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?