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?