for their property.
Is there any element in the award given to the homeowner whose home is 127 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES taken where an element akin to what in law is pain and suffering? Taking a normal accident case where a person heals completely but the person receives compensation -- (Applause.)
Receives compensation for the emotional conflicts engendered by all the discomfort caused by the accident. It seems to me that the loss of a home to which you've become attached where you know what steps to watch before you take them, you know, instead of having to learn all over where you're going to trip and fall on the floor -- (Applause.)
It seems to me that the law is very faulty if it doesn't provide for an element of compensation for that. Because you're playing with people's lives and giving them absolutely nothing in return. (Applause.)
I mean, how can you say you have a right to disrupt people's lives entirely where they lived for many years in one 128 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES house and all you're going to do -- and you think we ought to be compensated and complimented for doing that. We may pay you what you're going to have to pay out to get a different house that you didn't want. You were very happy in your old house. (Applause.)
Is there such a figure, Mr. Wetzel? If not, I think we're going to want to take some kind of action to inform on congressional representatives that we find this federal law faulty. (Applause.)
Councilman, the answer to your question is that the federal statute does not include that.
Well, are we bound by that federal statute? Why don't City of Philadelphia adopt a policy in fairness to its people, its going to see to it that this kind of damage is going to be taken care of? And then we'll see how fast the City moves if it costs the City money. (Applause.) 129 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Isn't this really a one-sided transaction in which the City loses nothing? I don't blame you personally, Mr. Wetzel. You're carrying out a program. But you do carry part of the burden because you're the one doing it. That's why you're getting the complaints. You're playing with people's lives as if it doesn't mean anything.
Let me just say this. I think that if that is an issue, I think Council's attorneys or the City attorneys ought to look into the Uniform Relocation Act and make some decision when change that or whether or not anything passed by the City could supersede the federal regulations. I don't know the answer to that. I think you posing very valid questions that ought to be looked into.
I think it's an emergency action and I'm going to be presenting some thoughts to City Council on that subject. (Applause.)
We take care of campaign contributors; we ought to take care of the people in City of Philadelphia. 130 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES (Applause.)
It's a shame Councilman Cohen slowed down. It's terrible. (Laughter.)
I do understand, Councilman, you promised 33 more years yesterday. I thought you said that.
I'll accept that. It's up to the good Lord to file his acceptance.
My other part of the question. Now hypothetically he's saying that he's going to offer you 20,000 for your home. And say you bought a home for 45,000, so the other 25,000 is going to be left to you?
No, that's not correct. He testified that they will make up the difference in the replacement house.
Because I'm saying people on a fixed income could not afford maybe to pay the other part of the mortgage. 131 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
In that hypothetical example, you'd get 20,000 for your house. And if the comparable unit is 45,000, you would also get 25,000 as a replacement housing payment. The one thing, Councilman, they did have some wisdom in terms of the Uniform Act; that is not taxable income to the individual. In other words, it's a tax-free payment to you. And in addition, we have to pay your moving expenses and we have to pay for the closing costs. You know, title reports and things like that.
But my other question to you, after you do all of this, do we own the homes after that?
Now, we have moved into this house and we decided that didn't like it after a couple years. Now, after I moved in there and been there a couple years and I decided I didn't like it, because you put this other $25,000 in, do I have to return and pay you this money when I sell my house to move into another place?
No. The replacement housing payment under the Federal Act is a grant to 132 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES you. It's not recoverable. It's not a mortgage on the property. You could even take, for example, if you wanted a $50,000 or a $60,000 house, you could take that 45,000 and put it down on another house. You could buy the house for 45 and six months later sell it, move into an apartment. This is your money. What you get for your house and replacement housing payment is your money, but you have to use it to buy a house.
When you redevelop this area, as we were told that we could come back to this area if we were eligible. What is the eligibility after you build homes that we can return back to this property and have a choice of moving back into the area?
This is a PHA project. I think we should have them talk about the project and any preferences.
Part of the problem -- before I recognize Councilman Cohen -- we've had this discussion in past hearings. There's not enough educational information for people who are involved in this project. There's not enough -- I mean, this lady should have those questions or those 133 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES issues in a pamphlet on a piece of paper to read. I'm going to give her all the time she wants, but we're going through a hearing now where we're going to finalize this approval and there are questions out there that just aren't answered and people just don't understand -- if all this work was done prior, this room would be empty. (Applause.)
What do you suggest we do? I don't want to stop the proceeding or limit it because she has questions, she has questions, she has questions. How do we get these questions answered? This is not the forum to be doing it.
Well, the doors was shut on us Saturday. We couldn't ask any more questions because they wouldn't show up.
You're not at fault at all. I'm just saying that this is a process that we've been going through for three years, and people still don't understand it. Councilman Cohen.
Yes. And does the City's guarantees include that the taxes will be the same as they were, or do her taxes go up when she 134 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES occupies a replacement home of $45,000 which is no 3 better to her than her original home of $20,000. In fact, it's not nearly as good. But will her taxes remain at that old $20,000 valuation or do they go up? And if so, who pays that? (Applause.)
Councilman, I don't know how all the evaluation and reevaluation of properties take place in this City. But in a normal environment, yes, the taxes on a $45,000 house will be higher than on a $20,000 house.
Not the City, the City's not going to make up for that?
Well, that means that most people's taxes under the example you gave might be doubled or tripled in the City of Philadelphia. I think these are elements of what the Chair indicated. If this were all dealt with originally, we would overcome it. I think it would be many less takings by the City and the City would 135 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES become a better place to live in because it would be showing respect for people. (Applause.)
We've got to figure out a way to have this witness sit with someone in a side room from RDA or for the District Councilperson's office just to try to figure out -- we can't do it here. The record is just too burdensome.
Another question. When they go to take people's homes that they have their livelihoods in, shouldn't they have this information ready for us when we come to ask them questions so we would know what to do?
Why would they come with a part of a program to take something and no one can answer our questions. That's why we're upset and that's why we're up in uproar. But they don't think that should be, and they call the cops on us. And I don't think that's right.
Ma'am, I've had the same question. I voted against this originally for the same reasons. 136 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
I mean, they called the cops on us the other night. I felt like a criminal because I was trying to protect my own home.
I'm as confused as you are. I would like Mr. Wetzel to please have someone sit with these individuals that are coming forward with these questions so they can be specifically answered.
We had a lady yesterday the same way. She got a letter and then was told that her house was in the process or in the list to be condemned and that she ought to come to a meeting to talk about relocation. There was no sort of process, no questions, no community involvement in establishment the rules and regulations as to how this was going to take place. This process yesterday, I said it stinks. It still stinks. (Applause.)
They haven't been able to answer our questions. And I don't know 137 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES whether they can answer the questions of the people. They really haven't been able to answer clear questions as to what happens once they have the property and they demolish it.
My name is Yin Tang (ph). I'm here behalf of my father-in-law who owned the property at 601 North Street. That property is 11 zoned as commercial. 12
That's not part of this Bill. That's a Bill that's coming up. It sounds like Councilman Clarke's district. I'll try to get your attention when that Bill comes up. Is there anyone else to testify on the Mill Creek area? Please identify yourself for the record.
I'm Minister Matthew Rowan (ph). I live at 4518 West Ogden Street, Philadelphia alley. My question is, what would 138 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES happen to the people who have been in that neighborhood for so long, putting up with the hell, cutting lots, cleaning, calling the cop, keeping the bad influence out of the neighborhood, who cannot afford a mortgage, who cannot afford to -- if you give me $40,000, they're not going to be able to purchase a home. What are they going to do, these people who have put so much into their homes, have developed their own homes, made things better? And now you're coming in and taking the property, giving us a little portion of money. I think you would solve a lot of problems if we just swap out. No 14 mortgage, give us the property, give us the same address, and a lot of people would be satisfied with that. But just come and give us a little bit of money and then leave us high and strung and then others come who can afford to move in those houses -- because the houses are going to be 90, maybe a hundred thousand dollars, and we're not going to be able to afford that. Most of the people who are either handicapped -- I have neighbors who are handicapped will just be completely devastated by something like this. What are provisions for these people? 139 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
I'm chairing the hearing. I don't have answers to those questions. I commiserate with you and I understand your question. I don't have the answers. The answers are either from Mr. Wetzel or on the second floor that's second floor, meaning the Mayor's Office. I don't know what the answers are. We've been asking those same questions, and we have not received the answers either. Others members of the committee will confirm that. I don't have an answer for you.
It seems to me if you desire for me to move and leave my home where I've lived for many years and enjoyed it. I really like where I live. I like my neighbors. I like my friends. If you're asking me to give that up, it seems to me it should be no strain on me. Put me in a place, make sure I don't have to pay no rent. Make sure when the houses are developed and finished that I get my same address, that I'm able to enjoy that property without having to have a debt over my head. Because we put up with so much in my neighborhoods, it seems like we would be rewarded for trying to hold out. That's what it seems like to me. (Applause.) 140 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
The Redevelopment Authority is acquiring this land on behalf of PHA's Mill Creek Hope 6. I think folks ought to be talking to PHA with regards to what opportunities would be available for people to come back to the project site.
Let me go back to the original problem of this hearing. This hearing is turning into a informational session for residents who have received letters for condemnation and acquisition. This is not the purpose of this hearing. You can't conduct this hearing that way. You need the informational sessions and the explanation prior to we get to this point. (Applause.)
I'm at loss because I don't know how to answer this man's question. I don't know what to tell him.
Councilman, this is a PHA project. And they need to be able to sit down with the individuals -- they are here. The individuals who have questions about what is the project, 141 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES there's rental units, there's home ownership, what will be the opportunities for individuals who are displaced for this project to come back to the project site.
This is a PHA project. You come here to ask this body to approve a PHA project, a project that obviously PHA has not communicated with the community, has not informed them of any processes. And this is the same PHA Mr. Carl Greene who refuses to come to this Council to explain himself. (Applause.)
Let me tell you something. If I have something to do with this, this will not go through until Mr. Greene comes here and explains this process to the people of this community. (Applause.)
It seems that much of NTI, Neighborhood Transformation, seems to be involved with PHA, not City government, not 142 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES operational dollars here. And if PHA and the citizens of Philadelphia are going to be affected by actions taken by PHA, then PHA has to be answerable to the Council of the City of Philadelphia, and they have to come here. And I would like to see Carl Greene and all of those individuals come marching into this building and this table to testify on this. So you tell him. You tell him. (Applause.)
He wants to know what we do in City Council. This is what we do in City Council.
I apologize for the inconvenience of this room. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Cardell Blue from the Philadelphia Housing Authority.
If you've been following the discussion, if you could attempt to illuminate these individuals and us as to what is going on relative to this particular Bill with some of the issues that the Reverend has raised.
Yes. This Bill has already been discussed. There's an acquisition of 143 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES properties that is being done by the Redevelopment Authority on behalf of the Philadelphia Housing Authority. And the purpose is to implement of Hope Revitalization Project that was approved by HUD 6 which a $10.5 million grant was provided to the City through PHA the acquisition of properties that are being done are as a result of the Hope 6 planning process. Now, one of the questions that came into the meeting was whether or not the community participated or had notification of the grant and of the planning process. And that planning process, as required by the federal regulations, did take place. Now, one of the things I have here and I'll be glad to provide it for the Committee, but there were at least 15 meetings held regarding the design workshop, also including the implosion, also including CSS and relocation, also including disposition of off-site homeownership and Hope 6 planning. These meetings that took place beginning 5/8/01 and went through 6/4/03, including several meetings that took place after that through a Hope 6 Task Force. Now, these meetings -- the notifications happened in different manners. In 144 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES some cases, notification was in the Inquirer and Daily News. In other cases, there were flyers in the community. In other cases, they were direct mail. And in many cases, meetings were very well attended; in other cases, they were not attended. But we carried out a very extensive notification and planning process. The City Planning Commission is also informed of our particular plan, and we have a requirement for that citizen participation as required by the federal government. And we, of course, have worked with several members of the Mill Creek community through a Hope 6 Task Force that has been convened and will continue to meet throughout the process of the construction of this project. So the question as to whether or not there's been an appropriate notification to residents and appropriate planning process, I'm sure there can always be more, but I think in this instance that that has been done consistent with the requirements of the law and regulations as required by HUD and also as required by policy of the Philadelphia Housing Authority in terms of informing communities when we do housing. 145 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Would you be willing to set up an additional meeting with the individuals that are here that have expressed some concern about specific questions relative to replacement housing, whether or not they'll be able to return to the original site of their property that was acquired, those kinds of questions that we really can't go into at length here? But could we maybe get a list of people that the staff of PHA will be willing to sit with and answer those questions?
Mr. Chairman, we would be most happy to do that in a cooperative manner, and we would do it for as long and as often as necessary. We understand this can be a trying process, but the idea is to improve the quality of life of the residents and also to let them know exactly what is going on, and we will be pleased to do that.
Reverend, would you be willing to get some names? I don't know how to -- through the District Councilmember's office to try to figure out a way to set it up so people understand it and -- Councilwoman Blackwell.
Certainly. We 146 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES are happy to work with Mr. Cardell Blue and all who would like further information. We're happy to do that. Ms. Snead is still outside, my staff member. Anybody who would like a follow-up meeting, if you would give her name and phone number, we'll make sure we're in touch with you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon. My name is Audrey S. Hickman and I live at 825 North Lake Street. What PHA have not told you, they're going to take my house. What they're going to put in my house space is grass. Does that make any sense to you, to take a homeowner -- my taxes are paid up, I have no lien against my house, I'm a widow. You're going to take my house to put grass, when all the other vacant lots in the City you can plant grass on. There are only a few houses on the block, but to come in and take a widow's home to plant grass, I think that is ridiculous. And then you ask us to pay our taxes to make sure that we are correct citizens in the City of Philadelphia. This is supposed to be a City of Brotherly Love. This is 147 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES not a City of Brotherly Love; this is a City of Sister Hate, when you come in and taking somebody house. Thank you so much for letting me speak.
Mr. Chairman, again, as Councilwoman Blackwell has already offered, when that meeting process is there, we certainly invite this resident to come to that meeting and we will by all means provide information and discuss the specific situation. I'm unable to respond to that specific lot or specific house or the green space or anything at this time, but we will be glad to go through the specifics with any resident, as we have throughout this whole process.
Excuse me. He said can't go that specific -- tell him to look on his blueprint and you can see Lake Street on the north side, grass; on the south side they want to put a parking lot. Now, if you got that already on blueprint, tell me how can't you go through the specifics when I ask you a question. (Applause.)
We asked Mr. Blue that 148 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES same question on Thursday night. He called the police on us. There was no meeting on Saturday, and yet you come in and say to us that they're put us in another house. On Thursday night they said if they relocate you, you can live in a house for years 7 and if your money didn't match up to what the house 8 cost, when you move after 10 years you had to pay 9 the tax and the money that you owed on that house. 10 That is not giving us a break. If I live in a house 10 years and the interest rate is 15 percent, what would it be in 10 years time? I can't afford it. No one else can afford it. But yet they are saying they are making our quality of life better. It's not getting better, it's getting worse. Only the rich can afford. We poor folks are going to stay poor and they think they can do anything that they want with us. But I say to you today as Councilmembers, when you got elected, you came in the community. You asked for our votes. You said that you would do certain things for us. But today you are not doing it. If you pass Ordinance, I don't know what the City going to become to, because if you do it in my neighborhood today, tomorrow it might be yours. I wonder how you'll feel about 149 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES that. (Applause.)
Mr. Chairman, ever since yesterday and the hearings that were begun yesterday in terms of this NTI Program and now this, it seems like we have a flawed process. It seems like we make a plan -- or these individuals make a plan because the plan is not made by City Council. These individuals make a plan and they forget that there are human beings involved in all of these areas. I don't know who they talk to in these areas, because obviously they haven't talked to the people who own the homes. (Applause.)
And unless you talk to the people who own the homes, you ain't talked to nobody. (Applause.)
And we have an institution again -- and I know Cordial for years. But we have an institution that PHA, Housing Authority, that refuses to recognize this body's 150 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES jurisdiction and that this body has any say over any other actions and that they do not have to answer to this body about anything. And I believe that at this point in time, we have a great opportunity here to set a process that gives the citizens, not the bureaucrats, but gives the citizens the voice, that gives the citizens the voice as to how their communities are going to be shaped and planned. (Applause.)
And I think, as you stated before, this is a informational gathering. Because let me tell you something. This ain't gonna go through this Council like this. (Applause.)
I haven't conceded the election yet and I'm still a Councilman until January 1st. (Applause.)
But I can tell you, IT ain't going through like this. It ain't going through. You tell that to Mr. Greene. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Is there anything you'd like to add? 151 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Yes, there is. Not to have a bone of contention, but I think it's only fair that the record be clear that I did not call the police on you, ma'am. Number 2, our agency was a guest at the meeting she's referring to. And what I can say unabashedly is there was attempt even at that meeting, even though that was not the only meeting where we came to discuss the plan and what was going to happen, but the Redevelopment Authority held the to discuss relocation benefits and to discuss the acquisition of properties. But many of the residents who were there carried on so terribly that they couldn't get all their information in and they had to take people to another part of the school to go through the process. And yet we still stayed there and tried to carry on and provide information, but there were hot feelings. I understand why there would be. But I think just it's important that the truth come out because twice tonight that accusation has been. I think it's important that we keep the record clear. At the same time, I'm still prepared to meet on behalf of the agency to carry out this 152 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES process, as requested.
Well, Mr. Blue, I apologize if you didn't call the police, but you were just as wrong as the rest of us because you took the mike and wouldn't let nobody else speak. You said you had the mike and you had the floor and nobody could speak. You went in another part of the building to listen to Ms. Dunbar and we couldn't hear her because you was on the Mike so loud. Now, if you want to say that we as residents did not know how to act, then you as a management did not know how to act yourself. (Applause.)
Mr. Blue, I had not plan to be too actively involved in some of these proceedings; I've just been trying to listen and take in. I did want to get a better explanation, though, you used the phrase that at a particular meeting you referenced that the attendees -- I think 153 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES in your words, "acted up so bad." What exactly does that mean? What happened?
The purpose of this meeting was to talk about relocation.
So the context of the meeting is people are coming there to respond either to a flyer or a notice or something having to do with the taking of their properties and their relocation; is that the context of this meeting?
I would like to bring this out. And if I used the words "acted badly," I wish to apologize for the use of that word, because I think the feelings of the residents who were there was appropriate when you have that kind of situation in terms of acquisition of properties. I mean, being involved in this business for over some 20 years, I've gone through several condemnation, having been at all four housing agencies so know whereof I speak. But I do want to say I clearly understand what the feelings were. And we were 154 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES dealing with that. Unfortunately, the meeting deteriorated when you had certain individuals who were there who were speaking inciting residents in terms of people who really were already feeling bad about the process, and understandable that they were. But by the same token, it became a point where neither party was hearing the other because the dialog that was going on. But the purpose of that meeting was actually a letter that had been sent out from the Redevelopment Authority to the residents who were impacted by condemnation. The purpose was to bring the residents to that meeting and to answer all the questions that are being asked about this evening. Unfortunately, there was a political official who got up there and began to say the things I think where people felt someone was there championing their cause, and I understand that as well. And unfortunately --
One day I might want to champion a cause or something. 155 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
But I point I want to make is after people got there, the purpose of PHA's presence there was to go over the plan once again to talk about, not only are your properties being taken, but here's the reason that the properties are being taken and to begin to answer some of the questions that could be answered based on the developers in this particular situation, but also to use that meeting to talk about acquisition of the properties and relocation benefits and to inform the people who were being affected by the condemnation. That was the whole purposes of that particular meeting. And then there was another one to be scheduled that following Saturday.
Given where we are today, it sounds like maybe all the message didn't get across?
I wasn't there. I'm not making any judgment. I'm just saying that 156 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES you've gone through a whole lot of process and had a number of meetings, and it appears that there are still a fair amount of questions and concerns that people have. I mean, this is pretty serious stuff here. And, look, there's always two sides to every story. I mean relocation, unless requested, generally is not necessarily the smoothest process in the world. Sometimes you have to try to work things out. But, I mean, you know, this is America. And people do have a right to express themselves and say what it is that they want to say. Now, it generally shouldn't be unreasonable and you have to listen and one person talk and a time, and you go through all of that, all the niceties of that. But when you start talking about taking somebody's property, I mean, you leave out in the morning, you come home that day, there's a flyer, there's a piece of mail or whatever. Ot might be a little shocking. And you're going to get some reaction. So I guess all I'm really suggesting -- I wanted to understand what the "acting up" meant and what the context of the meeting was. And I think, as the Chair has indicated and District 157 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Councilwoman Blackwell, it sounds like some more work needs to be done.
We are prepared to have as many meetings as are necessary. I think the issues, though, is for a situation like what we're discussing now, I don't think you'll ever find a person whose property is being taken that they will ever be satisfied. So if your expectation is that they're going come to this hearing and be totally satisfied, that won't happen.
Some situations, you know, people might be rather enthusiastic about it, depending on what's going on, depending on what the offer is, depending on what the neighborhood is like. I mean, you know, there are some circumstances and situations where people are, I think, almost grateful that a changed situation may come along. That's a matter of discussion and laying out the pros and the cons. And, yes, you're right in your 20 years of experience, every now and then you do have to make the tough hard decisions that may upset people. Often times it ends up being more about process than anything else and how people felt about it and were they respected, and were they 158 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES listened to, and do they understand what's really going on here and what the path is for them to at least replicate or maintain what they had before they got the notice in the mail. That's all I'm saying.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else to testify on this Bill? (No response.)
We'll now move to Bill No. 030297, which is an Ordinance approving the 11th amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Mantua Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at the intersection of 40th Street and Spring Garden Street, including the eighth amendment to the urban renewal plan and the relocation plan, as amended, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 151 properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project. 159 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Councilmember Nutter.
Ladies and gentlemen, you've heard from many of the Council that we believe that everyone should have an opportunity to speak. And we do absolutely believe in that process. Unfortunately, this is not the choir and we all cannot speak or sing at the same time. So we're in a very tight situation here in this room. The Chairman has tremendous amount of patience and time, and everyone will be heard. It is exceedingly difficult for us to hear up here when the noise level rises above a certain amount. So all I can ask as a Committee member is -- I'm not trying to say don't talk. Please let us conduct the hearing. We want to do it with dignity and respect to you. But we need to be able to hear what's going on so that we can best serve you. That's all I'm asking as a member of the Committee. Thank you.
My name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the 160 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 3 030297. This is in the Mantua neighborhood of West Philadelphia. The 11th amended redevelopment proposal and the 8th amended urban renewal plan for the West Philadelphia Redevelopment Area and the Mantua Urban Renewal Area. This Bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 151 properties, 61 vacant lots and 90 vacant structures, which will be used for residential development. All properties will be acquired with bond proceeds from the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. On the homeownership side, nine vacant structures will be acquired on behalf of the People's Emergency Center CDC which will rehab them as part of a larger 25-unit homeownership development that will serve low and moderate-income households. Nine vacant structures will be acquired on behalf of Strong Properties which will undertake substantial rehabilitation using private financing and sell the properties at market rate. 133 of the properties, 61 vacant lots and 72 vacant structures, will be acquired on behalf 161 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES of PEC for a project known as Cloisters 3, a 60-unit rental development to be financed with low-income housing tax credits. Passage of this Bill will lead to the creation of 34 new homeownership units and 60 new rental housing units. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 030297 and would also ask for the suspension of Rules to allow first reading on June 5, 2003.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I'm Richard Redding from the Planning Commission testifying in support of Bill No. 030297 to facilitate housing revitalization in the Mantua neighborhood. The Planning Commission approved this at its April meeting of 2003. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Anyone else to 162 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES testify on this Bill? This is Mantua Urban Renewal Area. Anyone? Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes. My name is Shirley Chapman. I'm the owner of properties located on Haverford Avenue 3836 through 3860 Haverford Avenue. I currently have eight of those properties that have been listed for condemnation. First of all, I'd like to say I was very disturbed that I have a presence in the community for sometime, have currently been developing properties in that particular strip and some of those properties have been rehabbed. They're developed and are currently occupied. It was my intention to continue to be able to develop the remaining properties. I must say that it has been very difficult to do so, but I've had architectural information that was provided to me. I'm working with an organization right now to assist me in that development. One of the problems that I believe is that people that are in an area that live in the area are passionate about their area, committed to it, find it very hard to compete with outsiders that are coming in because they're given a lot of 163 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES favorable, I believe, incentives to develop because what I find is that a lot of times they'll go into areas, develop areas, spend a hundred, a hundred fifty thousand dollars to develop houses and they're able to sell them for 50,000. So small developers like myself are really at a very disadvantage. We're disadvantaged when we're attempting to financing for properties because a lot of the mortgage companies, you can qualify on income, but when they look at the neighborhoods and so forth, they're not willing to invest. So I would like to appeal first of all to the City to allowing me to continue to be successful in my endeavors to develop these properties that I've maintained for many, many years. I've continued to pay taxes. All of the units that are currently occupied have some Section 19 8 tenants, so that would indicate that these properties are within code, that they are maintained favorably, and we are required to have annual inspections every year, which they do pass. I would like the City to consider that people in a community that have been born, lived in communities are allowed to develop their own 164 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES communities and have some type of assistance. Instead, we're always pushed aside, not given assistance and support, and it seems like private developers from the suburbs and from other areas can come in and develop things and we're not allowed or given the support to develop our own communities. I believe that we need to move forward to improve our neighborhoods, but I don't think that the residents and the people that have been committed to the areas for years have to make all the sacrifices and give up everything that they've worked hard by putting their resources and time into it and allow other people to come in -- because the only thing that they're looking at is the bottom line. They don't have the love and the compassion and commitment for our communities and neighborhoods. My appeal right now is to please, just don't take my properties. I want to develop them. I've been working towards that effort. And if anything, why not help me do what I'm trying to do that would benefit me, the tenants that are there, and the community that wants to stay intact. (Applause.)
Thank you. What I 165 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES would suggest that you do is -- I think Ms. Snead is here. Would you please make arrangements to have a discussion with her relative to those specific properties and whatever the District Councilperson decides in that particular regard, okay?
Is there anyone else to testify on the Mantua Urban Renewal Area? Councilman Ortiz.
My name is Melissa Long. I'm the Director for People's Emergency Center CDC. We are proposing to -- these properties would be part of our 60-unit low-income housing tax credit project that we'll be developing in partnership with Penn Rose Properties.
When we say low income, what do we mean by that? 166 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Eighty percent and below. It's low-income housing tax credits. They're financed by Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency.
Well, what we would do is we would actually apply for project base Section 8. That's what we recently did with our Imani Homes that we developed in West Powelton. So that is 167 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES subject to the approval of the Housing Authority.
Right and that is generally what it costs these days to construct affordable housing.
Penn Rose Properties will be selecting in conjunction with us the general contractor. But I have to say that we're very committed to neighborhood hiring and --
Other than laborers, 168 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES are there going to be African Americans and people from other colors other than Caucasian working in that project?
What about if the contractor doesn't meet that goal? What happens to him?
Well, I can say -- I can give you some recent examples. We were recently awarded the Targeted Basic System Repairs and we've selected a minority contractor Harold Thomas, and we also are targeting some of those repairs for the Mantua area in and around 3800 block of spring Garden. So we've already made a commitment and we've already selected a minority-owned general contractor.
When is that going 169 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES out?
We are in the very early stages of development. We're in the property acquisition stage. And I would hope then this moves favorably that we would make the selection in the next couple months.
Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify on this Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we'll now move to Bill 030294, which is an Ordinance 17 approving the first amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the West Parkside Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Parkside Avenue on the north; Belmont Avenue and Girard Avenue on the east; Lancaster Avenue on the south; and 52nd Street and the Pennsylvania Central Railroad Line on the west, including the first amendment to the urban renewal plan and the first amendment to the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the 170 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES additional land acquisition of approximately 34 properties for commercial and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law; and declaring the condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 030294. This is the Parkside neighborhood of West Philadelphia. The first amendment of the Parkside Lancaster Redevelopment Proposal and the first amendment of the West Parkside Urban Renewal Plan for the Parkside Lancaster Redevelopment Area and West Parkside Urban Renewal Area. This Bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 34 properties, 18 vacant lots, 9 vacant structures, and 8 occupied structures, for commercial and institutional development. All properties will be acquired with bond proceeds from the neighborhood Transformation Initiative. Eight properties, vacant lot, vacant structures and 2 occupied structures located 171 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES on the 1700 block of North 52nd Street will be acquired on behalf of the Philadelphia Empowerment Zone and the Commerce Department. The New Millennium Baptist Church which has offices on the block has expressed an interest in the adjacent properties to expand its community space. The empowerment zone and the Commerce Department will solicit proposals from qualified commercial developers to treat the rest of the site which serves as an important gateway to the community. Twenty-six properties, vacant lots, 4 13 vacant structures and 6 occupied structures, on the 14 5100 block of Marian Street will be acquired to 15 promote new commercial development. This 16 residential block which lies between Lancaster Avenue and the Amtrak rail line has become increasingly isolated from other residential uses. PIDC and Commerce developed an exit strategy for the area which called for residential uses to eventually be changed to commercial and light industrial. At least one existing business adjacent to the site, New Deal Lumber, has expressed an interest in acquiring additional land to expand its business. Other developers will be solicited by the 172 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES empowerment zone and commerced immediately upon acquisition. Passage of this Bill will help to foster two new commercial sites in West Parkside community and provide additional community space from one neighborhood institution. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 030294 and would ask for the suspension of Council rules to allow first reading on June 5, 2003.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I'm Richard Redding, Deputy Director, Community Planning Division at the City Planning Commission testifying in support of Bill 19 030294 affecting the West Parkside neighborhood involving acquisitions to facilitate commercial revitalization, institutional development and blight removal. The Planning Commission approved this at its April meeting of 2003. Thank you.
Thank you very much. 173 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Anyone else to testify on this Bill, West Parkside? Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. My name is Theresa Broomfield. I'm a resident of the 5100 block of Marian Avenue. And I just really have a comment about the Bill. I think you've seen a lot of anger today and I think that's because there's a deception here, there's an underhanded way of doing things. I know personally my address was posted in the paper before I had ever received a letter. That's a very difficult thing to have to find out through word of mouth. And I just wanted to make feelings known and put that in the record.
Thank you very much. So you understand, with all due respect to every other District Councilperson and other At-Large Members, I voted against this entire thing early on. I was the only no vote, I think, against it at the time because I was concerned with the questions that were not being answered. As to why we're in the 174 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES condition that we are right now today going through this, I think, pretty agonizing process and hearing. I am not confident that a lot of this stuff is going to be resolved, that people are going to be informed in the appropriate way and we went through another hearing a little while ago about acquisitions again and went through the same process. We criticized and questioned the process of notification, the process of reaching out to the people who were involved. It seems that not much has changed. And I apologize to you. I don't know what else -- it's not my program. It's not my project. And I didn't vote for it, so we'll do our best to keep hammering away at them to do things right, but it just doesn't seem like it's changing. I wanted to recognize Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for not being here right at the beginning. I'm sorry, ma'am, what is your address again?
5116 Marian Avenue. You met with us about a year and a half ago.
Right. At the house 175 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES that night.
AND think you're reluctant to move; is that my recollection?
It's not the reluctance to move. I don't know the exact terminology to put around it. There's an arrogance here that I don't care for. The whole -- why shouldn't we be grateful to accept. A house is a home. There's more things to a house than brick and mortar that I know several people have expressed. It's not coming across here. I think, like he said, the whole information process. Why don't these people know these things? Why do we have to scratch and fight?
I can't answer for many of the other areas of the City. But I think, as you put on the record, we did have a meeting in someone's home on Marian Avenue.
Many of the other Bills in front of us today are generally for the purposes of development or redevelopment in broad situations. I would say here on the record that the 5100 block of Marian Avenue is a completely 176 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES different and very unique situation. We're not expecting and we're trying to discourage any further housing development on that block. Many of the people in the audience will not know Marian Avenue. It's a very small street in a somewhat unique situation. It's bounded by 51st Street, 52nd Street, Lancaster Avenue to the south, and the railroad to the north. Totally surrounded by commercial development. You have a businessman right next to you. In the final analysis, many of the homes have fallen down on Marian Avenue or we took them down. It is one of the worst short-dumping sites in the City of Philadelphia. And in at least my very humble opinion -- and I know we did have the meeting with the neighbors and the President of the Parkside Association of Philadelphia. This is, as I mentioned earlier, one of those tough situations where a decision needs to be made in conjunction with the residents about what's going on over there. And in my very humble opinion, people in this City should not be living under the conditions that the residents are living under in the 5100 block of Marian Avenue. It is an absolute total and 177 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES complete -- putting aside the homes, it is an absolute, total and complete disgrace to have people living under those circumstances with no prospect of anything else going on on that block. We're not going to build any more homes on that block and we don't want people living under those conditions. And there are many people of the -- I think there are nine houses on the block; seven are actually occupied. And almost everyone on the block does want to move. So this is one of those situations.
Well, that's not the information that we received and can certain continue to have the discussion. But we have a very different situation over on Marian Avenue than many of the folks who are experiencing here today is totally different.
The same energy that's being putting into moving us -- I think at the same, if you remember, I asked -- the same there's abandoned lots all over the City and they're 178 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES beautified, why can't that be done for our abandoned lot. If you have no definitive plans to build anything there, why couldn't' we beautify the lot?
I don't know why we would beautify them, given the unique location of where you are. You are completely surrounded by commercial properties. Now your testimony is there are 6 houses on a long block. You have no frontage to Lancaster Avenue and you look at the railroad track all day. So everything is fallen down around you. We have not been able to protect that particular neighborhood. That's a bit of a failing on the City's part. And we continue to deal with the deterioration of that block and excessive short-dumping and the leaving of other materials all around you. It is, again from some of our perspectives, not a place where we should have residential activity going on. At the most, the only that will happen over there is probably further expansion for utilization of some of the businesses that front on Lancaster Avenue because their backs match up to your backs and they would probably extend their properties. Again, it is an unique situation, at 179 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES least from my perspective, to have such a small number of residents completed surrounded by commercial properties on one side and a railroad track on the other down the street from refuse place that burned down a number years ago. It's a very tight and difficult situation to have a residential population there and so few residents. I understand your concerns, and we will continue to meet.
Thank you. Yes, sir, could you identify yourself for the record.
Philip Miller, President of New Deal Lumber Company. My family has operated New Deal Lumber Company in the City of Philadelphia for 70 years. I'm also Vice President of the West Parkside Business Association and here to testify in favor of anything that will help clean up Marian Avenue and rid the blight and the dumping that goes on on a daily basis in that block.
Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify on this Bill?
My name is Eva Gladstein. I'm Executive Director of the 180 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Empowerment Zone and Renewal Community for the City of Philadelphia. And I'll just present very brief testimony that we were approached by community residents in the Parkside Association who work with the residents on Marian Avenue, and they asked us if we could be supportive of this process. We understand there have been some meetings with the residents that we will try to make sure that they have all the information that is necessary. Once the site has been assembled, we will be happy to work with the Commerce Department and with the businesses on Lancaster Avenue to develop a more appropriate use for the land.
I need to put one thing on the record. There was concern expressed by -- given the broader boundaries of this particular urban renewal area with regard to some properties in the 1700 block of North 52nd street, one of which is owned by the Millennium Baptist church. And a concern that in this process we have identified a variety of addresses by way of the larger boundaries, but the concern is whether or not their particular project would actually be subject to a Declaration of Taking. It's my understanding from 181 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES our conversation earlier today and also with Ms. Colafono (ph) that the church will be notified that while the address is on the list, that no 5 designation of taking would be executed at that particular site.
That's my understanding and it's pursuant to the statement that Herb Wetzel put on the record previously as well with regard to the fact that even though an address may be included, if at the request of the Councilperson for the area, they should not follow through with the Declaration of Taking, they will not do so. I personally met with representatives of the church and the Parkside Association several months ago. They indicated their interest in maintaining their property and perhaps eventually expanding and acquiring several other properties in line with that. So we would request that a Declaration of Taking not be pursued for the 1700 North 52nd Street.
Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify on this Bill? (No response.) 182 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Seeing none, Bill 3 No. 030301, an Ordinance approving the 11th amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Cecil B. Moore Avenue Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by 15th Street on the east, Jefferson Street on the south, 19th Street on the west and Montgomery Avenue on the north, including the 11th amendment to the urban renewal plan and the 7th amendment to the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately five properties for residential and related uses; the additional land acquisition of approximately four properties for commercial and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I'm speaking in support of Bill No. 25 030301. This particular section of North 183 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Philadelphia -- would you excuse me a second? I guess the best description would be Cecil B. Moore at this time. The 11th amended redevelopment proposal and the 11th amended urban renewal plan for the north Philadelphia Redevelopment Area and the Cecil B. Moore Urban Renewal Area. This Bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire nine occupied structures which will be used for residential and commercial development. All properties will be acquired from bonds proceeds from the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. At the request of the Commerce Department of four occupied structures will be acquired on the north side of Cecil B. Moore Avenue between Sydenham Street and North 16th Street. Upon acquisition, these properties, along with other publicly-owned properties will be immediately marketed for commercial development. Three occupied structures will be acquired to complete land assembly for the final phase of the Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zone. Two occupied structures will be acquired on the 1700 184 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES block of North Sydenham Street across from the parking garage. Upon acquisition, these properties, along with other publicly-owned properties will be immediately marketed for residential development. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 030301 and would ask the suspension of Council Rules to allow a first reading on June 5, 2003.
Thank you. Prior to your testimony Mr. Redding, I'd ask the interpreter to read the Bill title in Spanish, please. (Bill 030301 read in Spanish.)
Good afternoon. I'm Richard Redding from City Planning, testifying in support of 030301, a Bill authorizing acquisitions in the Cecil B. Moore North Central section of North Philadelphia for commercial revitalization purposes and residential development. It was approved at the April meeting of our Commission. Thank you.
Thank you very much. 185 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Any questions for these witnesses? Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm a little bit sight challenged at this point. The properties on the northeast part of that map, there's one property that appears to be on Sydenham Street. Is that one or two properties?
Councilman, I'm going to ask Michael Kuntz to look at that. On the North Sydenham Street it's 1702 on 1704.
So those are two properties on the Sydenham -- and I guess the Commerce Department should be here to respond to that since it's their recommendation. Are vacant properties, vacant land adjacent to those Sydenham Street properties? Is it thought that it would accommodate a larger footprint? I'm wondering why we're acquiring the two properties on Sydenham.
My name is Michael Kuntz. I'm Deputy Director for Real Estate Services, Redevelopment Authority. The request was made by Commerce 186 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES originally to the Inter-Agency Review Team originally did include other properties. The second time it was brought back to us this spring, though, it didn't include the other properties, only the properties on Cecil B. Moore and these two properties on Sydenham. The request didn't include the other properties.
I'm asking why are we acquiring the two properties on Sydenham?
And? I guess I'm asking -- I'll lead the witness. On Sydenham Street, there are, I guess, four or five properties that are vacant land now.
Are those two Sydenham Street properties connected to the vacant land?
So the thought is that that would a footprint that would include the 187 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES vacant land?
Is the question that the vacant land would also be part of the project?
I don't know that that vacant -- I don't believe so the way it is now because I don't believe that land is publicly owned. I'm not sure about that.
I think the vacant land is owned by the Redevelopment Authority.
Councilman, we're a little disadvantaged. We would like to either have Commerce come over or at least provide us this information. I think what this does, it sort of creates an L-shaped parcel that needs to be added to other public parcels to create one or more development sites. But we really need our partners from Commerce to answer directly.
Please identify yourself. 188 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Eva Gladstein, Executive Director of the Empowerment Zone. I'm sorry, I wasn't here at the beginning at the question. I understand you're talking about the north side of the 1500 block of Cecil B. Moore?
We're proposing to acquire two properties on Sydenham Street in the rear of the Cecil B. Moore properties. And the question is, is that to allow for a larger footprint that would also incorporate the vacant land that's on Sydenham Street that is owned by Redevelopment Authority?
My understanding is that -- and again, we might need to go back and research this. But we needed the Sydenham properties in order to be able to get truck or other access behind Cecil B. Moore Avenue.
So it wasn't necessarily related to the vacant land that's on --
The Commerce Department was hoping to create a large enough developable site that would include both Cecil B. Moore and Sydenham, but these were the two properties that were in between properties facing on Cecil B. Moore and the 189 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Sydenham property so that they would need to be a part of that parcel as well.
Thank you very much. Any other questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Is there anyone else to testify on this Bill? This is the Cecil B. Moore Urban Renewal Area. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Michael Kuzma. I own the property at 1702 North Sydenham Street. I've lived in the neighborhood for years. We 15 lived on Sydenham Street. Now we live on Montgomery 16 Avenue. 17 When we first bought the house, it was a 18 crack house. I've been shot at. We spent our lives 19 in the neighborhood, building up the neighborhood. 20 From what I understand that's going on here is that 21 they're using eminent domain to take the property to develop it commercially. I don't understand how this is occurring. Something reminds me of the lady with an unnamed developer in Atlantic City who had her property right in the middle of a casino and was 190 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES tried to be bought out or moved by eminent domain. I thought if eminent domain was to be used for post office was there or a highway, something like that. I don't understand what's going on now. Sir, I have a PHA in physics and I'm confused. And I'm sure ed many people here are just as confused as me. More. I think I understand a little bit about what's going on. But looking at the people that are in this room, I see a lot of intelligent people here. I've lived in the neighborhood years. I know a lot of people in 13 the neighborhood. I've employed people in the 14 neighborhood. I've renovated six houses with my own 15 hands. I haven't used contractors. I've gone 16 downtown, got L&I, got approved, got a certificate 17 of occupancy for the houses. All my taxes are paid. 18 All the water bills are paid. I just want to 19 understand how they can come in and use this law to 20 seize property to market it for commercial development. If you spent your time, you should get compensated. And we're not going anywhere. We're not going to run off. I, my wife, my son, our family are not going to run away to another 191 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES neighborhood; we're staying. We're going to take whatever money and put it back in the neighborhood. (Applause.)
I had to take a day off of school today. I teach in the Philadelphia School District. I had to tak a personal day. So I just want to understand. The only way I learned about this whole proceeding was in the newspaper. I saw a photograph of Jim's Hardware Store with him standing out in front and there my property was listed in the newspaper. I got no letter. I got nothing. I'm just venting. I know that my questions can't answered by you because I was sitting here earlier, watching on the TV. I am just venting right now trying to understand how this can happen. If the people here sell their house and then five years later they see a Starbucks sitting there -- a large corporation comes in, McDonald's Starbucks, essentially around the Temple University area; what's happening? They're taking a property, they're going to give it to these big corporations. It seems like there's some kind of middle guy here. The RDA is a middle guy acting between the community 192 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES and the big corporations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How are you, sir? I just was want to clarify. You made a statement about compensation. Is your concern that you will not be adequately compensated?
I'm worried about -- the way that the letter stated and the other concerns of the people that are here, I know that there's going to be different levels, but everybody knows real estate is about location. I had no idea when I move in the neighborhood what was going to happen. I moved in there because my wife convinced me and she said we could commit to the neighborhood, we could build here. And North Philly wasn't the way it was now. It was not. Sydenham Street was drug-ridden and I moved there. I'm this white guy, I moved there and I was accepted into the neighborhood.
You mentioned compensation and, I guess, I'm trying to understand is your issue -- first, I hear the fact that you're concerned about the process. You weren't adequately 193 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES notified, and that should not have happened. Secondly, you obviously made a commitment to the neighborhood, although you don't live in that house now, you did at one live there and you still live a block away in that community. I'm trying to determine is your concern about if, in fact, property is acquired by the City would you be justly compensated for the investment you've made in that property? And you're also concerned about the reuse even if you're justly compensated?
I have selfish motives. I'm using one to send my son to school. It's a rental property. I've renovated it and I've been using it for the last 10 years 15 years actually to help send him through school. He's 15 years old now. As far as compensation, everybody wants to get as much as they can. I rent to everybody. I'm sure landlords live in New Jersey or whatever. I live there, I follow-up, I take care of people that rent from me.
I understand. One of the issues that you've raised -- and you may not be able to address all of them, but one of them with respect to compensation, I think there can be a 194 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES response. I know there can't be a dollar figure attached, but if Mr. Wetzel can respond to the process as it relates to compensation for a revenue-producing property, a rental property.
Sort of the steps to follow-up this, but relatively quickly, would be if this ordinance is passed, the Mayor signs it, the Redevelopment Authority would order title reports and appraisals. We would send you a letter saying that you're going to get a letter from an appraiser. It's in your best interest to work with that appraiser. If you've made improvements and made the property better to show the appraiser that so that can be taken into consideration. At some point we will get the appraisal back and we'll send out an offer letter. You can look at offer letter and say, "The Redevelopment Authority is nuts. This is much more than this." You get your own appraiser, and under state statutes, you have a right to have a Board of View hearing. Board of View would hear your appraiser and your appraised value, what we said it was, and the Board of View could render judgment. It could say we agree with your appraised value and the Redevelopment Authority pay that. It 195 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES could say that it agreed with the Redevelopment Authority. Or it could say something in between. If either party doesn't like the Board of View award, then the parties could go to Court of Common Pleas and fight out over value in the Court of Common Pleas.
Businesses and rental properties are viewed on an income approach rather than simply just a standard appraisal approach. So it will take into consideration that there's income generated from this property.
There's a formula by which appraisers look at and appraise commercial or rental properties differently than they do single family homes. And that is -- believe me, I'm going to say the word "cap rate," but I don't know exactly what it means, but there's some kind of capitalization rate which by they multiply the net income by this cap rate to value a piece of commercial real estate that's being leased. 196 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Well, this is information that would be interesting to me and I would like to have it, but I'm not a lawyer, I don't have law libraries. Right now, I guess I could -- like I said earlier, there's been no information concerning anything.
What I don't understand -- this goes back to the last hearing we had when we were doing larger scale acquisitions. I think we did one other hearing where we acquired --
I think it was in December where there were a lot of them, yes.
Yes, we did a lot or properties back then. And I asked that question when back. I'll ask it again. Sir, do you live in the house that they're taking?
Well, I didn't get this letter. Apparently the letter was mailed, but the tenants didn't give it to me or it was just lost.
I want to go back 197 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES and ask the question I asked before. What's wrong with registered mail? The mailman comes. If he signs for the registered mail, there's no doubt he got it. I don't know why we're not doing that. When it comes to the point of taking -- I mean, if we're taking an unoccupied lot or a vacant abandoned structure that's falling down, that's one thing. But if you're taking a property that somebody lives in who just put sweat equity into it and put their life blood into it, what's the big expense or problem with a registered letter? You know then that they've gotten it.
Or not have gotten it. But didn't we talk about this in December, about registered mail.
We talked about making sure that we notified people through the mail. If you would like us for all occupied structures to add a registered, we'll do it.
But doesn't it seem logical? 198 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
It's not that big of a deal. It's not that big of an expense. And we won't have to go through the torture that this man's going through listening to this story.
We'll do it. But also -- I think it's a good idea. I think we should do it. We will do it. In his case, that mail probably would have come back anyway.
Then you know he wasn't notified. You send out writ server and find him. It's not that expensive to do that either.
I live around the corner. I walk over there. I pick up the mail about every two weeks.
Herb, with all due respect, I think we talked about proper notification processes in the past, and it just doesn't seem like it changed at all. We have as many or more people in here now complaining than we did about just reading about it in the newspaper. And that's got to be a shocking -- you open up your daily paper and your house is going to be condemned. It's just not fair. 199 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Councilman, I can say this. That we did send a letter to every owner on this list. We add to that for occupied -- you're okay with vacant lots, right?
The guy who's an absentee landlord in Florida, hasn't done anything in years, I don't care. But how can you not 9 empathize with this guy sitting next to you? 10
I understand. I just want 11 to know what we need to incorporate policy that you 12 would feel comfortable with, and that is every 13 occupied house that's known to be occupied, the 14 communications would be through certification mail. 15
Yes. Because we 16 heard testimony that it was done various ways, flyer 17 in the neighborhood, ad in the paper, letter. 18 There's no consistent approach. 19
When we talk about neighborhood transformation, I think the gentleman sitting at the table is probably one big example. 200 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES That's how you transform a neighborhood. A person like him goes in, stays in the neighborhood, fixes up the properties, puts a business there, does the things that need to be done. And after all the work that this gentleman puts in by staying in the neighborhood for over years transforming that 8 block, helping it stay together, this is the way 9 he's rewarded. I find that totally insane. 10
I'd also like to speak for 11 the hardware store owner around the corner. Jim -- 12 I never knew his last name for the last 10 years. 13 He has help me build the houses, too, and he's also 14 on the list. His wife was here but had to leave 15 along with his son. He's in the same situation. He 16 did, however, get a letter. And after I found out 17 in the newspaper, I talked to him and he gave me a 18 copy. And I found out about the meeting at 10:00, 19 which it's going on 3 o'clock. 20
But what I find is, why are these people who were there, who stayed, who created a business, who fixed up things, who worked around it, why were they not gotten together say, "Look, we have a plan to do something here. We want you to join us. We don't want to buy to buy you 201 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES out. We want you to join us in doing this." I mean, where is the thinking going? It seems like we're just hell bent on demolition and then hoping that something comes out of it. (Applause.)
I'd like to know how did it happen that his place and the one he's speaking for, the other businessman, how did the happen that their two locations were included? Who discovered the fact that this was terrible menace that had to be dealt with?
Councilman Cohen, we're going to ask the Commerce Department.
Are they here? Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the commerce be summoned. They belong here.
I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that we recess the hearings until the Commerce Department comes in and explains why it is that these two properties were selected. What was the basis? I'd like to know from A to Z. I've been listening patiently, being quiet, which is difficult 202 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES for me to be, as everybody well knows. But I've been waiting for something to happen as to why suddenly these properties become endangered in this fashion. Is it we can't stand peace; we've got to create problems for people?
Councilman, I'm not trying to speak for the Commerce Department, but I can speak to some level of intelligence about that particular block on Cecil B. Moore, not necessarily the gentleman's property on Sydenham Street. That particular block was actually a block that was proposed to be developed sometime ago. Unfortunately, it didn't happen. There were some problems associated with the developer. It was in one of the original empowerment zones TIFs. Because of the developers problems, that did not happen. That particular block is probably, to some degree, a hinderance in our ability to develop the rest of the commercial corridor. Unfortunately, that particular block is probably one of the primary locations for activity, should I say, that is not legal and has constantly been raised as a major primary concern for any potential business who wants 203 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES to operate on that corridor. As a matter of fact, the people from the Beneficial Bank who will shortly be opening a bank across the and the people who currently occupy the Social Security building willing that was just completed, the first question they asked was about that particular block and the activity associated with that block because that block also has a substantial number of vacant properties that are in bad condition. There are a couple of occupied properties that, shall we say, is the headquarters of some of this negative activity on that block. One of the individuals who has a property on that block has actually expressed an interest in participating in any future development. And we are making arrangements for that person to be in touch with any potential developer. The gentleman from the hardware store, it's my understanding, essentially has had problems with the location because his unavailability of parking. We are entering into some preliminary discussions about him staying on a commercial corridor and having the ability to have off-street parking to support his store, because right now the 204 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Temple University students park on that block all day long and do not afford him an opportunity to have potential purchases of his goods and services in that building park. And as a result of that, his business is not experiencing the type of operation that we think he should. And I know of one individual who is interested in possibly having him locate elsewhere on the commercial corridor where he will have the opportunity of off-street parking. So that's my knowledge of that particular block. Again, I I'm not familiar with the situation as it relates to the Sydenham portion of condemnation, but I know those properties on that block are problematic as a result of that.
I can understand some of the problems, but some I can't. For example, parking is always a problem for businessmen. Police know how to deal with it. You put up parking limited to 30 minutes or an hour or two hours. You get rid of the student parking when you ticket them for every day for about two weeks. That will put an end of that pretty much. There other problems I don't know about. But I'd like to know what was the thinking that caused the direct involvement of these 205 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES specific houses? I think, Councilman Clarke, people are entitled to know why their particular places were selected. Couldn't they do everything else and leave his property and the other one he's talking about alone?
The Commerce Department needs to respond to the Sydenham Street, because I didn't know that we were acquiring that for that particular purpose. And I'm sure that they can respond. But I know the issue about that commercial corridor is a problematic situation, and I believe that at the end of the day the occupants of that block will actually be in a better position because of their ability to move to another location on the commercial corridor, particularly the hardware store because he has indicated that he needs to take advantage of the resident population. And the residential development is actually further up on the commercial corridor.
Let me make a suggestion. The odds are overwhelming we're going to be here for a while. So why don't we make a request now to the Commerce Department to send 206 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES somebody over here to speak to any of this. And we'll proceed until they get here, all right?
Anyone else to testify on this Bill? This is Cecil B. Moore. Please identify yourself.
I'm Ken Knight, and I'm from the Voters Coalition. I was just amazed, because I was here in December and I thought I heard the same thing you heard, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the Redevelopment Authority, in terms of their notification. Because I made mention that even if we had to use a tin can, that would be something better than what we have now. And I'm saying that it's unconscionable to me that we can't send a certified letter, let alone the shock factor of when people look at it in the newspaper -- I'm talking about that senior citizen, 80, 90 years old that may a heart attack. Who's going to bring her back to life once she knows that her house is going to be 207 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES taken? And then let me also say for the record that communities are more than just abandoned houses and lots. It's about the people that live in the neighborhood. When you walk down the street and you see Ms. Mary that's been there for 75 years and speak to her and Mr. John who knew you as a little boy. What happens when these people are gone? You lose the whole sense of community. And that's what I'm talking about. (Applause.)
And also I'm saying that this process shouldn't be as politicized as it is. When you talking about urban renewal, people should never forget that those are just words. And these people are flesh and blood human beings that you are destroying their communities. They will not be able to come back into these communities. And all because we have this thing that we call eminent domain and we know that this is a national issue. Should we be taking our tax dollars and ridding communities, just taking people out of these communities, and they are taxpayers too. It makes no sense. I don't think that it's fair to have my 208 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES tax dollars to take my grandmother out of her house. (Applause.)
So please, just -- along with that, we're talking about voters. What happens when we do this urban renewal? What happens to the voters? And that's what I'm speaking about, the voters, the voters that have been voting there in their particular locations for 50 and 60 on 70 years, what happens to those voters? And I'm also saying that for the Redevelopment Authority -- and I said this in December -- they play a dual role here. They shouldn't have this dual role as playing developer and at the same time have powers of eminent domain. They're playing a dual role. You can't wear both of those hats. And we know move that when you move these these people out, it's all to revalue the land. You're not going to give the people nothing what their house is worth. It's based on the assessed value of the land. But yet and still when these people are taken out of their house, that land goes up sky high and those people won't be able to able to come back to their neighborhoods. (Applause.) 209 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
And I'm saying this shouldn't be. I'm saying, as elected officials we cannot have this just because we want to enrich our friends and our favorite developer. And that's what's happening in these poor neighborhoods. And it wouldn't be happening in the better neighborhoods. But you take these poor neighborhoods such as Cecil B. Moore, such as Mill Creek and Mantua and Belmont and Parkside and you open these neighborhoods for gentrification, because we have sense. We know you're putting in $200,000 houses and $500,000 houses at 32nd and Girard and you need to come around to these poor neighborhoods to transform these neighborhoods. And I think that this whole thing is just a disguise to move poor people out of these communities. And it's worst than what you did to the Indians. This will not be a trail of tears. This will be years and years and years of tears. (Applause.)
Mr. Knight, could you stay here for a minute, sir? Thank you eloquent speech. And I'm not 210 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES sure what neighborhood you live in or represent. I don't think it's in the 5th District. With respect to some of these communities, particularly some of the communities that I represent, if we don't do something now, then nobody's going to be there. The fact of the matter is is that these neighborhoods are deteriorating at a very rapid pace. There are drugs and rampant situations in these neighborhoods that people have asked me to do something about. And if you look at the properties in the 5th District -- because again, I can't speak for where you live or where you represent. Properties in the 5th District, all of the houses that I've been a part of in terms of development are affordable. And people in those communities have opportunities to purchase those homes in those communities. I don't thin, frankly speaking, to my recollection -- and members of the Redevelopment Authority and Office of Housing can correct me. That there's been a house in the 5th District while I have been Councilperson or working for a Councilperson that has sold for more than $55,000 that I had some direct relationship that factors into about a 350 or $375 a month mortgage, which I think is more than 211 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES affordable to a whole lot of people. So the reality is, is that, frankly speaking, if people expect me to be their Councilperson and allow this community to die -- because that is what happening -- then they got the wrong Councilperson. I think that people have elected me to rebuild North Philadelphia, and I'm do it to the best of my ability to rebuild North Philadelphia. I think that we're on the path to rebuild North Philadelphia, because, as you say, all of a sudden people are now interested in North Philadelphia. But as we move ahead in this process, it is my responsibility as the advocate for the residents first and foremost of North Philadelphia to make sure that those people in those communities have an opportunity to stay and come back in North Philadelphia. So I just wanted to speak about North Philadelphia. I don't know anything about Mantua and Mill Creek or any of those other areas.
I grew up at 32nd and Turner. I went to the Kelly School. Let me just say this. We don't mind it being rebuilt, but we want to be in it. We shouldn't have to be moved out for it to be rebuilt. That's my whole point. We 212 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES should stay in our neighborhoods. We should stay in our houses. And we shouldn't lose our sense of community. Because there again, that's what I'm saying, nobody's weighing the social and the psychological impact that this is going to have on people. And I think that it's a travesty for us not to do that. I think that those things have to be addressed as well.
And with all due respect, sir, I knew you grew up in North Philadelphia, and as far as I'm concerned, everybody I talk to grew up in North Philadelphia. But I grew up and I still live in North Philadelphia. And I'm going to make sure that I do the right thing by the people that live in North Philadelphia.
I'm troubled by the whole thing. I'm troubled by the fact that there doesn't seem to be any clear evidence as to what has happened as a result of many, many years of taking people's homes, upsetting communities, in some cases clearly causing gentrification, in some cases it may 213 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES not be so clear. I think people's concerns are warranted. I'm wondering about shouldn't there be maybe a moratorium until we find out what really happened? Because destroying communities, destroying lives is a terrible thing to do for a City government. (Applause.)
Mr. Wetzel, what objective information exists as to the value of this program as it's actually been carried out in the City? Could you tell us that? Is here anyway we could get some information?
Councilman, I promised earlier that I would supply you with that. But just let me give you an example. In Sixth and Berks area, we've carried about seven different eminent domain condemnations. What has been built is a new rental project called Brinkin I, which is an affordable rental project; Brinkin II; Hogar Diesperansa, which is a special needs project; Tieno Gardens, which is twin houses that are for rent to low and moderate income individuals, that's about 30-some units; and they just finished the Perdera Project which is 50 new twin houses for sale for low 214 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES and moderate income individuals. I believe the Perdera Homes are selling for about 55,000 that have off-street parking, central air. They are twin houses. I did forget one other one. We carried out eminent domain activities to create the first serious large-scale supermarket. I believe the location is at Sixth and Berks that has been built in North Philadelphia in that section especially in e many, many years. Those were all the results of eminent domain taking.
Yes, but most of that area was dilapidated, abandoned homes and empty lots, sir.
They had a lot of empty lots. There were very, very few people living in those area that you're talking about. They were not -- in fact, if there was one home per block, I can tell that was too many.
I know the numbers, sir, because I had a hand in getting the loans for that supermarket. I had a hand in helping develop it. So it is not the same sort of situation in 215 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES which you have viable living conditions and people with mortgages and homes that are stable. It is not the same situation.
Councilman, I was trying to answer Councilman Cohen's question which was does any good come from this.
Sir, when you have empty lots and blocks that are totally been abandoned, yes, it comes good from that. But when you have viable neighborhoods and viable houses in a block, you should be able to develop and build around them. (Applause.)
It is not that had to develop and build around stable housing and houses that are there. And if you have businesses that have stayed in the neighborhood and have gone through the process, then you should incorporate them into the overall economic development instead of just giving it over to Starbucks and those other individuals.
Isn't that the real formula that Councilman Ortiz spoke about. I mean, that's what I'm concerned about. You're destroying 216 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES communities where people have struggled to maintain their community. Are you telling everybody in Philadelphia, "If you have any problems, you better desert houses now before the City comes in and takes it away from you"? That's the kind of message I think we don't want to send out. We want to send out the messages, "Build your communities." (Applause.)
And I'm wondering whether this program really destroys rather than builds. And I think we ought to find out before we continue it. (Applause.)
When people come one after the other and say, "What's going to happen to me because I'm going to move into a new circumstance," you know, it seems to me as if all that's happening is you defend the fact that there's a federal law and a state law, but you ignore the responsibility of the local community. And that, you should not be doing. In Philadelphia we ought to be building the City, not destroying it. I think this Council has got to think 217 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES seriously about a moratorium on the whole project. (Applause.)
Does anybody, Mr. Wetzel, sit down and wonder what's going to happen as a result of this batch of mail going out, when people learn for the first time that maybe they're going to lose their home where they spent 20, 30, 50 years of their life?
Yes, Councilman. And I think what we try to do is follow it up with two community meetings so that we can talk --
But community meetings aren't enough. You've got to have a meeting with each family.
Thank you, Councilman. Let me thank everyone who is here today. Certainly, I've heard the comments of my colleagues. I agree with those by Councilmember Clarke that we are people who care about our communities and care about all of you. All those people whose name -- and I say this since Mill Creek was just mentioned. 218 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES All those people whose names we have, we'll be glad to contact. But I take issue with anyone who says there was no information given out, especially since that individual has been in the middle all of the information to the extent that there's an injunction against him from trying to stop work happening certainly in our community. So all we say is let's be fair. We're here. We want to do the right thing. These are important issues. People are concerned about moving or having to move. That's legitimate. That's why we're here today and that's why we have a public hearing. But we say to all those who are here, let's be fair and let's be honest. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Could you please identify yourself. MS. TANG. My man is Yin Tang (ph). I'm here on behalf of my father-in-law who own 801 North June Street. He want to basically -- if you're going to pass the Bill, he want his property excluded from this Bill.
Could you give me the address again? 219 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
You're going to have to talk with Councilwoman Blackwell's --
It's in Mantua in the heart of the redevelopment area. If she will see Ms. Snead, we'll be happy to review your specific situation.
Because I was promised that my father-in-law just signed a 20-year lease with the tenants. With the amount of money he's going to get after years later which is the remainder of 18 the lease, is he going to get $200,000 for his 19 property. We went down stairs to the second floor to address my issue. They said that they're willing to compensate for him for that amount of money. I don't want to fight by myself in this issue here because I know it's no way the City going to give him $200,000 for his property. 220 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Besides that, the tenant live there for over eight years. How are we going to tell our tenant, "Look, you're going to lose everything"? There's no monetary value that you can compensate for him. And the way you said it, PHA is going to build this new housing to improve the quality of life in Philadelphia. How do you measure that? There's no way you can measure that.
I don't have an answer for you. I don't know what to tell you other than see Ms. Snead as far as that particular property is concerned.
We're very glad to meet with her. That's in the heart of the area being redeveloped. It's near the area where we had the deaths, the Lex Street deaths. It's very, very dilapidated. I have no idea where $200,000 comes from. The whole area looks like war-torn Europe. But we will definitely check into it. If you will give Ms. Snead your name and phone number, we'll check on it.
Thank you. I'd just like to go out of order one second and ask State Representative Horsey to please 221 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES come forward. He has testimony on Bills 030287 and 030288. We'll accommodate him because he is in Session and needs to go back to Harrisburg. We thank him for his attendance. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself. REPRESENTATIVE HORSEY: I'm State Representative Mike Horsey of the 190 District. 99 percent of all development that's taking in Mill Creek is taking in the 190th District, and in particularly the 6th Ward which I am also the ward leader of. It's curious that -- I'm here to testify about notice. And notice, people have gone to court. People have gone to federal court. People have been reversed all based on the issue of notice. And I find it interesting, whether it's the Redevelopment Authority, Philadelphia Housing Authority -- let me tell you a little bit about me. I've lived in the Mill Creek area for the better part of 30 years and played and grew up in that neighborhood for an additional 10 years, so I've been in that neighborhood 40 years, that particular neighborhood. Presently from, I guess, 222 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES 32nd Street, the Art Museum to Overbrook High School, I'm the only elected official on the north side of Market Street, which is the Mill Creek area. And being the only elected official, having been raised up there, I'm perturbed. I'm very upset that I have not received any notice from PHA or RDA about their plans and what they're doing on the north side of the Market Street. Now, under normal conditions, City folks might say, "Well, it's not a big deal," but both PHA -- the people or City Council need to hear this. Both PHA and RDA are state agencies I am a State Representative. ) REPRESENTATIVE HORSEY: Now, you can play that game about "I've informed people in Administration. " It is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. It is wrong not to have received notice about development taking place to my house which is less than 50 feet away from this entire project. ) REPRESENTATIVE HORSEY: Excuse me. My 223 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES complex was built there and is relatively new. It's about 30 years old the houses. They won't dare try to do that. They wouldn't dare try to condemn my particular complex. Those houses they're relatively new. It's not going to happen. But my argument again is about notice, not having receive notice. And I find it curious that there are people coming up here talking about the same thing, notice. And what does it take when you're taking a senior citizen's house who's been living there for 50 or 060 years, what does it take to send them certified mail about what is taking place with their house? Nothing. Nothing. Send them certified mail, then you won't have to worry about them going into federal court against you because they have not received notice. Because that's where this is all headed. This is all headed to Federal Court. I believe it wholeheartedly. You just can't take people's houses without giving them proper notice. It's called due process. And due process has been violated if they have not received notice. And if I didn't receive notice, I know they didn't receive notice. Look, it's okay Council. Because as I 224 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES sit here right now, you didn't pay attention when we did the school system. You didn't pay attention when we did the Convention Center. I'm sitting right now telling you that we are looking at what is called state companionship law which will basically take RDA away from the City and basically take PHA authority away from the City. ) REPRESENTATIVE HORSEY: Because the reality is, again, both of them are authorities and both of them operate under the control or as a result of the creation of the State. And if we want to take it back, meaning the State, we will do that. Most RDAs and PHAs already across this country have State companionship.
Which may mean just notice to elected officials which include state folks or it may mean a sign-off by State Reps and/or State Senators. That is what we are debating and discussing right now in closed chambers. City Council, City of Philadelphia do not operate under a void. You are not the only elected officials who represent this City. We have for the first time in the history of Philadelphia a proactive legislature. So it's sort of a warning. 225 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES We need to be careful about how we do business and how we do things. And nobody is going to sit up there and tell me I got notice or I should have gotten notice. I have not received notice. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony. Councilmember Blackwell.
Thank you very much. We are totally in support of the NTI. State Representative, how you dare you come here and say you had no notice. I have pictures of us on stage together with Arlen Specter and other federal and state officials with the Mayor where we funded this project. How you dare you. Instead of being grateful that we're trying to do our dilapidated neighborhoods across West Philadelphia and the City, for you come in and say you didn't know is an affront to all of us here. How dare you threaten the City Council of Philadelphia. You don't threaten us. You don't frighten anybody. Do what you think you can do in the State because you're not the whole State House. You're not the Governor and 226 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES you don't represent everybody in State House of Representatives nd the State Senate. Who do you think you are? How dare you come in here and bring Ken Knight who we had to put an injunction against since he lists a trailer for an address and pretend that he's really interested and doesn't know what happens in Mantua. How dare you come here and try to insult us. We will not be threatened. Do what you have to do, whether it comes to the school system, the Convention Center, everything else,the RDA, PHA, and everything else you think that you can do, I challenge you; you go ahead and try it. How dare you. You don't come here and threaten anybody here in City Council, and you certainly don't threaten me as a City Councilperson. I've been in this place since January 3, 1976. Before that I was with Lucien when he went in the State House when Schapp was Governor. Don't come here and think you can threaten anybody here. You don't threaten me and you don't threaten any of my colleagues. Now, take that where ever you think you can. REPRESENTATIVE HORSEY: I imagine that there is a question in that. My argument again is about notice. Yes, we have stood on a stage 227 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES together, but I understand that there have been meetings held --
Tried to run somebody against me and they could only get against 28 votes. That's how strong you are. You and the people who send you. Now take that too. And I got more votes than everybody. You could only get 28 votes to defeat me. Come on, let's take it to the streets. Do whatever you have to do. STATE REPRESENTATIVE HORSEY: Madam Councilperson. I was not involved -- just for the record, because you made the accusation, in effort against you for City Council is A. B is when I walked in that door, I walked in alone. And my name is Mike Horsey. Now you try to marry me to Ken Knight because he's from the Belmont area, but I'm not married to him.
Oh, you all are married, you just don't have a license. Oh, you all are married. He's your henchman. STATE REPRESENTATIVE HORSEY: RDA and PHA have had --
You picked the wrong one. You picked the wrong one. 228 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES STATE REPRESENTATIVE HORSEY: Again, RDA and PHA have had numerous meetings about the taking of people's houses. You're absolutely right, I stood on a stage six months or a year ago --
I have 30-year record State Rep. I stand on my record. Thirty years. STATE REPRESENTATIVE HORSEY: I stood on a stage six months, eight months, a year ago when this program was initiated. Very good. I have not involved in the actual process until --
If you've got a problem with NTI and Mayor, take it there. Don't bring it here. STATE REPRESENTATIVE HORSEY: Until people called me to say "The City IS taking my house. How can you help me?" Which was the proper thing to do since I, again, live a hundred feet away from them. What am I going to do, say "I can't help you, there's nothing I can do"?
I remember when OIC built your house. Please. STATE REPRESENTATIVE HORSEY: I carry a responsibility to in fact try and help my 229 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES constituents who elected me, to in fact try to help me. Again, I have not received notice relative from RDA or PHA on anything that they are doing is A. And B is, Mr. Chairman, for the record, can I get a comment from Mr. Wetzel on whether he informed me that he was taking close to 50 or a hundred houses in the Mill Creek area.
There's plenty of information out, State Rep. You all the information.
Can we just have some order for a second. Mr. Wetzel, if you're capable of responding, please.
He has the info. Come here with these big lies and think somebody's going to put up with it.
If the question is, was there direct notification of the State Representative regarding this, no. 24 STATE REPRESENTATIVE HORSEY: And if the other representative from PHA was sitting beside 230 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES him, he's say the same thing. This is not about politics. This is simply about notice. Simply about proper notice, that's all.
Thank you. Thank you very much. STATE REPRESENTATIVE HORSEY: And I understand it's not a legal duty probably on you to inform elected officials, but some of this is common sense. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. (Applause.)
Is there anyone else to testify? Which Bill are you here to testify on?
I'm Minister Lamone. I'm here to testify, I guess, the next Bill, but also --
I know you haven't gotten there yet, but I just wanted to speak if I could about the notification thing because -- 231 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
If you could be really brief, because we're getting out of line here and the record won't make any sense at all.
I just wanted to say briefly before we get to that other Bill that back in the past we haven't received any notice about meetings and different things, you know, when it comes to meetings in the neighborhood. And also with this thing with the acquisition of homes, I also was surprised. I found out by accident. I didn't receive -- I have three properties involved on the next Bill. But also my family owns five other properties in the same block, and my concern also is about these different notifications, people are not knowing. There are elderly people involved and everything, and I just wanted to reiterate that, that's a very serious problem we're having even before we get to the next Bill and my particular issues.
Thank you very much. Mr. Redding, could you come back so we can continue on with Bill No. 030302, an Ordinance 24 approving the first amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Brewerytown Urban Renewal Area, 232 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES being the area generally bounded by Oxford Avenue on the north, 30th Street on the east Girard Avenue on the South, 33rd Street on the west and the Amtrak Railroad right-of-way on the northwest, including the first amendment to the urban renewal plan and the first amendment to the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately properties for 10 residential and related uses; the provision of 11 certain relocation services, as required by law and 12 declaring that condemnation is not imminent with 13 respect to the Project. 14 Please identify yourself for the record. 15
My name is Herbert Wetzel, 16 Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of 17 the City of Philadelphia. 18
Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Rules Committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill 030302. The neighborhood would be the Brewerytown neighborhood of western North Philadelphia. The first amended redevelopment proposal and first amended urban renewal plan for the North Philadelphia Redevelopment Area and the 233 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Brewery Urban Renewal Area. The Bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 4 properties, 18 vacant structures and one occupied 5 structure which will be used for residential and 6 commercial development. All properties will be 7 acquired with bond proceeds from the Neighborhood 8 Transformation Initiative. Nineteen properties to 9 be acquired will be used to support a large-scale 10 residential and commercial development proposed by 11 Westram Development Company. The plan calls for 12 approximately 500 new residential units market-rate 13 town houses, condominiums, affordable and 14 market-rate rental units as well as a supermarket 15 and possible other retail uses. 16 Mr. Chairman and Members of the 17 Committee, I respectfully request consideration of 18 Bill No. 030302 and also would ask for the 19 suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading June 5, 2003.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Richard Redding, City Planning, testifying in support of Bill NO. 030302, involving acquisitions 234 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES for residential revitalization in the Brewerytown Section. The Commission approved this at its April meeting this year, and prior to that we prepared a blight report to help lay the ground work for redevelopment. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses? Councilman Cohen.
Is there an agreement between the company mentioned by Mr. Wetzel and the Redevelopment Authority?
You stated in there somehow it was 500 residential development taking place and possibility of a supermarket, another commercial development?
No. Councilman Cohen, when it comes to the properties that are acquired under eminent domain, the disposition of those properties requires a redevelopment agreement that must be 235 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES approved by City Council by resolution. So we can't enter into an agreement to dispose of this land to any redeveloper without the approval of this Council.
How do we know that the redeveloper is serious? We've had many proposals, spent many hours. We've had developers appear here, tell us about development and then learn later that there are holes in the ground and nothing developed. How do we know this is not such a case?
I would hope this developer is very serious. My understanding is that Westram Development sold all their suburban properties and is concentrating on the City of Philadelphia, so they really need to be successful. Can I guarantee it? I cannot. But we believe --
Do you have any paperwork on their financing on their previous activity in the City of Philadelphia?
The only development that -- I'm aware of two developments they did: One up in the Andorra Area and one I believe in the Mayfair section. 236 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
In Andorra, far northwest they built single family homes. And I believe in the Mayfair section of the City, I believe they had a development.
And I believe they're also doing the project in South Philadelphia.
Oh, Kay Park would be their development, yes. You're correct, Councilman Kenney.
Because this Council has been led down the prairie trails many times and we find that nothing develops.
This has to come back before this body for the disposition of the real estate so there's another bite at the apple, if you want to call it that.
And will there be an opportunity for other developers if they choose to compete in this area?
They might be able to, but Westram has bought up a significant amount of land and this would only just complete the assemblage for 237 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES them. They acquire privately from many of the owners down there.
You mean the role of the City in this area is to help the developer acquire the property?
Yes, some small parcels that will fill out the overall development plan. They have used their own money to purchase most of the land down there, and they use their own money to buy the site, for example.
And that applies irrespective of how the people feel about it?
When it comes to the properties in this ordinance, we have to come back to you with a redevelopment agreement that describes what they're going to do, what the plan is that they're going to carry out; and you have an opportunity at that point in time to say you don't like it. These are 19 vacant structures and there's occupied structure here. We're not absolutely 22 sure if it's occupied. It's in pretty bad shape. 23
This is one of the 24 rare occasions today in which you've had a specific 25 company mentioned. 238 1 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
That is correct. And the reason is they have purchased most of the land for the development activities that they want to undertake.
Can you very briefly outline the standards? How do people in any community know this not going to happen to them? How do the people in West Oak Lane where I live, for example, know that this isn't going to happen to them next week?
Councilman, the eminent domain powers used by the Redevelopment Authority can only be exercised inside of redevelopment areas and urban renewal areas. We can provide you maps. Not all the City is a redevelopment area or an urban renewal area. So only within those boundaries can those powers be exercised. The Redevelopment Authority has no independent power to take anybody's property. Unlike PennDOT or some other entities that do not have to seek to legislative approval, the Redevelopment Authority cannot acquire any property from anybody through eminent domain without the consent of both the local legislature and the local administrative office. 239 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
But is it consent if we give it today? Is that irrevocable as far as City Council is concerned?
As I mentioned to you earlier, when Councilpersons have said to us, "I pass this Bill, but this particular property I don't want you to take," we have not taken it.
In every case. It doesn't make any sense for us, because the only way we can do what we do is to have this body's approval, to offend this body. It doesn't make any sense.
And how much after the action of Council in approving the Bill would the Council have of the opportunity to exempt property?
All the way to the point where we've settled with somebody. But the reason we would have settled with somebody is they're not opposed to it.
Thank you very much. Is anyone else here to testify on this 240 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Bill? Yes, ma'am.
My name is Wendy Hudson. I really did not intend to speak this morning. However, I'm not going to address the issue of the vacant houses. I don't have a particular purpose 8 in doing that. That's silly. We all want to see 9 our neighborhoods improve and if you're only taking 10 vacant houses, there's no problem I don't think that 11 anybody has with it. A lot of people have talked 12 about an awful lot of things today. One of them was 13 trying to empower or help out the residents of 14 neighborhoods of communities in their own homes so 15 that they could stay in those homes and those homes 16 could be worth more money, more valuable to the 17 City, and the kind of home that they might actually 18 enjoy spending some money on fixing up. That makes sense to me. I live in Brewerytown. We have no 21 supermarket. The reason I'm sitting here at the table is because mention of a supermarket in this sub-stretch of Brewerytown was just made. I don't like that. I'll tell you specifically why. And I'm sure lots of people in this room -- and I know 241 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Councilman Clarke is well aware. There are a number of things that have transpired since last August when that property had a zoning hearing, and notice was the major issue. There was insufficient notice. Judge Matthew Carrafiello found for the community after an extensive legal battle in Common Pleas Court. Not only did the community win that fight, because there was indeed improper notice which was actually documented by the inspector's report.
You're referencing the 27 Girard site under discussion today?
I'm sorry. You're right. That does help clarify things. But when the community won that fight, the whole point was that they wanted a supermarket where the historical site of the supermarket had been, on Girard Avenue in the middle of the shopping strip which is sort of like a cute little main street because it's bordered by sort of the river of going towards the zoo and on the other hand Girard College. So it's sort of tight little stretch. I'm 242 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES trying to think about how to put this tactfully. But there's a lot of animosity in that community. And the mention of putting a supermarket in a location that does not necessarily best serve the residents who currently live there and indeed actually anybody that comes in there, whether they come in from the other side from 25th Street or they actually come in from 31st Street. The site at 27th Street is the preferred location. As a mater of fact, there's a letter where State Representative Frank Oliver actually stated that. He not only stated that in the letter in agreement with the community organizations recently in the past week and a half, but he also stated that to potential supermarket operators. I think there is a certain presumption that certain people have that they can decide what is best for us. That's a simplified statement, but in the case where you have very clear community opposition and the community's been unequivocal over many years, because this fight has raged for over seven years, I think that it's rather presumptuous for people to put into Bill that they're going to put a supermarket there or that's the stated intention. That doesn't serve people and 243 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES doesn't serve the process. And frankly, I see an awful lot of people going at this in Common Pleas Court, and indeed it may wind up in federal court. I think the whole process, as Councilman Ortiz has said, stinks. I also think it's stupid. And I'll tell you why it's stupid. First of all, as you've said, you send certified mail. But I'll tell even better than that, if you really want to deal with people and you want to deal up-front with them, you come out and you make appointments with them, each and every one of them. (Applause.)
I don't think that's rocket science. I don't think that's a hard thing for you to do. I don't think it costs that much money. It does cost some time and some energy and some effort, however. But if you don't want to wind up in Common Pleas Court and face the same king of issue that Carrafiello just found for the community because of insufficient notice, it just makes sense. I just don't understand why you guys, all of us guys, including the ones who are not here today, why none of you have figured that out in your individual 244 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES districts or as City Councilmembers-at-Large. I don't get it.
I mention a lot of things too, but I get a lot of results. I'm very good at it. I am known as a big mouth. I am. Today in today's Inquirer there's a Metro piece that I wrote about lack of supermarket access. It has very little to do specifically with putting a supermarket at 31st Street, but inherent in that piece is that the location needs to be readily available for the residents who live there. Many of these people are elderly. I had one woman tell me on a bus one day that she was fine, her daughter who was a judge in the City takes care of her, her son lives in New Jersey helps take care of her. But she has friends who she's known for 40 and 50 years who don't have 245 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES food, who don't have children that come and take them, or have people that don't want to ask their children and make them a burden. There's something wrong with that entire picture. And if you're going to talking about rebuilding the City at large with NTI, you need to think about all the things that people need to have a community that they can live in. They need supermarkets. They need banks. They need post office locations. They need everything that makes a livable community. And if they're going to participate in all those things that you dump down in the communities, they better have jobs. I'm really thankful to Councilman Ortiz for bringing that up for many, many, many months; because I think in my recollection you've been the only one aside from me who's actually pushed that over and over and over. If you don't have a damn job, how are you going to pay for everything? I doesn't matter what kind of house you give somebody. It doesn't matter at all because if in two years they can't afford it even if you give them the location money, where are they going to go? I mean, we all have to live beyond the next two or three years, beyond the next election. This is very serious stuff. 246 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES (Applause.)
If you people, all of you, are very serious and you'd like to see the Mayor succeed in a program that I'm sure is well intentioned and has the full purpose of recreating a City for the better, I think you need to remember that there are many people who put their blood, their sweat, their tears, their time, their hopes, and dreams in this City. They don't all have to be relocated in order for you to increase the tax base and bring in suburban people with $200,000-plus homes. (Applause.)
I don't think I have anything other than that to add, but it is a very heartfelt problem. And I live in the neighborhood so I can tell you how difficult this is for me daily. As a mater of fact, I have my daughter here with me because we have to go shopping.
Thank you. Is there anyone else to testify on this Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we'll 247 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES move to Bill No. 030303, an Ordinance approving the 31st amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at the northwest corner of Front Street and Spring Garden Street, including the 23rd amendment to the urban renewal plan and the 22nd amendment to the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 481 properties for residential and related uses; the additional land acquisition of approximately additional properties for 13 commercial and related reuse; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project. We please ask the interpreter to read this Bill. (Bill 00303 read in Spanish.)
Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record. Herb, do me a favor. In your response, it's a difficult boundary to understand because it says Front Street and Spring Garden Street including the 23rd amendment, so you'd have to know what the 248 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES 23rd amendment was in order to know what area we're talking about and how far it extends. It's just really bewildering. It says Front and Spring Garden. That's the only boundary.
What I can do is go through -- would it be acceptable, for example, the 1800 block of North 16th, the 2100 block of Diamond? Does that help?
Yes. But where do we get -- what's Front and Spring Garden? It says Front and Spring Garden. What's front and Spring Garden?
Model Cities is the largest urban renewal area. This is one of the largest ones. This is the map of the boundaries of the overall Model Cities Urban Renewal Area.
You're going to have to speak into the microphone. Please identify yourself again.
Michael Kuntz, Deputy 249 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Director, Real Estate Services, Redevelopment Authority. Model Cities is generally bounded on the east by Front Street, on the north by Cumberland Street which is just above Allegheny, to the south by Spring Garden Street, and to the west by 33rd Street.
Is there any time limit? Are these Bills being brought up in any way related to the fact that one fiscal year is shortly going end and another one beginning? What happened if we --
We had promised that we would do acquisitions on a twice-a-year basis, the fall and the spring.
Suppose we withdraw that request for a promise. 250 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Councilman, I'd have to go through this -- there are some time sensitive projects that are inside this ordinance. I don't know -- I'd have to get that information for you.
Could they be examined and you could pick out which ones are time sensitive?
We'd have to look at it. I know there are some tax credit project that expect to apply for tax credits in October that would need their land. I think we have Home Ownership Zone. There's some deadlines.
Because I'm very seriously considering a proposal made by myself about a moratorium. And I would like to proceed with that and therefore may have the option and campaigning against for a no vote on everything or selecting those that are not time sensitive, but I would have to have some guidance with respect to that. From what I hear where you have no 22 developer -- I can understand a project where maybe you have somebody who's already interested who has to get a bank loan, that might be one situation. But most of your cases are cases where we'd have 251 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES nobody that's going to use the property but in the meantime we're going to cause a great deal of hardship and inconvenience and disruption in the lives of many people while we wait for something to happen, which may never happen.
Councilman, this particular ordinance here has a number of projects that are very time sensitive in terms of moving forward.
I'll just give you example. Predera Homes, 2nd Phase, they've already completed the first phase and the --
But I can't go through this list at this second and tell you every one.
Because if you can't do it then you're going to be risking the possibility that there may be a no vote or everything.
We can provide you a list 252 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES of what in this particular ordinance is very time sensitive.
My name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 030303. This the 21st amended redevelopment proposal in the 23rd amended urban renewal plan for the North Philadelphia Redevelopment Area and the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area. This Bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 481 properties, 286 vacant lots, 87 vacant structures and 107 occupied structures, which will be used for land banking, open space, residential development, commercial and institutional development. All properties will be acquired with bond proceeds from the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative unless specified otherwise. Ninety-four properties will be acquired for land banking in open space. This figure 253 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES includes vacant lots on the 2100 block of Diamond Street to be land banked for future development, 30 vacant lots on North 31st Street to be land banked for future development. Five properties, four vacant lots, one occupied structure, located on a triangle shaped parcel at North 17th and Ridge Avenue which will be redeveloped into open green space by Community Ventures. Four scattered site vacant lots for use adjacent homeowners as side yards, gardens, and recreation area or parking. Forty-eight vacant lots in the North Square area for use as a community garden and rear yards. Two hundred seventy-eight properties will be acquired for the development of homeownership units. One hundred seventeen properties, eight occupied structures, three vacant structures, and 106 vacant lots will be acquired on behalf of APM Predera for the second phase of the APM Predera homeownership project. Six vacant historic structures will be 254 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES acquired on North 33rd Street for rehabilitation using the RDA's Homeownership Rehabilitation Program. Eighty-four occupied structures will be acquired in support of the final phase of the Cecil B. Moore Home Ownership Zone. Four properties, three vacant structures and one vacant lot will be acquired on behalf of the Abaca Community Development Corporation for rehabilitation as duplexes with an owner unit and a rental unit. One vacant structure will be acquired on behalf of Habitat for Humanity for rehabilitation as a single-family unit for sale to low and moderate-income family. Thirty-six properties, 33 vacant structures and 3 vacant lots, will be acquired on behalf of Project Home for the development of 33 single-family homeownership units with 3 side yards. The properties will be rehabilitation under the RDA's HRP Program and sold to low and moderate-income households. Five vacant structures will be acquired on behalf of APM for the development of five 255 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES single-family homes for sale to low and moderate-income first-time home buyers. The properties will be rehabilitated under the RDA's HRP Program. Thirteen vacant lots on the 2000 block of West Norris Street will be acquired on behalf of the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation for the development of a mixed-income homeownership project. Twelve vacant structures will be acquired on behalf of Community Ventures for the rehabilitation as homeownership units for first-time home buyers. Properties will be rehabilitated under the RDA's Homeownership Rehabilitation Program. Ninety-six properties will be acquired for the development of rental and special needs housing. Six occupy structures will be acquired on behalf of the Susquehanna Seniors Project. Proposal of the Susquehanna Business CDC and Community Ventures to develop a 65 to 70-unit senior citizen housing complex using low income tax credit financing. Thirteen properties, seven occupied 256 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES structures and six vacant lots, will be acquired for Phase II of the Sharswood Rental Development.
Michael's Development Corporation has been identified as a perspective developer of this project. Four vacant structures will be acquired to complete the acquisition of the Vernon House Project located at 33rd and Clifford Streets. This project is being developed as a joint venture of Pennrose Properties and Mansion Development Corporation and will consist of the renovation of an existing vacant historic structures in the 67 units an affordable housing for the elderly. Seven vacant lots will be acquired to support the development of market rate residential units in the blighted area of Northern Liberties. Thirty-six properties, vacant lots, 9 19 vacant structures, and occupied structure, will be 20 acquired for the expansion of the Design Competition 21 site. These parcels will be developed as 22 multi-family rental housing by Community Ventures. 23 Thirty properties, 10 vacant structures 24 and 10 vacant lots will be acquired on the 1800 25 block of North 16th Street for residential reuse. 257 1 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Upon acquisition the properties will be immediately marketed for redevelopment. Thirteen properties will be acquired for commercial and institutional projects. Ten vacant lots will be acquired on behalf of Second Pilgrim Baptist Church for the expansion of existing church facilities adjacent to the site. One vacant commercial structure will be acquired on the 1600 block of North Bailey to provide for future commercial development at this location. The Authority has received an expression of interest from the an end user for this particular parcel. One vacant lot will be acquired on the 2500 block of Diamond Street on behalf Charlie's Country Kitchen to provide expansion of its existing business adjacent to this location. One vacant structure will be acquired at Broad and Diamond Streets on behalf of the Carlisle Development Corporation for planned commercial expansion. The developer will pay all costs associated with the acquisition of this property. Passage of this Bill would lead to the creation of 258 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES approximately 280 new homes, 117 affordable rental units, and the expansion of 3 businesses. Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I respectfully request a favorable consideration of Bill 030303 and would ask the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading June 5, 2003.
I appreciate your testimony, but let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. This Bill probably shouldn't be dealt with in one single hearing of the Rules Committee. This Bill is so expansive dealing with 481 properties and so many different projects and so many different developments that this could be the subject of one full Rules Committee hearing and that's why this process is flawed and why it's extremely -- with all due respect -- very disrespectful to this body. (Applause.)
With all due respect to my colleague Councilman Clarke, I'm sure he's been involved deeply in every one of these things and knows it inside and out, but the rest of us who additionally have responsibilities both judiciary 259 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES and policy responsibilities cannot possibly absorb all of this in one hering. It's just not right and it's not possible. I just want to reiterate for the record that despite how good many of these projects -- I'm sure all of them in this one particular proposed ordinance are, it should be the subject for one hering. That's how expansive this stuff is. And to bring this stuff through here on a rush, having to do a first reading by the 5th to get -- I don't what the magical date of summer recess is. It always seems to be extremely magical. Christmas recess and summer recess are these magical dates. We're not doing our jobs right if we don't understand this. And we can't understand it if we don't have enough time to review it and understand. And that's all I'm saying. I know the Councilman's conscientious and represents his district well and I'm sure he knows what all of these things are. But you're asking us to do a lot of stuff and take a lot of this on faith when we don't even have the time to deal with it. And I don't really think it's fair. (Applause.)
Mr. Chairman, may I make a request of you? I would like to work out a system 260 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES whereby there's a deadline that these requests come in so that we can then do the work and then get them to you in time frame that we can mutually agree on.
We have nine pages of Bills here, and I'm interested in every single one of them and I do take in many ways the word of the District Councilperson. I don't discount that, but it's just we're dealing 481 properties and probably 7 or 8 different development proposals and "hurry up and get it done." It's just not fair, Herb. It's just not fair.
My request is, can our office and your office work on a plan together.
Yes. But this is the second acquisition hearing. It's three years of this activity, I mean, if we haven't worked it out by now, when is the effort going to be made to do it? (Applause.)
I commit myself to work with your offices over the summer to lay this out so that we can have a better system.
You know how much I respect you. I think you do a good job. I realize 261 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES this is not you, and I feel so bad during the course of this particular Administration's terms that I've had to jump on people that I like and respect because of lack of response from the second floor. I don't whether you're not allow to do it or whether you're told not to do or you're told to drag your feet, whatever is done, it's a bad a message. I would love to worked together cooperative on all of these issues. We just can't get information -- it's insane. It's insane. We're going to plod through this, but I just want to let you know I don't think it's fair; I really don't. Mr. Redding.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Good afternoon. I'm Richard Redding from City Planning testifying in support of Bill 030303 in the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area involving acquisitions for residential development, commercial development, and blight removal. Commission approve April meeting thank you.
There's long list of people who I assume are all in support of these particular projects. I'm talking about the list I have right now which is Mr. Rappaport, Rose Gray, 262 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Tim McDonald, David Lukens, Joanne Jackson, Wilbert Foster, Tim Block, Steve Kaufman, David Cleghorn, and Anthony McIntosh. How many of those people are in the room 6 right now? Am I correct in assuming that everyone is in favor of this particular Bill? I would like to expedite matters. Unless the sponsor has an objection, I can't see having 10 or 11 different witnesses saying the same thing about their support of the project. And I'd be willing to stipulate to --
Mr. Chair, I'm fine with that. I just wanted to say for the record that there are a number of individuals here who are here to express their concern about the Bill that talks about the Cecil B. Moore relocation, and that's the next Bill; it's not this particular Bill.
I would be willing to stipulate to the support offered by all the witnesses listed in our preliminary witness list to save some time and then call people who have some concerns or objections, unless there's something specific and special that someone wants to raise. 263 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Michael Kuntz, Redevelopment Authority. What we're requesting in this Bill is to acquire 84 occupied structures in the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area as part of the Cecil B. Moore Home Ownership Zone.
That wasn't mentioned in the testimony. I didn't hear him reference the Homeownership Zone in his testimony.
Are you questioning, Councilman, whether or not Herb Wetzel mentioned Cecil B. Moore?
I didn't hear that. I'm sorry. If I'm incorrect, then fine.
People have concern 264 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES or opposition to this particular Bill that deals with part of Cecil B. Moore?
What I'm now being told, if it's the Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zone in this Bill, then I'm assuming that the majority of the people here from North Philadelphia in particular are interested in this particular Bill. So I misspoke.
I have two gentlemen indicate that there's something different than support for this Model Cities Bill; is that accurate? So could you come forward? Which has nothing to do with Cecil B. Moore Homeownership, right?
My name is Steve Kaufman from Community Ventures. I will try to speak extraordinarily briefly. I just wanted to stress that many of these project, including ours are extraordinarily time sensitive. It's very important for the RDA to be able to acquire properties for the fall PHFA round. I know you hear this every year, but it's actually true.
How long have you 265 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES been working on this project?
Since last fall. And there's all sorts of steps, including extensive community consultation back and forth.
I'm sorry. There's many steps involved in these things, including a lot of back and forth, community consultation, involvement of local a state representative, community residents in terms of getting these types of packages together, and we really can't pin -- I don't want to pin any blame object of the Redevelopment Authority. It's a very difficult process back and forth. And I'm sure this has happened to you before and I know it's frustrating, but it's also frustrating for everybody else but these projects for everybody is a process of start and stop and wait, and all of sudden we have to go crazy with our applications. So we do have --
If Councilman DiCicco were sitting next to me he would hit his button and tell you that he's been working on Jefferson Square for five years. So last fall 266 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES doesn't give me a lot sympathy.
The issue here also is not just the stuff we're working on, but the City has relinquished -- well, the low income tax allocation, part of that money has been lost because --
Is there anything wrong with your microphone? Why don't you talk into it.
I'm sorry. Part of the state funds which are allocated to the City every year by PHFA for low income housing tax credits, it's really a construction subsidy from the Feds. Part of that was not used last year because of the slowness of the process. So it's not a matter of whether I've been personally working on a project for a year or so. The real issue is keeping enough projects going forward in the pipeline so that we do not blow this one source of federal dollars. So it's an important thing to keep the flow of projects moving forward. I just wanted to make that point and not belabor it since there's others that have concerns. Thank you.
My name is Tim McDonald, and I just want to make a general comment. I think my understanding that this Bill is a massive Bill 5 that includes a wide variety of issues and a wide variety of people, and I think that I would just suggest if it's possible to break it up and separate sensitive issues like people losing their homes from vacant lots that people own next door to buildings that they own. I think that for this Bill to be so large, it just kind of does nobody any service --
Tim, trust me. I've been around here for almost 12 years. There's method to this madness. It's so big and so complicated and so time sensitive that you shouldn't dare hold anything up because it all goes through like a big freight train. (Applause.)
Don't think that this hasn't been delayed to the point of this time sensitivity without purpose.
I guess my request would be that -- I think you asked Mr. Wetzel to identify time sensitive properties. I would also just say simply separate the properties where people are 268 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES losing their homes and losing their property from vacant buildings, vacant land, and just deal with them separately because I think everybody in this room has every right to be upset about losing their home or property, which is a totally different issue from people who want to build an addition on their house in a lot right next theirs.
I totally agree. Thank you. We'll consider that. (Applause.)
Now, people have asked to testify relative to this particular Bill 16 who either have concerns or opposition. Again, I apologize for the room. It's not enough room. We're in temporary quarters. Could you please identify yourself for the record?
Chairman Kenney, Members of Council, my name is James McMaster. I'm here with my clients, Brit Glatz (ph), Ton Stevenson and Bob Stevenson. My clients two and a half years age started the process of trying to privately redevelop 269 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES the 1800 block of North 16th Street. They bought originally three properties that were in bad shape. They have renovated those three properties. They bought two more properties that were in between and built new structures there. They have title to two other properties on the street that they have already applied for building permits and they are in the process of acquiring four other properties. That's a total of of the 30 properties on that 11 block. There are already, besides my clients' properties, there are five other structures. The rest of the properties vacant. I just have a picture I'll show you of the structures that we have recently reconstructed or constructed on the property. This is a perfect example of private enterprise working. There's no 18 need for governments to get involved in this. My clients are in the process, besides the properties that they have under agreement, are attempting to acquire and track down the owners of the other vacant properties. We believe that this property and this one block, there's no reason for this to be in a redevelopment process. It's being redeveloped 270 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES privately. And to give you some idea of the amount of money, just in these five units my clients have about a million dollars invested. So if the Redevelopment Authority is going to go and condemn these properties and knock them done and then sell them I believe they said to somebody to redevelop them, what are we doing this for? It just doesn't make any sense. As I said, these five are done. Two more permits are being drawn, and four more are in the process of getting clear title to. So I don't see what the rush is on this project. And as I said, this is a project that private effort without any government subsidies, without any Redevelopment Authority money, without any low income tax credits is getting the work done. And I don't think Council should approve an ordinance that's going to stop or interfere with that process.
Councilman, would you be willing to enter discussion with --
Absolutely. I would like to respond to that. First, I'd like to thank you and your clients for doing the work that you've done. And I 271 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES think in couple cases we were actually involved in a process of you receiving vacant lots to build the new buildings on.
Now, here comes the problem. As a result of those developments, I've been inundated with calls from individuals who live on Wellington Street, the committee person the block captain and all the residents because of the unruliness of the residents who happen to be Temple students in those properties that your client owns. And they have been told and I have told been told that there is no management on site, there's no 16 phone number to call when these students throw beer and do whatever it is in the back properties that affect the individuals on Wellington Street. I've contracted Temple University. They say that they have no relationship with your client in that particular development, so they basically put their hands up and say, "it's not our problem." My concern is that your clients' ability to continue to develop that block in a sporadic way with no one responsible for the conduct of those 272 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES students in those units is a problem, not only for the residents on Wellington Street, but also for myself because I represent them. What we're attempting to do is to acquire all of the land on that block. If your client is interested in developing an entire block so they can have some management components or some security components on site, then we will be more than willing to have that conversation. But the way it currently exists and the scenario that has come about is a problem.
I understand that, Councilman. And certainly my clients are interested. But my clients are not absentee landlords. They did in fact, when your office made that concern known, send letters to everyone on Wellington Street advising of who they were and advising them that they can contact them if there's any problems. They will address those problems.
The problem is, sir -- they're not addressing the problems because I talked to the residents as recently as last week because I have a committee person who lives on that block. The problem is that the conduct happens at 273 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES and o'clock in the morning. There's no phone number to call at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning when this problem exist. What I'm simply saying, I can be more than supportive of the ability of your client to develop the entire block, but there needs to be some mechanism in place to make sure that that conduct by those students does not continue over there in that area. That's all I'm saying.
I understand. We've had to assemble these. We don't have eminent domain so we've had to assemble these in a process that is through private ownership we can buy one or two at a time, and that's what we've done. And if the City or the Redevelopment Authority -- we're certainly willing to work with them. We're here and we believe that this is a project that can be done without the need for condemning our properties. If you're going to condemn all of the properties --
This is authorizing the Redevelopment Authority to condemn. It may be a time in period when we move along this process that they don't need to condemn them because you already own them if in fact you're going to be the developer. But what I can't have is a situation 274 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES where you continue this sporadic development and you got no control over of the there. And that's what's going on over there. It's a problem. And people calling me, and I don't want to hear about it any more from them. So I figured if we can control that, then we enter to agreement with your client, the developer. We condemn building to that development proposal a series of mechanisms that will first have the appropriate security and the appropriate management in that particular development.
Please identify yourself for the record. MS. KUVAS (ph): My name is Rosemary Kuvas. I live at 2124 North Second. I'm the Director of the Community Leadership Institute. And in this Bill is contained one of the more outrageous pieces that I've seen. And this is the resident, a recipient of the piece of mail. And I just want to put in the record that of the people who came 24 this morning, only 8 of us are left because the 25 rest, unlike what is said about us, had to go to 275 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES work and bring their children from school. I'd like the petitions put into record that have similar opinions what what this party will say. Thank you.
My name is Wilfredo Carrasquillo. I'm here to ensure that 2153 North Second Street is not taken by the City and to ensure that what happened to me and my family does not happen to others in my neighborhood, or for that matter in any other neighborhood. On May 23, 2003, I received a letter dated May 2003 from the Redevelopment Authority 13 stating an ordinance has been introduced in City 14 Council that would authorize the Redevelopment 15 Authority of the City of Philadelphia to acquire the 16 above property. A City Council hearing in this ordinance has been set for Tuesday June 3, 2003, 10 o'clock a.m., Room 696. And that if I had any interest in this legislation I could attend this hearing and seek the opportunity to speak on this matter of the ordinance before Council. As I bought this house in 1999 to house my sister and son near the rest of my family and have all taxes paid, my family and I obviously are seriously upset. My parents and my brother live in 276 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES the same block. I live in the house next door to the house in question. My extended family has lived on the block for over 40 years. We want to continue to do so. I sought help from the Community Leadership Institute near where I live. I knew the organization had worked with area residents regarding the other takings that had occurred in the neighborhood, CLI personally reviewed my materials and showed me the legal notice in the May 9, 2003 Philadelphia Inquirer where my house was listed to be taken by the City. They advised me immediately to contact my Councilman to express my concern and to write him a letter before the hearing date regarding my desire not to give up my house. They suggested I inform my neighbors of what was happening to me and my family. On May 28, 2003, I called Councilman Rick Mariano's office and left a message. I sent a letter to the Councilman on May 29th by Federal Express. On May 30th, I got a response for which I am grateful. The Councilman's letter said "Let me assure you that the City has no plans or acquire your property now or in the future. I have had several meetings in your area in which I explained 277 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES to residents the Mayor's NTI Program will not acquire occupied properties anywhere in his district without approval of the community. You received a letter from the RDA because there are plans generated by the community to acquire ownership of numerous vacant lots that are currently used by the community and gardens."
And then that's next to 2155-61. Okay. And you received a notice in the mail?
Yes, I did. The letter continues by saying that "In order for the City to acquire these lots, the area had to be declared urban renewal area. The RDA is obligated to inform all property owners of the urban renewal area that such legislation was introduced in Council. Your property falls in the urban renewal 278 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES area. Therefore, while it is not a target for acquisition, it is necessary for the RDA to send you a notice." My house 2153 North Second Street is not an empty lot. The maps put out by the American Street Empowerment Zone have my block and the other side of the 2100 block of North Second Street as outside the urban renewal area. Given that, there have been at least solid occupied homes taken in 11 my neighborhood in the last several months by the 12 City.
I have a letter here from Councilman Mariano whose district it is. It says Councilman Clarke, but it's actually Mariano's district to Mr. Kuntz. It says that "There are properties in the American Street Urban Renewal Area that should not be acquired by the City. These are vacant lots that have current owners who have beautifully maintained the properties for years. I will not sign off on the acquisition of the following properties:" Although it still says vacant lots, but it says 2153 North Second.
That is the problem. Councilman Kenney. That is the problem. His house 279 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES was counted as a lot. Twelve homes have been taken in our neighborhood by people who are frightened into giving them you up, homes. This would have 5 been No. 13. And we want a stop to this. We want a 6 stop to these takings. They would have taken his 7 home and he would have come home and found a letter 8 of acquisition, or worse yet, he would have found a 9 deconstruction ball in front of his house knocking 10 down his house. What apologies could he get after 11 that? 12
I want to get -- the first problem is that your house is not on the list according to this letter. I need Mr. Kuntz to confirm that. The second problem is the overall process problem. I agree. But I want to make sure that you understand that according to this letter and according to Mr. Kuntz shaking his head, and he can come on the record and say it, is that property is no longer on the list for acquisition, along with 2207, 09, 11, 13 North Phillip have also been removed from the list.
I am Michael Kuntz, 280 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Redevelopment Authority, and I'd like to go on the record as saying that, yes, those homes are no 4 longer on the list for acquisition.
Now, that's the one issue. But the overall issue is still --
They didn't give me any notice. We want a guarantee from all of you and the Mayor that these takings of this occupied homes and properties where the residents do not want to move will stop. We, the residents of the neighborhood, have been the ones who stayed through the hard times and changed blighted areas into attractive blocks like mine which is lined neat row houses, trees, garden lots and beautiful wall murals done by a well-known muralist from Puerto Rico. Tourist trolleys come and stop by my block to admire the view. We have a long-standing relationship with family, friends, and neighbors that provide us safety and a quality of life we want to retain. We have an organized block that cleans and beautifies the block and resist drugs and crime. Yes, we want 281 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES progress, but not at the cost of destroying the quality of life we have worked so hard to gain and maintain. What if I had not known to go to the community leadership for help? What if I hadn't called and written a letter to my Councilman to protest the taking of my house? What if I didn't have the backing of my neighbors and residents to stand here before you today? Would I have to come home one day and find a letter saying my house was taken by the City? Or worse, would I come home and find my house leveled? No amount of apologies from whoever would suffice. In conclusion, I wish to restate that I do not want my property at 2153 North Second Street taken by the City. And I, my neighbors, and other residents presented here today want guarantees from you that these takings of solid homes and land where the owners and the residents want to stay will stop. Thank you very much for your attention, and I respectfully ask for your response. Thank you.
See, here's the problem. And I don't mean to be disrespectful to anybody. I don't have an answer because we don't know about the program. We are walking through this maze in the dark with you. Now, some district councilpeople may have some information of what's going on. We do not. Have never been given information about it, have never been given the courtesy of explaining it, and have never been given the time courtesy to do our jobs in the proper way. I am as frustrated as you are and --
Rosemary, do you have the addresses of the 12 houses that have been taken?
You know what? Stop. RDA, you come up here and give the answer. 283 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Everybody's been 5 sitting through this torture now for hours. They 6 have a question that needs an answer. RDA, come up 7 and answer the question because I don't have an 8 answer to it. Anybody else here from the 9 Administration have an answer to it, come up, sit at 10 the table and give us an answer. We'll wait. 11 I sit here and listen to these 12 heart-breaking stories from people who are demanding answers from us. I don't have the answer. I'll be the first to admit. Get the RDA in here. Come up to the table and give us the answer because I'm tired of trying to explain this. Identify yourself, please, for the record.
My name is Carolyn Brown. I'm with the RDA. I wanted to specifically address the issue of 2153 North Second. We were given a number of addresses, and in fact, I believe that it was the intention of Councilman Mariano to promote the community garden that you all had started. So, in fact, the name of this project is called 284 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Palethorp Gardens. The understanding is that these properties were to be acquired and actually conveyed to community residents who had been maintaining them already as community gardens. I think that --
Right. That was actually in error. And we have since been notified of the error. We got the address incorrectly and we have since dropped the property. And we apologize. However --
That are being forced to move? They were frightened into moving because they did not have, like the ones now, now they did not have advance notice. It was thanks to us who testified right here, Milagros Villes (ph) testified December 9th and said "How can my father's house be taken when he didn't know before?" That's why everyone got notice this time.
Mr. Wetzel, I want those 12 possessions stopped. Stopped. (Applause.) 285 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
I want the process stopped and brought here, all that information, to this Council. Because that was supposed not to have been done.
I didn't hear nothing. Twelve houses occupied, well occupied in a neighborhood been taken. People have been frightened and forced to sign over because, again, the process stinks. You get a letter from a government institution. You think you have done something wrong and that you have to do it. If those people were frightened to sign over and they signed it without knowledge, you have to stop that process right now. (Applause.)
Councilman, I'm unaware of any tactics to forcibly have people sign over their properties.
I'm sorry. I don't know of any tactics to forcibly sign over their properties. 286 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
You don't have to turn arms or put a pistol to someone, sir. You're dealing with communities that understand certain things in terms of the process, what the City does. It has an insensitive process from the beginning, from Mills Creek to North Philadelphia. It's been a process that stinks. (Applause.)
And homes, 12 11 families -- and I imagine the houses were not 12 dilapidated and ready to be torn down.
Six houses on Bodine were beautiful. They had original wood, the kind that you find in Alfred's Alley. They were beautiful. They were two little family homes. There's one person still sitting there who refuses to move. He's already near a nervous breakdown from harassment of people wanting him to move out. He's in the first taking. There are the six people who were in the second taking who are still in their homes. They haven't moved. There might be one or two that wish to move. But there are others that are fighting including with a lawyer.
Rosemary, give us the 287 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES addresses of all those properties, please. Mr. Wetzel, we want that --
One of them is right in the Daily News, right here, and he's still there.
That was supposed to be the gardens, all of those house?
That's for economic development, I believe. They're taking their homes for economic development.
Good afternoon, Councilman. I'm Kathy Calafano, Deputy Secretary of the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation. To clarify information about the households that Ms. Rosemary Kuvas is speaking about, those households were acquired in the fall and we have been working extremely close with the homeowners from the American Street --
Did you hear Ms. Kuvas? Did you hear her, that these people did not want to move. Did you hear her? (Applause.)
I'm going to have to ask that the spectators please keep their seats. Do not approach witnesses at the table and try to keep 288 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES this in some semblance of decorum, which is difficult, but please. Please proceed.
Councilman, many of these homeowners have identified and purchased and are in the purchasing brand-new homes within the same neighborhood that they were living before. Their financial condition is such that they have acquired -- they have obtained these properties and are in the same financial condition and better than they were before.
You know, I'd like to talk to them. I'd like to hear their stories. I want to hear their stories, because I believe what Rosemary Kuvas is saying. I believe her. (Applause.)
I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for coming out of order. I was down, I saw the hearings on the TV. Specifically about the 12 occupied homes, the District Councilman, Councilman Mariano, the RDA, Senator Tartaglione have been 289 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES working closely with the residents. They're being relocated. We've had a meeting as recently as last week with the RDA, with the gentleman from Bodine Street, with another gentleman from American Street. They are both purchasing -- being relocated. It's not going to cost them anything. They're being relocated to the Hunter Square Homeownership Project that is being developed by Norris Square Civic Association. We have worked out an agreement with the RDA that there's no relocation until those homes are ready. Two of the other residents are moving to APMs, new housing development if and when they are ready. So we've been in contact with all the residents on the relocation. Rosemary, in fact, was part of the meeting with Senator Tartaglione's office, so there is the constant contact going on. And actually, the 12 properties we're talking about are not part of this Bill that's before you now. The Bill that is before you now is for the Palethorp Street Gardens which is currently properties that are not owned by the residents but that are being used by the residents for beautiful gardens that they have on Second Street, Palethorp Street and Phillips Street. The purpose of this 290 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Bill and what we're trying to accomplish through is was for the City to acquire those and convey them both to the individual residents and in some instances to the Norris Square Civic Association who will hold them in trust for the residences so they can continue as gardens. That's all I wanted to add.
If any of you were military strategists or were in the Army -- a woman who was in the army in my neighborhood recently said something when we showed her the map of what was happening. She said, "Oh, I understand this. You secure the perimeters and then you move in for the kill." That is the way she described it. Those are very harsh terms, but what Walt says is true, but those people were frightened into moving. There were a couple that wanted to because it was convenient for them. Ramon whose article you have still is in his house because he doesn't want to move. He's now surrounded by empty houses that have been vandalized and he's got no choice. He now has no choose because those houses are empty. What we're saying to you is stop. Stop. No more takings of occupied 291 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES homes. No more takings of occupied homes where people want to stay. (Applause.)
Walt has done his best, but no more takings. We have a right to stay. We have a right to stay in the neighborhoods that we have created. We have a quality of life that is advertised by KYW and Bucks County as something inviting you to move in. We have quality of life. We've stayed through the drugs. We've stayed through the rats. We've stayed through everything. We've stayed when no one else would. We deserve to be there. We want to participate in the development. But build around us. Do not take our land. Do not take our houses. (Applause.)
We won't take it. By the way, we vote now. We may not have voted much before, but we vote now and we will increase our vote every year.
If I may, Mr. Chairman. Just to clarify, the Bill before you is for gardens. Except for the RDA error, it's only intended to take gardens and not occupied properties. 292 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
I repeat to Members of Council. If this man had not come to our office, this would not be just an error. This would be probably a leveled house. Please remember that. We brought this despite knowing it was an error because you need to have hear that we live there. I'm not just talking about theory. I lived there 30 years. His family was my neighbor 40 years. All the kids were raised there. You are taking. This was an error, but the house Ramon lived there 40 years. You have his article. His neighbors lived there just as long. So even though it was another Bill, you just cannot forget it because somebody back here said cancer spreads. We want economic development, but we don't want cancer to spread. And that is what has been spreading in our neighborhood. The gardens, by the way, can turn into houses. But gardens can also turn into industry. The gardens are only a holding pattern. They're a holding pattern only. Let's be real clear on that.
Just to clarify one more time, Mr. Chairman, the gardens will be acquired by the City and then deeded over to the Norris Square Civic Association or the individual residents. 293 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES They're not a holding pattern. They're going to be transferred as soon as we get them. Thank you.
Thank you. And I suggest that you break this up, as someone suggested, because this is very, very large and it is unmanageable and I don't think it's by chance.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Walter, I have a question. You mentioned one or two property owners were being considered for relocation into the APM? That's a housing development?
But you said -- and I just need this for clarification -- if and when that development is completed? Is that a development that is currently in the process of being developed or is it a proposed plan?
It's in the process of being developed. In fact, the other one I talked about, Norris Square, we've been assured that it will be December when the houses are complete. 294 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
When you said if and when, I was a little concerned about -- because that leaves people to wonder if there will be a place for them to move to.
I didn't mean that way. Norris Square I knew the deadline on, and APM I wasn't sure of. That's why I said it that way.
And the gardens, the City will acquire them and then transfer title to the Norris Square CDC. Is there a deed restriction? Because I understand the lady the saying that she's concerned that there may be industrial development.
Well, the deed restriction is that it will held in trust for the community gardens. The purpose of it -- these are already gardens that are complete and beautified. And the only restriction is that stay that way. Some of the gardens -- so you're clear for the record, some of the gardens will be transferred to, say, the neighbor next door or the neighbor right behind the 295 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES property who maintains it just for themselves. Others are used by the whole community. So it will be a mix of both.
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name Carolyn Smith. I need to ask Councilman Kenney, because I'm confused, is the 1800 block of Master Street under Model Cities or is it considered under Cecil B. Moore?
Councilman, our guide through the wilderness, Clarke, please if you can explain.
1800 block is in the Model Cities area. It is also in the Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zone. This is the problem. Get this out front. For some reason there were a number of notes sent to residents on the 1800 block of Master Street, particularly on the north side. I think there are approximately 16 to 17 occupied structures.
Right. I'm very 296 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES familiar with the block. They should not have received notices. There is no intention to relocate anybody off of that block. The only thing -- if anything, what's going to be proposed is to acquire I think there are like three or four vacants on the block.
To acquire the vacant properties, I think a couple on one side and a couple on the other, and renovate those properties for sale as a part of the Homeownership Zone.
Then what we need -- I mean, we have been here since 9 o'clock this morning. I'm just about sick. At this point, I don't trust anything that everybody's telling us. I want it in writing, okay? I have seen some stuff here that makes me want to regurgitate. I am sick. I need to leave here and go to my doctor. And this is continuous of problems that I've had to deal with. I have two liens now against my property because I received a notice in the mail that was sent to the wrong house. I came down here and tried to have my address changed where it would be proper, and they told me no I couldn't do it, insulted me, and jumped 297 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES on me and tried to intimidate me. And then after coming down here and seeing what I see today, when we walked in here this morning at o'clock with 5 notices similar to what that young man just read, a 6 man stands up here and tells us you're in the wrong 7 place. It said 696 at 10 o'clock. We were sent 8 downstairs and messed over by this man you've had 9 sitting here. Messed over. Every last one of us to the point that some people got discouraged and left. Is that what they want? And now we have to sit here and say that the anguish that we have felt all day long is another mistake just like what happened to this lady. What's going on with the City?
My understanding is that -- and we're still trying to figure out who gave the direction. At this point, it doesn't matter right now. That there was a blanket notification sent out to all of the residents in the targeted area, which was basically the boundaries of the Homeownership Zone but there's probably half of the individuals who received notices there's no 23 intention to relocate them based on the ultimate proposal. It's unfortunate. I'm very sorry that that happened. 298 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Mr. Clarke and Mr. Kenney, I really think that you all need to take this information -- I have to applaud Mr. Cohen and Mr. Ortiz for their insight. I wish that every single Councilperson was sitting here today to see what we as residents have had to go through. This is unbelievable. And we want it in writing. You say it's a mistake. We've been here all day. We've been all day. I'm in pain. I'm willing to stay in pain to stay here long enough to get something today in writing because I won't sleep tonight until I see it in writing. (Applause.)
There are five members of my family sitting here today. One of them has a store on the corner. And she has had to stay out of her business to be down here to listen to this garbage. That is doing nothing for us. And my niece, she has a brand-new house and she's not been sleeping. We didn't get a letter in the mail. We got something shoved through the door. It wasn't even important enough. And just for those people who may fit in the Bill to be in all the other areas that you've talked about today, I think that you need -- okay, 299 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES you tell us that we're not in it, and I want document of that, but for all the other people, Mr. Kenney, I believe that Council needs to revisit this whole situation because to go in and take people's homes -- I can't speak for everyone else that was here. But even if they fall in a category where their home needs to be taken, somebody needs to personally go in and sit down and talk to them and counsel them and work with them and not have a piece of paper shoved through their door saying "You're going lose your home." And based on what that man told us down stairs, Mr. Kenney, if you had been down there, you would have thrown him out. I was ready to throw him out.
Let me just say for the record so you understand my position on this. I never supported this from day one. I voted against this. I never wanted this. I felt that at the time with the answers we were getting two years ago when we voted for this, the response to the questions we were asking two years or whenever it was we passed this thing originally, were inadequate then, they're inadequate now. I felt that we would be right in this room doing this two years later if we passed 300 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES the Bill as it was. That's why I voted against it. And I intend to vote against any Bill that has any property that acquired that has anyone living in them. Period. But that doesn't mean it's not going to happen. I just made my position is what it is.
Well, Mr. Kenney, I strongly believe in North Philadelphia there has been a lot of work done. There is still a lot of work to be done. But there is so much blight where there are not homes that are decent where people are living in; that's where they need to be going, not to areas where people are living and taking -- we've lived in that block over 60 years, over 60 years. That block is well kept up. Yes, there are a few bad houses and yes we would like for you to come in and do something about those houses. But here you have back to back two mistakes. What are you going to telling these people? The lady that was before me said, you say it was a mistake. You now tell us it's a mistake. Mr. Clarke, you were for the bills. I got a problem with you.
Let me clarify this, please. I voted for the Neighborhood Transformation 301 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Initiative.
Let me respond. I voted for the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative that gave us an opportunity to get resources in place to rebuild North Philadelphia because we probably have some of the most blighted conditions in the City of Philadelphia, maybe in the State of Pennsylvania. Now, there are some flaws in the process. It's our intention to fix those flaws. There's no way in the world that you should have gotten notifications on 1800 block of Masters Street. That's wrong.
If you need a letter from me, I will give you a letter. I don't have a problem with that. As a matter of fact, the process is, my understanding is that I'm supposed to get the head of Redevelopment Authority on the record and tell him that I do not want them to issue an authorization of taking letter. Mike?
Those of us that are here 302 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES and have been here, we're going to get it today. Okay. What about the lien that I have on my property that I got simply because the judge said he didn't believe that he didn't get the notice, even though I came down here and told it was a wrong address.
You can go to my office. I can work on that for you personally.
Thank you very much. Sir, could you please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Robert Willis. I'm a long-time resident of the area in question in North Philadelphia. I'm a member of Cecil B. Moore Community Service Corporation. I'm a member of the 47th Ward Executive Committee Democratic. And I'm a property owner a businessman in a this area. First off I feel redundant because the notices that went out weren't properly done. The meetings that they had were inadequate. You have a bunch of seniors that are involved in this, maybe not directly but by the spillover. They're not considering them. The 303 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES meetings they're having are approximately three hours, and it's impossible to address as many people as are affected in a three-hour period and give them any type of service. Also, have you considered a moratorium on taxes for the people that remain that are affected by the spillover or a moratorium on taxes for the people that are relocated. Have you considered that? Because they're moving into an area, a lot of them if they agree to it, that will a tax base that they are not able to deal with because a lot of them are older and on fixed incomes. That's one of the things I want to bring. Have you thought about these mistakes, what the affect is on senior citizen come home and find out here's a letter telling me that my home is about to be taken and I don't really have a say so about it? Can you imagine the affect on them physically and mentally? I mean, it's ridiculous.
I think that these things have to be considered. I can't see the people in this Council being so insensitive as not to consider these things. 304 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES All of you have constituents that fall under the same categories, older, fixed income, and whatever. " They say, "Well, we want to relocate you and you won't have a mortgage," but they're telling two different tales on that. Here they say, if your house is valued at $20,000 and the home that you anticipate being relocated is 45, we'll give you the 45 and put you in it. " But he didn't explain that there's a residual mortgage that you will have in the event the house is sold at a later date, the $25,000 comes into play at that time. If that's wrong, then that's the information they're passing out. Now, which of these things is factual and actual? Or are they just trying to tell us what is to pacify us at the time? We're not here to be pacified. We're here to be satisfied. We want action and satisfaction. We want you to tell us what's going to be, how it's going to be, and not in a three-hour 305 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES meeting to deal with 50 to 75 to 100 people in a three-hour session with one person available to deal with it. It can't happen. Let's be realistic. Treat us like people and we'll appreciate it. These people are here because they don't understand. If you don't explain to them, they'll never understand. You keep getting the same thing from everybody that comes up here. Don't you realize what's going on? All of you, like they keep telling you, you're here because you were voted, you were elected here. You were elected here to serve your constituents. And we hopefully can continue. But they're not going to continue to go in the same vein when everything that's going on is negative. We want something positive. And we know we can get some positive action out of this. And that's what we would like to see. I'm not one that goes to a meeting every once in a while. I'm at many meetings, as can be attested. So I'm fairly aware of things that are going on. But this slipped through the crack. I was aware that there was a big development coming up, but it was no specifics given out at the meeting. When we get the specifics, the time is 306 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES there. We can't sit down with our constituents and explain anything to them or give them any information because we don't have it. We can only simulate the information that is given to us. If we don't get it -- and we can relate to our constituents because we see them every day. But if we don't get the information, when they come to us for an answer with a question, we look stupid because we can't give them anything. And I as a member of the Executive Committee, I don't like being made to look stupid. I have enough problems on my own. I don't like to be made to look stupid. Let me have the information so I can put it out to my constituents and let them be knowledgeable. Then when we go to the table and sit down and we're negotiating, we know what were we're talking about and we know who we're talking to, we know why we're there and what we can hope to be accomplished. Being relocated is not necessarily the worst thing in the world. A lot of people will benefit from it, but some will not. Some people don't want to relocate because they've been where they're at so long, they don't want to relocate. Give them some consideration. Give them some 307 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES consideration. You wouldn't want to be moved out of your house. Somebody just come along with a bulldozer and move you out. A bulldozer on one side and a moving van on the other. That's not the way to do it. These are people, these are not cattle. They need to be the treated as such. And I as one in the area that is directly affect, I'm affected by the spillover. I'm affected by the tax structure.
As of this moment, I'm not directly affected by the takeover and the move-out, but when my constituents and my neighbors are affected, I'm affected, because what hurts them hurts me. I've been there all my life. We've got a relationship. Thank you.
One of the most frustrating things about this process is that I don't disagree with you. This is not my plan. This is not my project. This is not my doing. And we have to deal with it and that's our job and we'll listen to because that's our job to do and we'll try to fix it as best we can. But it didn't emanate from this room. It emanated from another place in this building that we have very little control or 308 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES input in. Speaking for myself, I'm very frustrated with this process and I'm very -- it's heart-wrenching to sit here and listen to people one after another after another come with the same story about lack of notification, lack of information. And to tell you truth, we don't control that. All we can do is listen to you, try to empathize with you and do our best to fix it as best we can. But this is three years of planning, and we still have people like yourselves coming in here and telling heart-wrenching stories about this kind of stuff.
So where do you direct us and who do you direct us to see that can have more of an affect?
The Mayor and Redevelopment Authority are the places you need to talk. Especially on issues of notice.
My name is Beatrice Smith, and I'm speaking for the ones that did get a notice. Our homes are occupied. I've been living in my home, raised three children in my home. We are working class people. My home is paid and bought for, just like everybody else. What I'm asking the committee is, can we rescind this Bill or 309 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES do you have to leave it in and try to rewrite it? The Bill is flawed. Period. It's nothing you can say about it. It's flawed. What I want to know can we fix this Bill or do we throw the Bill out and start over again?
The Bill authorizes the Redevelopment Authority to enter into a taking, a condemnation of the properties.
Will you please let me answer your question. We had this conversation in the hallway.
I talked to you in the hallway yesterday about your specific property.
Let me answer the question. The Bill authorizes the Redevelopment Authority to enter into a condemnation process that will offer you money to take your house. Before they can do that, they have to issue an Authorization of Taking. Then before the property 310 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES can be taken and disposed of, it has to come back here to the Council. So this Bill just authorizes them to start that process. But before your property can actually be taken and given to another individual or another development entity, it has to come back here before the Council. The reality is if somehow this Bill passes, the development in Cecil B. Moore Avenue area is not even going to start until next year. There's a long process between the time of the development and the time of the passage of this Bill. It's going to be opportunities -- direct response to your specific question, if it's found that during the process of deliberations and in the planning process that there are certain properties that should not be taken or people should not be relocated, then the Redevelopment Authority will simply not issue the taking of the property and that property will be deleted from the taking under that proposal. So this is a process that's going to take a while.
Again, can we throw that Bill out and start a new one. We know what the Bill is. The Bill is flawed. We don't want the Bill in. You told me what the Bill is about. I 311 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES know what it's about. You just explained it again. You talk like my kids when they were years old 4 when you're trying to distract me from whipping your 5 behind. Excuse my French. But I asked you a 6 specific question. Throw the Bill out, can we do 7 this and start over again? Can we do this? Can you 8 answer that? Yes or no? It's a simple yes or no. 9
To be honest with 10 you, we can vote the Bill down. There is a time 11 frame on the financing for the federal government 12 for this proposal. If we do not pass this Bill, then we will lose the money. It is very simple and we will not be able to build the remaining 152 houses. It's very simple.
This is all that I ask you. Can we throw this Bill out and do another Bill.
The Bill can be voted down. There will not another Bill because it will be no point. There's time line if the money is not spent and allocated before the end of the year, then we lose it.
Money that you're using, that's our taxpayers money. You kick us out 312 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES of our home, loan us this money, we have to pay you back. They gave you the money and you loan us our taxpayers' money.
If we have to throw out the Bill, there will be no need to do another Bill.
I would like to redo the Bill if it's possible with homeowners, not just with developers.
Not just with developers. If you're take over a neighborhood, then you get the people in the neighborhood because that's what the neighborhood is. It's not land. It's not houses. It's the people in the neighborhood. And if you're going to take over a neighborhood and you're going to better this neighborhood, then you go to the people in the neighborhood. You don't decide for us what you want to give us.
Ma'am, this program started five years ago. 313 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
This program could have started years ago. You didn't go to the people. 4
Ma'am, you've got to 5 let me talk. I'm trying to be respectful of you, 6 but you've got to let me talk. 7
Now, this process 9 started and this development started close to five 10 years ago. They have built more than 125 or 130 11 houses in this neighborhood. This is a continuation 12 of a project. This didn't just start. This is a 13 Homeownership Zone, an award that was designated for 14 that particular area five years ago. So we've 15 already built half of the houses. What I'm telling 16 you, because the process in terms of developing 17 houses is taking so long, that we're in jeopardy of 18 losing the remaining funding. If we do not do the 19 acquisition and the development plan, then we will 20 lose the money. It's as simple as that. That's just the facts of the matter on the case. It's not something that we just started. We've been doing this a while. I'm sure you live in the neighborhood, you've seen a lot of houses built.
Of course we all did, but we did not know that you were taking people's occupied houses against their will. This is what we did not know and no one bothered to tell us until you decided take our homes. You never told us you were taking those homes against their will. You didn't tell us this. And we're not saying we want to stand in the way of progress. We are just saying we don't want to be a victim of your progress. You want to build the neighborhood. You want us to go along with it. You want to use our taxpayers' money and you don't want it cut off, then let the homeowners that want to stay -- you're making so much money, you're building all these homes --
Regardless, you can relocate us and when our homes are finished, you can put us back in there mortgage free. You're still going to kill us with the taxes because they're going to sky high. But at least you can give us 315 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES some pride and put us back where we came from without a mortgage if that's what we want.
I'm asking. This is what I'm asking. Can we you do this or do you have to talk to someone else? Or should I put it to them since they're the ones that's the taxpayers' money? Is that what I do? You're not answering me. Or you can't answer me? Hello. Knock, knock. That's what do to my kids, you know. Because when you take my house, you're taking my job. I work in my neighborhood. And I'm not the only one. Now, should I talk you? Or you can't answer me? Or should I talk to them? Can he answer me? Have I stumped you at least?
I think that probably is the end of the testimony. Thank you very much.
Sir, could you please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Eldridge Brown. I'm here today because of my mother, Alberta Brown, 316 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES that lives at 1947 West Harlan Street. She called me last night and got a letter saying that her house was scheduled to be torn down and she's living in it. We've been living in that neighborhood over 50 years. And she still living in it with my brother and my nephew, and the house is scheduled to be demolitioned. And I don't understand that. She called me upset and everything like that. She had a stroke and heart attacks and things like that. Do you know that that means to her, they're going to tear her house down. Do you know how she felt? I don't understand y'all saying all these errors and mistakes in something like that. She passed these letters out to Ortiz and he's passing them out, these are the letters that we got yesterday. So I had to come down here because she couldn't speak for herself because she's that upset. I work every day. I work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week. And I had to take this time off to come down and find out what's going on. It's not fair. I was raised in the house, stayed in there 40 years. I'm 50 now. I have my own 317 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES location. It's time for me to move on, be a man that I'm supposed to be and help my mother and that's why I'm here. My mother its 79 years old. How could she pay what you asking her to pay? It's not fair. You say you're going to give her $20,000 to fix up her house. It's not enough. Then, where is the sentimental value? What you going to put on that? It's not enough. Ain't nobody said about they're going to fix the outside of the house, new roof, windows in the back of the house. Whose going to pay for that? $20,000 is not enough. You want her to sell out. She is not moving. If I have to take more days off and come down here and protest and speak our mind like everybody else, that's what we have to do. I don't understand where all these mistakes come at. For her to receive a letter in the mail saying her house is scheduled for demolition and she's living in it. Totally wrong. Totally wrong. Second thing. You want to build these houses in our neighborhood and we want them there, but the people that don't want to move don't have to. You know what I mean? Ya'll should make some 318 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES compensation about that. I don't understand what's going on here. Everybody saying the same thing, but you're not listening. You're not answering no 5 questions. It's all about money. It's all about. That's what it's all about. You're taking our own money and giving it back to us and you're going to tell us who can buildup our house. We can't take the 20,000 and hire our own contractor. The money has to go direct to your contractor and we never see the money.
Sir, let me explain because you need to be clear. I'm going to explain this as clearly as I can. Five years ago -- you've got to listen. I sat there and listened to you. I'm asking you to listen to me. Five years ago the City of Philadelphia submitted a proposal in response to grant/loan program from the federal government. We were successful. We won that proposal for the Cecil B. Moore area. We started building houses. What we are now doing is hopefully entering into an agreement to authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire certain properties. Some of them are occupied. Most of 319 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES them are not. What it is our intention to do and my responsibility to do, to make sure that if anybody has to be relocated to be relocated not only in a comparable situation -- that is he the federal law -- but I believe it should be better than the federal law. To be relocated in an environment that's better than the environment that's better than the environment and in a property that's better than the property that they left. We have done this time after time. And I'm telling you that in every instance that I know of, the person ended up in a better condition. Unfortunately, most of them were not in North Philadelphia because they took the money and they moved to another community and then they were in when they condemned the property. This process in the early stages. It is still not clear what properties will ultimately need to be relocated. I can tell you based on the review that probably 40 of the properties that are currently on the list will not have to be relocated and there may ultimately be more of those properties. Now, my concern -- because I've been given a charge when I got elected to help rebuild North Philadelphia, which I'm trying to do -- is 320 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES that when I have the responsibility of getting some federal dollars to rebuild that community, I just want to make sure that we don't lose that opportunity because we've got a time line. Now, as it relates to your mother --
You know what I want from you? A letter retracting that demolition order.
Look, she need a letter saying that her home won't be taken and torn down. She don't want to sell.
Just like you said you can provide a letter for the ones in the 1800 block of Master Street, she live in the 1900 block of Harlan Street, you could do the same for her.
Master Street was a mistake. That should have never been on the list. I can't say the same about Harlan Street.
I can't say the same about Harlan Street. I know Master Street, that's 321 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES probably 90 percent occupied. There's no reason to relocate people off of that block. You don't fix something that's not broke. Harlan Street, my understanding is that there is probably four or five occupied properties on Harlan Street.
I don't know if that can be done, but that's a part of the planning process. And it's going to be a long planning process to talk about where the development will take place, where the new houses will take place, where there will be relocation. That process hasn't started yet. That's all I'm saying. But it's my responsibility as the elected official for those residents to make sure that they first overall get treated fairly -- and to some degree that hadn't been done because people haven't received what they believe to be the adequate notification -- and to be compensated in an equitable way, better than the federal regulation. And that's my full intention of doing that because I have done that in the past and 322 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES I've got a track record of making sure that people are taken care of in the event that we have to relocate them.
Well, you have to prove yourself and give me a track record by doing something about this here.
Do something about this here. The only person said something about this was Ortiz, and he's the one that got the letters together and distribute them. This is ridiculous.
At the end of the day, if things don't happen in a positive way in North Philadelphia and there's not development and there's no stores, no rebuilding of commercial corridors in our residential communities, I'm going to be the one that's going to take the weight, as I should be because I'm the District Councilperson.
We're losing our homes. 323 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES What difference does it make?
I'm the District Councilperson so I've got to take the responsibility to some degree of making sure the funds flow to that area, because at the end of the day they're not going to blame it on Councilman Ortiz, they're going to say, "Darrell, you didn't do nothing for North Philadelphia." That's all I'm attempting to do. What I'm asking people to do is to participate in a process. This is going to be a while. Nobody is going to be to asked to leave their homes this year. We're talking next year.
I understand that. And she can clearly communicate that --
And we're not going to stand by and see you take her home like that. 324 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
I want something written saying that's not going to happen. Then she can sleep and I can go to work.
I can't give you that letter today. I can only speak about Masters Street because I'm familiar with Masters Street.
Well, who can we go to, to do something about this? Who can tell do something?
I don't know who can tell you that today, sir. I'm going to be honest with you. I don't know who can tell you today that that property will remain in that location. The only way that that will happen is if somehow we don't do the development, we don't do the Bill, then that property will more than likely stay there because there won't be any money to develop that area.
Thank you for your testimony. Please identify yourself, sir.
My name is Sweeney Brown. I have a property at 2702 Susquehanna 325 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Avenue. I watched my brother-in-law go to his grave trying to get the vacant property next door to him torn down. It hasn't had a roof on it in years, 5 whereby, sabotaging our house. On the other side is 6 another vacant house. My sister endured it, 7 rainwater, filth, as long as she could. Now, I've 8 been working in the house for the last four months. 9 And the particular group that's asking for the 10 problem knows that. Did they notify anyone to say 11 it's occupied, being worked on, status has changed? 12 No. I looked at the paperwork yesterday, it's still 13 listed as vacant. 14 What I want to know is this: When 15 people start working on their property, shouldn't it 16 be moved from the status of vacant to occupied? 17 They know I'm in there. The group is Project Homes. 18 They know I'm in there. They watched me work on the 19 property. Do you understand? They know I'm there. 20 But they have not notified the program to say someone is in the house. I missed Verizon today for the phone. I'm here trying to -- we want to stay there. It's family property. I'm not a speculator. I'm not a guy that's a carpetbagger. You know what I mean? It's the family's house. 326 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES How did I get here, Mr. Clarke? I called your office about the two adjoining vacant properties. Only to find out I'm in trouble. Never notified. Never got nothing. Do you live in North Philly, Mr. Clarke.
I hear you talk about money, we'll lose the funding, the money, I hear you talking about the grant. But I don't hear you talking about human misery. See, it's human misery in here. It's people suffering in here. They don't like it. And if I'm right in my thinking, I think all of these projects came forward 327 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES because they said the community wanted it. But the community don't appear to want this. So that's a lie right there at the beginning.
You're saying the community didn't want the Homeownership Zone?
The community didn't want this. Do they look like they wanted it?
Sir, I have been in so many meetings, marketing meetings in the Cecil B. Moore Avenue area about the Homeownership Zone where we have sold houses to people in that community. You can't sit here and tell me people don't know anything about it.
Let's talk about your situation. You've got a property --
Here's the thing. It's not vacant. Can we note that for the record? I'm in there; it's not vacant.
You have a property on Susquehanna Avenue. Is it under your name or your family's name?
Yes, it is. It's 328 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES under my name.
And your content is that you should be allowed to continue to renovate your property.
To continue. I have a line of credit with Home Depot, enough to fund it. Sears Home Center, enough to fund it. I have a beautiful credit line. I'm fine. I don't need the bank. And I don't need a mortgage. And I would like to do it. Isn't that what we have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Don't we have that? Or do we have non-profits hold a gun at our head and threaten us to take our properties from us? This is not right. Common sense should tell you this is wrong. See, the tin man went to the wizard for a heart. Councilman, I'm telling you, you might need to following the yellow brick road. You need a heart, man. This is heartless. This is heartless. It's not right. Look at the people. Staying here from 9 o'clock in the morning -- let me show you 329 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES what I just went through. I just drove to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, two days in a row to confer with my sister, to talk about how we can hold on to the family's property. This is sad. This is sad. It's not right. But I say this: There is November coming fast. It's coming fast. I understand you're not challenged, am I right? Not this year.
Because if we hadn't made that mistake, you wouldn't be there now.
The fact that I'm not challenged shouldn't bear into my decision. You're saying you have a property that you're renovating. If you're renovating the property, if you have the ability to renovate the property, and I'm going to take you at your word that you're in the process. If you're doing that, then maybe we 330 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES shouldn't take your property. My understanding is the purpose of the taking the property was for a project that Project Home was doing, their concern that there was a vacant property in the middle of that row and there ability to market and get insurance for the property --
They knew as long as four months ago it was no longer vacant. They know it. But did they change the status? No, sir.
Let me look into it. If you're in there renovating the property and it's your intention to renovate it and to live in property, then I think you should be given the opportunity to do that, all right.
This is where I stand. I just want to say one other thing, though. This whole thing of property that's vacant and listed vacant, this is me. But how many other people are encountering the same thing that I'm encountering? That's just me we're talking about 331 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES here. How many other people? And how many other people have the ability to fix their places? They know I'm in there. I went around and talked to them. They know I'm there.
You know I been to your office. Should I tell you what Mr. Williams told me?
Listen, I'm in there. It's not vacant and I told them I'm not going away quietly because it's my family's. I promised my brother-in-law I would look out for my sister, and I intend to do it.
Let me look into it. You've been talking to Gary, right, Gary Williams?
Yeah. He said to me you had made a decision not to help me. That's what he said; Mr. Williams.
You're telling me that you've been in there renovating the property? That wasn't my understanding. But if you're saying -- 332 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
For the last four months. They know how the building look and they know how it looks now.
I'm Cecilia Suarez. I live at 2219 North 15th Street. I came confused this morning. I'm still confused at this time.
All I know is that I received a letter and that's why I'm here. If I had received a letter before, I would have been whereever I was supposed to be. This is the first I know about anything. I received a letter. I called up the Inquirer about it. They say they wanted to take the property. I had no one to talk to, so I came here today. I'm missing a graduation because this is more important. And my house, 2219, my mother bought that house in 1944 when women weren't allowed to buy property in Philadelphia. It was under my grandfather's name. And we have been there since 1944. We were looking forward to celebrating 333 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES our 60th anniversary next year. At this time, I don't know what will be happening. Might not even be there, from what I'm seeing. I want to know -- you know, where am I expected to going at this time?
2219 North 15th Street, around the corner from your office. It's the first house next to that store on 15th Street going toward Dauphin Street. And I just want to know what's going to be done, what's the amount of time or whatever. Because in our house -- you know, we have slate pavements out there. I have marble vestibule and steps. I have marble inlaid walls in there, marble fireplace, and upstairs in my bedroom I have a wood paneling that would, you know, give that trouble up there and it's mahogany. Everybody likes it. I mean, the house is set up and this is what I'm used to. We have four generations in there at this time, myself, my daughter, my granddaughters, and their two kids. I have great-grands. And we've all been brought up in this house. 334 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES And he's talking about relocating. Where do I go at my age? I'm a post liver transplant patient. I'm thinking if I have to leave out of here, I have to worry about going somewhere else and paying the taxes and all. And this is just bum rush, and that's all I have to say. I just wanted you to know the way I felt personally of what I'm leaving behind if I have to go. And I really don't want to go. Let's make sure you understand that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ma'am, have you had any contact with the neighborhood organization, anybody leading up to this process?
Nothing. Nothing. They had a meeting, like, a month ago and I went there. Housing wasn't even brought up in that meeting. Nothing. If I was, you know, notified -- like I said, I came here today. I would have been there because this is something important. I haven't been notified of anything. We've been there, like I say, 335 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES next year is our 60th year anniversary.
Thank you, ma'am. Sorry for your trouble. Sir, please identify yourself for the record.
Yes. My name is George W. Davis, Sr. I live on 15th Street also, in the 2200 block. These medals I'm holding up here,they're not just medals I picked up at a flea market. This is Distinguished Honor Roll 2001-2202 Abraham Lincoln. My baby girl will be graduated in two weeks from Abraham Lincoln High. I just enroll her in Penn State for the fall. All those things -- what I'm saying is, what do I tell my daughter -- not so much of telling her. How do I explain to my son in Bagdad that he ain't got nowhere to live no more because somebody want to come in here and they're worried about money. You know what? Not only that. It's a shame that people sweep things under the rug for the simple fact -- and I'm not trying to stay here long because I've been here long enough. The 336 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES thing is, back in the early '80s, we had a fire in the 2200 block of 15th Street. I ran in this fire, pulled a man out of fire. You know much notoriety I got? None. None. I had flesh on my clothes. You know how much notoriety I got? "They gonna to take your house." That's how much notoriety I got. I'm sorry, I'm very angry. I'm very angry. And I got I kids that I don't know what to say to. Just like you're confused -- I'm not confused; I'm messed up in the head right now. "Confused" ain't the word; it's definitely not. I thank you for your time.
Sir, have you not been contacted by the neighborhood the community organization or anybody.
Nobody. See, and the bad part about that is, see, when you get block captains and other people that's supposed to be a part of your community and they are not communicating with the neighbors -- we had meetings and meetings we didn't know about. If certain ones that sneaked in with the enemy and got the information and brought it back to us, that's how we got it.
But there was never 337 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES any discussion about your particular house as a part of the seniors project.
None of that. And not only that -- like I said, I'm gonna finish it up. I own the lot. I got deeds and titles to the lot next door. Why didn't they send me paperwork out on that? Even though they can take it. But if I got deeds and titles to it, that mean I got ownership. So why didn't they send me a letter out for the lot? Send a letter out for the lot. If you gonna do something, take the lot. I don't mind that. But don't skip over the lot and take the only thing that I have left. That's all I'm saying. I want a fair shake. I didn't come to Philadelphia to be swept under the rug. I came here for a fair shake. That's what I came here for. And I haven't got it.
My understanding is it was supposed to be substantial discussion with the residents on that block, there were agreements and all of that.
No, sir. Now, ya'll saying this thing been going on for five years.
No, not that. Yours 338 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES is something different. Where you are is the proposal to put a senior citizens house on the corner. The problem was is that they needed some additional land because the space on the corner wasn't big enough and it was supposed to be a process with the community and other people involved that was supposed to talk to people to find out who was interested in selling their property and all of that.
Ain't nobody came about selling no property. But the bad part -- another thing about this here is where I live at, I live almost like in the middle of the block. There's an abandoned house next to me and -- two abandoned houses right there. But my thing is, how can you take my house and not take the houses where you going to build a center at? To me -- I'm confused. Like I said, thank you for your time, and I wish we do something about it.
Hi. My name is Annie Alvin. We're all neighbors. And my house is 2221 North 15 Street. It's a Philadelphia Housing Authority 339 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES house. I been in that house 35 years and raised my family. I had a problem. I got this letter in the mail. They didn't even tell me. I'm renting. But this is my neighborhood. We're around the corner from your office. We've watched politicians come through there and walk through there with no 9 concern. Not only that, I'm sick now. It was no 10 break here today, no time -- I watched ya'll eat lunch, talk on the phone. It's just pure inconsideration. Not only that, now all of a sudden, when you even complain about getting windows or getting something fixed, you have to endure, endure, endure, be quiet and rent because when you below poverty level under 30 percent, you just trying crawl out of bucket. I was able for my daughter, was a single parent to raise her. She's teaching. She's married to a police officer. I was a stay-at-home mom. I treasure my motherhood and my faith. And if it had not been God on my side just to keep my sanity -- I'm sick right now. I thank God because it's not right. Even though renting, I have a big voice in it because I'm going to call on heaven because the 340 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES earth is the Lord's. The way you moving us out, the way ya'll come into our neighborhoods and our churches for votes, you come in our neighborhoods and act like you want us to vote. Literature was in my mail slot. Ya'll secretaries call on the phone for votes. And now when it's time to get some answers -- it was so poorly held even with some education and the people that were here that had been to college and stuff like that, but do them right. You learn through your faith to do right. Do unto others what you have them do unto you. Don't tell me you North Philadelphia when you don't know -- I might come in and don't even know how to put my key in the door because I don't have a deed but I've been there 35 years. I live next to a lot. I keep that lot clean myself. " I have to live there. I don't want Pampers and trash next to a lot there, and that would be poor raising on my part from my up-bringing. You see what I'm saying? I think it's unfair where you want to build that center, that corner. The minister wouldn't sell and then it was my neighbors house, my house, and a little store that come on the other side of the lot that I kept clean all these 341 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES years and then go down, I'm not moving that fast even though I'm renting. The ceiling fell on me. Nobody took that down to try to help me. When you stand up against big corporation organizations and you don't have a husband and I'm not married, you don't have a husband, all I have is in my faith in God. We pushed around. Usually in these poor neighborhoods -- and I'm going to go back to the riots in the '60s. We endured all of that. We don't got planes. We hardly got education and hardly can get our housing. When we was in school, when the bankings and took our two on three dollars to help build up the banks and stuff, we can't even hardly get loans when we want stuff. But yet the bigger development come and get the money and it's our little bit of money. We can hardly get no fair interest rates. Not only that, when the '60s with the riots, now you took our neighborhoods centers we can go and shop on, they're abandoned. Now downtown is built up. You don't want us down there no more because it's hotels, stores, and theater and all that down there. Now you want to take where we live us. It's going to cost us. It's costing us all away around. 342 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES And then for me trying to get -- I'm in my last year of college trying to embetterment, embetterment, embetterment, where am I going to go and what am I going to get? What am I going to get? I heard ya'll say PHA won't even come down here and be subject to ya'll, so how you thing I'm going to win.
If ya'll don't help back me as a single female in a poor neighborhood that ya'll want to come in, now ya'll want them. My professor told us 30 years ago, North Philadelphia is going to be the richest part of the City. It's in the heart. And the thing about it, the disrespect. We're not dumb. You're sweeping stuff under the rugs and you passing all this legislation and stuff and saying if we're interested. Where are we going to live? I'm sick. Sometimes I don't even know if my -- when I shake when I come around the corner from your office because I don't know if my key is going to fit in my door, if ya'll going to padlock it, take it over because ya'll just gonna build. Ya'll got the money. You're not even considering revising to even consider us when we have spoken that we don't want that. 343 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Even though I'm renting, I'm one block to Broad Street, it's convenient for me too. And I stayed. I fought drug dealers and we stood the test. Little grandmothers, little mother and stuff, hardly no men because they in jail. And thinking build a jail in our neighborhood. I mean we just tired of always being last. We're just tired of always being last and know then like we have no 10 say-so. I'm tired myself. And I'm a female. I don't have a husband to cry on. But I have to look up. And I'm asking God to look down because he can do something to the hardest of situations. It's not right and it's not fair. And I'm not going away quiet anymore. I want to stand up against big guns and PHA and all them. And then my name will be black-balled of I complain. It's not fair. And I want help. You're around the corner from me. I want some help, not just take our names and like we're nothing and, you know. I want some help. I want to be promised some help that they're not going to squeeze me out, you know. If I'm in there I under poverty level. But you be trying to get out. And that was a good law-abiding citizen. And I help keep peace on my block. And my 344 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES parents raised us. I raised my family, my grand. I want to be able to even buy the Philadelphia Housing house so I can put a porch on there for my grand. My mother's almost 70 to visit me to come down. I love my neighborhood and I want to be a part of it. I love being one block from Broad Street in the heart with Temple University. I love it and I want some help. Thank you for hearing me.
Mr. Chairman, he already spoke. You've got to give other people a chance.
Yes, I will. Mr. Chairman, you asked for some information concerning the process, and that's what I'm trying to address. There again, there was some of our neighbors from the Latino community here and they were talking 345 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES about the process, about the one house that they were looking to demolish that was declared a lot. Well, with the NTI process, the way it's supposed to work is that somebody is supposed to go out with the L&I Commissioner and they take pictures of every property. That's the properties as well as the lots. I've been saying from day one that it's not a complete process because how can you take a standing building and mistake it for a lot? It's not happening. They're not doing the right documentation. They're not doing the right notification. And as I said, and I want to say it again for the record, this whole idea about NTI as it stands right now, is a process to drive demolition for the developers and for the contractors that live outside of Philadelphia. And they don't add to the tax base in Philadelphia. They don't bring revenue into the City. They take money out of the City. And it makes no sense to take these people homes as a consequence to that. And that's all I want to say for the record.
Mr. Chairman, I 346 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES have no idea under what authority he speaks for the Latino community. If he speaks for Mill Creek and if he speaks for Belmont, we don't have a real Latino contingency there. I have no idea under what authority he speaks, just as I don't under what authority he even says he lives in Mill Creek because, again, he uses an address of a trailer. Thank you.
My name is Thomas H. Hughes, Sr. I'm here to represent my oldest brother which is Edward Hughes. He lives at 1945 West Nicholas Street and that is our family home. We received a notice about a week ago that this home was going to be torn down, which it upset him. And he's not a very good speaker so he sent me. I would like to know, if that home is going to be torn down, what will happen to the rest? I'm the second oldest of seven kids that's still living. We lived on 1945 West Nicholas Street since 1948. We were all raised up around there. And I would like to know what would happen to the home after you tear it down and he's the only one living there? 347 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Sir, I don't have any idea. It's the Redevelopment Authority and your District Councilperson. Why are you shaking your head? I don't know who else to ask. If you don't know --
What I'd like to see is if it's a notice to demolish, that's not coming from us. I'd like to see it. Was it a notice from L&I?
It was in paper. These houses in 1945 West Nicholas Street was one of the houses that said was to be demolished.
Yes, my oldest brother, Eddie. See, what happened is, I didn't see the notice. We were at a funeral and one of my cousins says, "Hey, you better get down and see about this. Your mom's house is going to be tore down." She brought this little notice and it had the section on Nicholas Street, which is not that many houses on Nicholas street. But the home that when lived in is 348 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES pretty well kept up. But it's upsetting my brother.
Did you see the notice and the notice said -- because some properties that are vacant on Nicholas Street were scheduled for demolition, but all of them were vacant.
It's a lot of houses that's vacant on that street. I'll go along with you. But 1945 and 1943 are two homes connected to each other. And I can't say what's going on down the street because I do not live in the house. My oldest brother is there and it is our family home.
And you received a notice that that property will be demolished? Sometimes when people see -- and I've heard that because people see if says "condemned" some people sometimes think that means demolished. So could it be that he got a notice that said the property will be condemned? He might have thought that meant it was going to be demolished. That could have been, because a lot of times when the people see condemnation they think that means demolition.
See, I wasn't there when he 349 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES got this notice. But he called me --
He did get some kind of a notice. He was at a meeting last Saturday. I was thre at that meeting, I was there too. And the understanding that we got, that this home had to go on Nicholas Street.
That was probably a condemnation notice. If he got a request to come to that meeting, then that was a condemnation notice. It wasn't a demolition notice. But that's significant, the fact that he got that condemnation notice. So there needs to be some follow-up to make sure, first of all, that that was one of the properties that ultimately would need to be relocated. Because as I said earlier, a lot of people got notices that probably shouldn't have gotten them because they were not in any targeted area for relocation, so he needs to follow-up on that. I'm not sure if that's in that area.
Could I just see a show of hands of people left in the room to testify 350 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES on these bills? Because I want to let you know now there's going to be no action on these bills today. Most likely this committee's going to recess tomorrow until o'clock a.m., because there's not 6 enough -- because my brain is fried. And if I've 7 got to make decisions on these bills based on -- we 8 read overnight to deal with this. 9 We'll let everybody testify. The 10 hearing is going to be recessed until tomorrow at 10:00. I don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. Everyone that's here will be able to speak. I just want to make sure people understand that there's going to be no vote today. There will be no action. There will be a hearing tomorrow. This hearing will be recessed to 10 o'clock tomorrow when we're through. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Will there be a vote tomorrow after this?
We don't know. I said earlier, I'm not voting for any bill that's taking any house that anybody is living in. That, I'm not doing. Vacant lots, side yards, that kind of stuff, commercial property -- my own personal perspective, speaking for me now, I'm fine. Any 351 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES property that's got a person living in it is not getting my vote tomorrow on that Bill. So we'll see what happens tomorrow as it plays out.
I have a house at 19th and Jefferson, 1439. Well, I just had work done on it, $40,000 worth of work from housing authorities.
I'm sorry. You have to give your name for the stenographer.
My name is Vera Wallace. I have lived in this house since 1995. When I moved in, it had lead in it. Housing came in and done $40,000 worth of work. I've been in the community since 1956. I'm not trying to move out my house, and I would like a letter or something stating that I don't have to move. They rebuilt all around me. When they got to the fifth house from a whole section, they stopped. And now they want to come in and take down the five houses or do something with them. I don't know. I don't want to leave. My neighbors don't want to leave. And I don't know what to do but just stay there and refuse to leave, refuse to sell, because it's mine. And my seven kids. I have a seven-bedroom house. It's not enough money to replace it. $200,000 I wouldn't 352 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES accept.
I understand. Thank you. Would you please identify yourself?
My name is Delores Carson. I'm sitting in proxy for my son Thomas Carson who is in Germany. We own the property at 815 North 20th Street. There are no liens against it. The taxes are paid. And I would like to have taken off the list for condemnation. I don't live in the part you're talking about, up near Cecil B. Moore. I live one block away from Fairmount. And someone said that the house was vacant, but it's not. It's my son's house. And when he's not in Europe, he comes back home. I go there every week or two, pick up the mail, we pay the gas, the electric. We do everything that's done for a house that's occupied. And when he comes home, that's his home. So I don't understand why you want to take it from us.
Michael Kuntz, Redevelopment Authority. The developer, I believe, has had conversations today to the effect that he didn't know the property occupied. Apparently, we didn't know that the property occupied, but he has no 353 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES interest in acquiring it now that we found out that the property is occupied. It was originally to be acquired for an HRP by Community Ventures. So the Redevelopment Authority does not intend to acquire 815 North Street. 7
Thank you very much. 9 Sir, please identify yourself. 10
My is George McClain. I 11 live at 3437 North Hope Street, and I got a letter 12 and I took it to the Councilman's office on Fifth 13 Street. And he told me that somebody thought that 14 my house was vacant or abandoned. And only thing 15 that might have -- I was in the hospital the last 16 year for two months for cancer operation. I've been 17 on chemotherapy eight months after that. I'm off 18 there. All I have to worry about is my diabetes 19 now. 20
Could you affirm that this gentleman will get something in writing.
I will send him a letter tomorrow morning or I'll mail it out tomorrow morning. 354 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
My name is Minister Montez Lamone, and I reside in the 1900 block of 33rd Street. I'd like to submit these pictures of the properties in question. I also would like to add that only two of the properties belong -- one property is a family property, it's on the corner of 33rd and Monument, that's 1915. The other property belongs to myself and the church and the ministry. These properties are scheduled for acquisition. We have been working on the properties and L&I has been out several times and they've been on the roof and all through the property all the way down to the basement. And the last time the L&I man was there, he informed me that he was going to remove the violations off of one property and give us more time on the other property. I'd like to say that since he left, we completed two units in the corner property. My son has been staying in there, in one of the units because we've had several fires. I don't know who it's been, but people been trying to burn us out, and these reports can be gotten from the Fire 355 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES Department. But anyway, I don't want to bee too long with this. My point is that we do not want to sell the properties or give them up. We have been working with various churches in the neighborhood. Cornerstone Baptist Church, Prince of Peace, and with Dr. Fulton who has a community development organization. He's working with us also to develop these properties. I was informed by Councilman Clarke that they do not want Christian rehab in the area of 33rd Street. And I was informed by someone else that if we completed the project, that they would knock us down on the zoning in terms of putting a Christian rehab there. So that's not really the problem. The issue is that if we can't put that there, we'll put something else there to help the community. We're not so bent on putting that there. And the other property is going to be used for apartments. And they have these properties listed for acquisition and we have been working in the properties for a full year. And Councilman Clarke lives down the street from me, and I'm sure he's seen us from time to time working, he's seen the dumpsters, he's seen 356 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES whatever. He hasn't seen the inside of the properties. All you can see is the outside. These pictures were taken after a fire. These pictures are about a year or so old. So they don't look the same as it look now. But they're still boarded up from the outside. So I just want to state that we do not want to lose our family property. My family owns about eight properties in that block. My mother was a block captain for over years. She 11 raised us in this particular property, 1915 and 1919 12 North 33rd Street. She raised us in those two 13 properties. She's passed away now a couple year. 14 And she was the block captain for over 20 years. 15 They still send the block captain stuff there to the 16 house, and I have assumed the responsibility -- I'm 17 like the acting block captain. There is no block 18 captain now. Somebody came out from the City and 19 said they're going to bring form out for me to send 20 and they will make me the block captain or whatever, but that never took place. But that's not the issue. The issue is that they want to acquire these properties. Only two of these properties in question belong to us, 1915 and 1911 33rd Street, but my family owns properties up and down the same 357 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES block. Out of the properties that exist in that block, about 10 of them belong to family members of mine. So whatever happens with these properties affect the whole block.
I understand. Thank 7 you. 8 Please identify yourself for the record. 9
My name is Vernetta Scott. 10 And I live on the 1900 block of Sharswood Street. 11 I'm inquiring about that block, and I want to leave 12 that block because the block only has five houses on 13 it and it's infested. I mean, it doesn't make any 14 sense. I'm scared to come out my door sometimes. I've got an old house this way, a lot this way with three or four blocks down across the street, old houses and stuff like that. I can't wait until this Bill get passed for us to relocate. How soon will we be able to relocate once the Bill do get passed?
Good afternoon. The proposal for this particular -- let me ask you a first question. If the Bill passes, the offer will be made -- Mr. Wetzel? 358 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
If the question is, can we amicably acquire a property from somebody in advance of filing a Declaration of Taking by the Redevelopment Authority's Board, the answer is yes.
That. And also if you didn't do it, what would be the timing on the Declaration of Taking?
What we could do is if you're interesting in moving and receiving relocation benefits, after the ordinance is signed by the Mayor, we could order a title report and an appraisal so that we can then begin working with her in terms of how much she's going to get for the house, the size of her replacement housing payment, et cetera. My relocation director not here right now. Excuse me for a second. If we started tomorrow, it would take about 45 days to get the title report and the appraisal completed. We could then begin, based on that, working with you to identify a replacement house and know the kind of benefits that you're going to receive. But we really need to know how much value is in the house that she's living in now to do the rest of the calculation. 359 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Because there's only like maybe about or houses on the block. 4
I'm very familiar 5 with that. Actually both blocks, Sharswood and Steward. And they're probably the only five or six house in s all three blocks. So we're talking, best case scenario, 60 days?
Yes. I mean, if you're ready to start working with our relocation staff, we can start it now.
That's contingent on the passage of the Bill? Or because there has been some action, therefore de facto condemnation, you can enter into some --
Thank you very much. We're going to take additional testimony tomorrow on the remaining bills at 10 o'clock. If there's anything anybody's been here for the day would like to say on the record that can't be here tomorrow --
I'm sorry, but I forgot to say something. I didn't get -- 360 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Minister Montez Lamone. I'm trying to get something from them saying that our properties will not be acquisitioned or whatever you call it, because we are working on the properties and we have been working on them for a year.
Then you should work with Mr. Kuntz here and see where this list is and what the status of it is.
From their perspective what the status is. Anyone else who to wants to testify now before we recess until tomorrow at 10 o'clock? So if you're not coming back tomorrow for any of the bills, just get it on the record. We'll do the rest of the Bills tomorrow. Yes, sir. Please identify yourself.
Bill Foster. I'm a long-time community liver and I also own business in the Cecil B. Moore area, 35 years. I'm also a 361 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES member of the CDC that's going to be building these homes in the North Central Philadelphia area, Cecil B. Moore corridor. I'm in favor of this Bill. I certainly have been here since o'clock listening 6 to all the residents, my community members, and I've 7 heard a lot of people say that they don't want to 8 move. And I understand that. I understand that if 9 someone told me that I had to move after being in 10 business and living in North Central Philadelphia for seven years I'd be upset. I also understand that there's 480 other homes that need to be acquired, 480 lots that need to be acquired, 480 rat-infested buildings that need to be acquired, 400 trash-strewn lots that need to be acquired.
Well, then the sensible thing to have done would have been to split the lots and the vacant houses away from the people with houses. I understand the problem.
Unfortunately, when we tried to build homes in North Central Philadelphia community three at a time, they took six, eight, ten, twelve months, a year, two years.
We're not talking three at a time. What we're talking about is 362 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES separating the houses that people are living in.
When we tried to build 4 homes at one time, it took two and a half years. 5 When we tried to build 43 homes, it took three years 6 to build those homes. And it didn't work. It 7 doesn't work to try to build 3 homes here, 20 homes 8 here, 15 homes here. We need to acquire the land 9 that we need to build North Philadelphia and we need 10 to build it. We need to collectively build, rebuild 11 North Central Philadelphia, specifically Cecil B. 12 Moore community.
My name is Steve Culbertson, I'm the Executive Director of the Frankford Community Development Corporation, and I'm here to testify in support of Bill 030290, the Frankford Creek Urban Renewal Area. I have been here all day and I've got a busy day tomorrow. And I apologize that I'm just going to try to get it in. I do have copies of the executive summary of projects, the Twins at Frankford Creek and also the site plan for the Twin Project that we're going to build. Our intention is to use a vacant and 363 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES under-utilized industrial area along the Frankford Creek that is a brown field and build 50 new twin houses on site in order to secure the work that we've been doing in Frankford trying to revitalize. So I just wanted to get it on the record that we're in support of the Bill. As far I know, there is no 8 one in opposition. We've talked to a lot of the owners on the block. We've talked to a lot of the folks around the community that really want to see this happen. So unlike many of the things that have been heard today, this is actually a project that everybody seems to want to have happen.
Let me tell you, if these bills had come over three and four at a time through the course of the year, we wouldn't be going through this. It wouldn't be this stress. We would had this stuff done and moving forward. Three or four bills a hearing is a reasonable thing to ask, especially if you combine those 27 bills or whatever it is with people who are living in houses who don't want them taken complicates the issue just astronomically. So if you had come in here, you wouldn't have had spend from 9 o'clock until 6 o'clock at night waiting to be heard. You would 364 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES have had three bills on the calendar on the schedule and we could have talked about it in a reasonable, rational way. And you would walk away feeling much better about the process and so would we. That's why this process stinks. And I'll tell you what, I'll make a commitment now. We will not go through this type of hearing again, at least with my participation. It will not happen. Maybe somebody else will run it. Maybe somebody else will go through it, but I won't sit here and listen to all of this in one session when you can't even figure out what it is you're talking about. And I apologize to you. I wish you well with your project. I hope it works out. And I'm sure that that Bill, since there's no opposition, will get out of committee tomorrow. Thank you for your patience.
Let me thank Mr. Culbertson and his leadership in Frankford and around the City and for all the positive things that you do and the thorough nature for your work and for 365 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES your commitment to housing in our City. Thank you.
My name is Ron Hinton, I am President of the Allegheny West Foundation. I am here today to testify in support of Bill No. 030293 under the Tioga Urban Renewal Area. Within the package of the properties proposed to be acquired, we are attempting a plan to rehabilitate 94 units in a seven-block area on Lehigh Avenue. The area is designed and called forgotten blocks area as an area that was originally planned when the Deliverance Church acquired the old Connie Mack Ball Park. That area was designed to be taken over as housing for the members of the church. The community opposed that and actually formed a group called Forgotten Blocks. In 1997 when I took the position as President of the Allegheny West Foundation, I met with primarily the group of seniors who were a part of this group and made a commitment and a promise to address the vacancies, which at that point had been 15 years in the coming. Just to give you just some summary of 366 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES the land, if I may. And I'm really speaking fr a community of committed people and so I need to put this on the record. There are approximately 462 homes in this seven-block area. Of those homes, 80 percent of them are occupied; 200 of them are by homeowners, 169 are renter. There are 94 vacant units. So percent of the population is affected 9 by vacant units. Of those homeowners, the majority 10 of them are senior citizens. And so this plan was 11 developed by the community. The properties were 12 identified by the community. We walked and took 13 pictures of each of the properties, presented them 14 to Councilwoman Miller, and since 1997 we have been 15 committed to a project that is put in place for 16 residents, not as it means of redeveloping that area 17 but actually saying to them "You've made your 18 commitment to our community and we're going to do 19 what we can do to take these vacancies and put 20 homeowners in them. So I respectfully ask your support in helping us to put homeowners into vacant units, thereby protecting investment that citizens of this community has already made to staying in the Allegheny West community. 367 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES
Yes, sir. Thank you for your patience in waiting, and I appreciate your testimony. SISTER TAYLOR: Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to allow me to speak. My is Sister Margaret Taylor. I work for he Office for Community Development of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. We are working with the St. Hugh Parrish. The neighborhood is named after the parrish. And the parrish has specifically asked us to assist with rehabilitating abandoned houses. We are not interested in taking any houses that are currently resided in. We would like to take the abandoned houses, and the parrish has requested that we provide some opportunities for low-income housing. We intend to do that under of Homeownership Rehabilitation Program. So therefore, we support the ordinance which I believe is 030289 for the St. Hugh Fairhill area.
Good evening. My name is Ed Franklin. I'm the Executive Director of the Coalition (ph). I'm here in reference to Bill 368 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES 030293. I would like to follow with the President of Allegheny West reference to remaining 277 parcels that are in that Bill. I would like to thank Councilwoman Miller and her staff for a very detailed and comprehensive study to make sure that there was no residential properties in this Bill. There was only vacant lots in her Bill and only two structures that was in this Bill and was vacant. I hear all the testimony that has went forth, and I'm just shocked at how it was done. So I thank you Councilwoman Miller very much for the details that you went through. We just have one concern that I need to put on record. The Citizens of Tioga Nicetown and Tioga Nicetown CDC has some of the vacant property that is listed here to be condemned under the process. And I've already talked to Councilwoman Miller's staff and they understand that those parcels will be taken out for development for housing in that area. So again, I thank the Committee for waiting to allow me to get my turn today so we wouldn't have to come tomorrow. And I thank Councilwoman again for her excellent work in putting 369 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES this together.
Thank you for your testimony. Could you identify yourself for the record?
Good afternoon. My name is Dianna Dunson (ph), and I'm just a resident of the community of Nicetown Tioga and also a committee person for that area. I also wanted to just make it know to Councilwoman Miller that there are residents in that community who have also been working trying to do things and cleaning up lots and establishing community groups that have not been noticed. And we have been there 40 years, years, we are 16 third-generation people who necessarily don't follow 17 along with Coalition under their guidelines, with 18 Temple or Tioga United. We are residents that have 19 been there and forgotten also. So we want you to 20 know that there have been some tactics used with putting up signs on buildings that belong that have owners that they have been putting up demolition stickers and zoning notices and harassing people about selling their properties. And I actually came and stayed. I've been here since 9 o'clock and I 370 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES stayed all day because I want it record because I am one of the people who have been constantly harassed in reference to my properties. I do not want to sell. I do not want to move. I would like to help. I have been asking for help. And I am asking you now if you will please help me with my plans and my ideas that I have for my property so that I can be a part of this plan also.
Thank you. I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank all those -- the last three testifiers for staying all day. I know that you were here all day. I saw you this morning when I was here. And certainly, Allegheny West has done a fine job in our district and we truly and earnestly support the development there or the forgotten blocks. That's a project that's been caught in the pipeline due to no 20 acquisition funds for a long time, since I've been here. And we're glad to see that this will be on the move. Tioga is one of the most blighted sections of the 8th Council District, and we have lots of abandoned properties and abandoned lots. So 371 06/03/03 - COMMITTEE ON RULES we're really excited about moving forward, and we're willing and want to help anyone that we can. The community and most of the residents want something done there. They're tired of all the vacant blighted buildings, vacant blighted lots. So if you own vacant properties, at least clean them. If own vacant lots, at least clean them. And we will try to do our part from the administration and City Council point of view to give you a hand. So I do want to thank you everyone coming out, for your patience and perseverance to stay all day and testify, so thank you.
Thank you very much. The Committee on Rules, if nothing else, will stand in recess until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. (Council adjourned at 6:00 p.m.) - - - 372 ¡›î› 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 June 3, 2003, 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 and Notary Public