COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Monday, October 15, 2001 10:17 a.m. Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, PA - - - RES. 010562 - Authorizing Committee of the Whole to conduct hearings to examine why Philadelphia continues to lose population and to examine possible forces of action to reverse that trend, including a Neighborhood Transformation Initiative focusing on blight removal, improvements to City schools, job development, anti-crime initiatives, or other measures. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK J. DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 10/15/01 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Witness Naomi Zaslow, PR Director, HAPCO................ Sr. Mary Scullion, Exec. Dir., Project HOME..... 12 Nora Lichtash................................... 20 Women's Community Revitalization Project Alicia Christian, Exec. Dir., Dignity Housing... 25 Cheri Honkala, Executive Director............... 52 Kensington Welfare Rights Dolores Shaw, EPOP.............................. 56 Father Taraborelli, Pastor, St. Thomas Aquinas 61 Gordon Whitman.................................. 66 Temple University Center for Public Policy Susan Klein, Director of Housing, PCA........... 94 Eric Von Schmetterling, Adapt Activist.......... 102 Liberty Resources Incorporated Joe Wingert, Partnership CDC.................... 106 Farah Jiminez, Exec. Dir, Mt. Airy USA.......... 115 N. Salandra, Phila. Affordable Housing Coalition 121 M. Sharp, N. Philadelphia Community Activist.... 132 Ellen Somekawa, Asian-Americans United.......... 154 Steve Culbertson, Executive Director............ 161 Frankford Group Ministry CDC Paul Malvey, Director of Land-Use Management.... 166 New Kensington CDC Kevin Conare, Executive Director, Action AIDS... 171 E. Schwartz, Institute for Study of Civic Values 182 - - - 3 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562
Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Resolution No. 5 010562. I want to thank all of our esteemed guests and visitors for joining us today. We look forward to the hearing your views. Today, we begin what is, in many ways, the most important review of the state of the City that the Philadelphia City Council has ever undertaken: The fundamental problems affecting and the future direction of our city. Please consider this as an opportunity for Council to listen to your opinions on a broad range of issues concerning the future of our city as well as any specific comments that you wish to make concerning the Mayor's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. At this time, I ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Resolution No. 010562.
Resolution No. 010562, a resolution authorizing the Committee of the Whole to conduct hearings to examine why Philadelphia continues to lose population and to examine possible forces of action to reverse that trend, including a 4 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 Neighborhood Transformation Initiative focusing on blight removal, improvements to City schools, job development, anti-crime initiatives, or other measures.
Representatives from HAPCO will be the first. Naomi Zaslow. (Witness comes forward.)
Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you. I'm Naomi Zaslow, public relations director for HAPCO, the Homeowners Association of philadelphia, an organization of more than 3,000 owners and managers of low- and moderate- income housing. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in your deliberation to save our neighborhoods. HAPCO is encouraged by the efforts of the Mayor and City Council to address the loss of population and the blight that is rampant in what once was the "City of Homes." We know a good school in a neighborhood with standard housing, with 5 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 shopping, and community amenities is what people need and want when deciding where to live. We encourage the City, State, and federal government to support blight removal. But providing support with more in funds than in good thinking has failed before. We have not seen or heard any details of a blight plan. We only know that demolition, relocation, and encapsulation will consume the $240 million in funds now asked to be appropriated. We to have to ask: What plans and what funds are in place for providing liveable housing? A bond issue will be the responsibility of the taxpayer. The blight plan involves government. HAPCO asks that City officials include the private sector and a small investor like our HAPCO members. Blighted property should be made easily and readily available for sale. We encourage you, our leaders, to find a way to put an end to red tape and bureaucracy to old liens and judgments of long standing that keep the blighted property off the market. Historically, the small investor hoping to improve his or her own livelihood has bought and rehabilitated the property, rented or sold it before 6 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 going on to do the same in the next property. Banks are part of the community and they need to provide funds for the purchase and rebuilding of blighted property. The small investor has proven his responsibility to repay, and the improved property is back on the tax rolls. HAPCO is strongly in favor of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. We encourage a focus on schools, on housing, on safety and on reality, creating wastelands of demolished property will not build our neighborhoods. We ask that a plan be carefully crafted, and we ask that HAPCO be given the opportunity to use our experience and our expertise as we seek to revive and rebuild our wonderful city. I'd like to submit a HAPCO model to end blight for your consideration as well, and I thank you very much for the opportunity.
Thank you. Would you say that a reasonable strategy might rely less on immediate demolition and seek to put more money not spent on demolition into rehabilitation and other supports to encourage new construction? 7 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562
Yes, I would. I think in our areas, I think we have to divide the big problem and have to take smaller segments, look at district by district, area by area, street by street, and find where there are problems and demolish some perhaps, but try and rebuild others as well. I think the rebuilding process has to be put into the thinking.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Just a couple questions. I had a chance to read your testimony as I was listening to it. I hear you reference the role of banks in this whole process. What specific recommendations do you have to in terms of engaging banks in terms of reinvestment in our communities?
Well, what happens now is, you want to borrow from the bank, you can borrow if you're going to live there, you can cash out, take out value once you've rehabilitated the property at 8 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 maybe 90 percent. If you're an investor and you're going to rent or sell the property, you're only going to get 60 percent.
But my question is specifically: How do you suggest that we engage the banking community? By what process should we bring the banks to table?
Well, I'm a novice in that area, but my sense is, the City must give banks the business; and if they're getting business from the City, the City should say, "Folks, you ought to earmark a certain amount of your lending capability to low-and moderate-income housing for people that want to rebuild and redo the City.
I'm still suggesting specifically, how should we engage the banks? Should there be penalties for not doing so? How do we essentially enforce the Community Reinvestment Act that has had no teeth for the last years? 21
Well, my sense is that you 22 engage them first in conversation. Why do they not 23 want to do what it is we're looking for them to do? 24 I know that they're worried about repayment and so 25 on, and they have every right to do that, but I 9 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 think they also have a responsibility to take some risk in order to make our city better.
I agree with you fully. my second question is, and this is a little bit more philosophical: Over the course that we will discuss neighborhood development and we will discuss possibly education and a number of different issues, when it comes down to the issue of quality of life in neighborhoods, who do you really believe is in charge in the end in terms of determining what should happen in terms of priorities? Is it the Mayor, is it City Council, is it individual Councilmembers, is it Community Development Corporations? Who do you think is really authorized to make the decisions in terms of priorities which are the quality of life?
Well, in the first -- my first -- the people that I think are responsible for what happens in the community is every individual. I think the media should be educating people that where they live is a reflection of who they are, not this august body or the State or the federal government, but where we live is where we make our place. So that should be a focus as well. 10 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 And I just think that just to say that government can make it happen, I don't think so. I think each community -- and if you would involve community people with folks like us who are in business in those communities, people that care about their community, smaller bites, so that we don't choke on what we do.
I completely agree with you. I believe it has to be government, the private sector, the community, but what process would you suggest that we use in terms of deciding who's going to authorize our decision-making and priorities?
Well, I just feel that if go by district by district -- I was very impressed with the Dwight Evans plan and how he implemented what he did. I think if we -- if each district would set up their own community situation, get business, get banks, get the people who care about the community, the clergy, whatever, together, talk about it, look at it realistically and not just say, "It's your fault, you did it." That doesn't help.
Thank you Are there any other questions or comments of this witness? (No further questions or comments for this witness.)
Would be a panel: Alicia Christian, Mary Sister Scullion, Nora Lichtash, Cheri Honkala, Father Taraborelli, Dolores Shaw, and Gordon Whitman. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning, Sister. SISTER SCULLION: Good morning, Council President.
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. 12 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. E. I come before you today to offer testimony subsequent to Resolution No. 010562, which calls for why people continue to leave the City of Philadelphia and how the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative can figure into a strategy to reverse this trend. I applaud the City Council and Council President Verna for focusing on this important subject. The testimony will focus how the NTI program can be implemented in a manner that takes into consideration the long-term needs of poor homeless people and will have the most significant positive impact on Philadelphia neighborhoods. I believe that the needs of poor and homeless people are tied to population loss in many ways. Poverty and low educational levels are inextricably linked, and un uneducated workforce affects business location decision, which, in turn, affects residential decisions. It's hard for children to learn if they do not have adequate food, clothing, and shelter, making it even harder for our struggling schools to 13 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 do their job and stem the tide of people who leave due to poor public schools. Poverty and taxes are linked because generating the revenue to provide local services, which cost more in areas with high concentrations of poverty, must be generated from those whose incomes are higher. We believe that community improvements can only be the result of a comprehensive approach to education, health care, jobs, and housing. And you will note that when you look at the age range of people who are leaving the City, there are two significant noteworthy spikes: Adults between the ages and and 35, and children between the ages of 15 0 and 5. 16 Though this is perhaps a somewhat 17 simplistic interpretation, this would seem to 18 indicate that the most significant single factor in 19 our population loss is the quality, or perceived 20 quality, of public education that we are able to 21 offer. E. is concentrating on several 24 activities that would benefit from a well-planned 25 Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. The 14 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 Honicman Roberts Learning Center is a $7 million facility that will integrate technology with art, education, and enterprise and will be the cornerstone of our future educational workforce development strategies. E. is seeking zoning variances, assistance from the Water Department, and public and private funding. Coordination among City agencies and new revenue sources to support such an economic and community-development project would greatly benefit from this project. Our economic developments have led to the creation of the Ridge Avenue Business Association and will soon result in beautification, safety, and cleanliness measures to enhance this area. But these efforts would be greatly assisted by L&I code enforcement and the coordination with the Police Department and the District Attorney's Office. Through the generosity of the William Penn Foundation, we have completed a vacant-land management plan for our neighborhood. This plan underscores the importance of land stabilization and the necessity of having available resources to accomplish this. Furthermore, our experience also 15 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 demonstrates the need for demolition and lands banking where the majority of the units are vacant and blighted and the need for rehabilitation to cost of preservation on streets where the majority of housing is viable. Through the various creative strategies, we have managed to create 98 units of affordable housing, with four more under construction and another units in pre-development in north central 11 Philadelphia. During the past seven years, we have 12 struggled with the slow and costly acquisition and 13 disposition process, lack of coordination among 14 local housing agencies, and limited local funds.
15 Much more development could occur if the City made 16 and advocated for appropriate legislative change to expedite the property transfer process, much as Baltimore has done with its "Quick Take" legislation. We have made some progress in an effort to transform neighborhoods in partnership with the City and State, the residents of these communities, funders, and others. However, we need the City to use NTI as an opportunity to do the following: 1. Create affordable housing 16 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 opportunities for those most urgently in need. 2. Expedite, simplify, and better finance the condemnation, acquisition, and disposition of property; 3. Consolidate and coordinate the activities of City agencies involved with community and economic development, but also extend this network to include entities involved with the spectrum of safety, housing, jobs, health care, and, education; and 4. In partnership with the Planning Commission, integrate the neighborhood plans prepared by CDCs across the City into a comprehensive plan for development. The NTI plans propose the creation of 3,500 new rental housing for low-income, special needs, and elderly populations in the coming five years. The need far exceeds this goal. With the impending fallout from welfare reform looming in March 2002, TANF welfare support will end for 8,500 single-parent families in Philadelphia. The average TANF family earns about 11 to 13 percent of area median income, well below the standard definition of "low income," which is 50 percent of the area median 17 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 income. These families are just the tip of the iceberg who are in desperate need of safe and affordable housing. We are seeing an increase in the number of single people living on the street for the first time in the past two and a half years. Permanent housing is the single most important resource that will both provide a solution to homelessness and prevent families and individuals from becoming homeless. Therefore, we propose that this NTI goal be expanded in number and further refined in scope to include a significant number of units for persons at the very low end of the income spectrum. We also pledge to work with the City Administration and City Council to find additional resources to leverage the NTI dollars to accomplish this unit increase. We anticipate that NTI will seize this opportunity to think creatively about ways to leverage additional resources beyond any bond funds and beyond the traditional block grant and McKinney dollars. Increasing State funds, including the City allocation of low-income housing tax credits is imperative. 18 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 3 million. And that's not due to the State; that's due to the ability of our capacity to really produce and produce in a timely manner. PHFA has been incredibly a wonderful partner to the City of Philadelphia and has provided, you know, terrific support, and could do more if we were ready and prepared and able to go after this money. As development efforts are stalled and delayed, Philadelphia continues to lose critical State and federal funding opportunities. Funds from other sources must be considered and leveraged or $250 million will not go very far. Current development efforts now are almost completely stalled due to hiatus in assisted condemnations. This means that Tax Credit Section 21 202 and other financing sources are soon to become unavailable to CDCs, because in order to apply, one must have site control. The pipeline for up and coming projects financing is already very restricted, and leveraging non-City funds will soon 19 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 become more difficult if acquisition is limited to those developers who can afford these exorbitant costs. E.
has been privileged to participate in many discussions around the City's response to homelessness, affordable housing, and blight, we believe that NTI must include a broad cross section of neighborhood groups and CDCs in thinking about community and economic development. Many CDCs have comprehensive neighborhood plans for their areas, NTI is an incredible opportunity to harness the valuable work that is already being done in developing neighbor strategies. NTI will have its greatest potential for success by embracing the work of CDCs as an integral part of its revitalization efforts, and including CDCs as partners in the NTI implementation. E. supports the principles of the Philadelphia Affordable Housing Coalition and is working with other representative government advocacy and provider organizations as part of a steering committee on a plan to end homelessness in Philadelphia. We hope that in partnership with NTI, we will be able to redouble our efforts in 20 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 homelessness in this city. We thank you for the opportunity to testify today and feel certain that under the leadership of President Verna and in partnership with the City Administration and City Council, we can work to implement NTI in a manner that will benefit the entire City of Philadelphia. Given the state of the economy and other national and regional trends, it is of utmost importance that a sensible and comprehensive initiative begin to take shape immediately. There is simply too much at stake for is not to come together and address these very real issues in a very timely manner.
My name is Nora Lichtash. I'm the director of the Women's Community Revitalization Project. I'll get you my testimony this afternoon.
I don't have it as yet. The Women's Community Revitalization Project is also known as WCRP, and it's an 21 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 organization that has two goals. The first is to build buildings. We build buildings like housing, houses, child-care centers, health-care centers, community centers. But equally as important is to build leadership. We support the existing leadership in communities for people to identify what are issues in the neighborhood and then to come together to try to address those issues. We've worked mostly in North Philly, east of Broad, although we've partnered groups in other parts of the City. I want to thank you for inviting me to this hearing. It's clear to me that in order to strengthen Philadelphia and make it a better place to live, in addition to focusing on attracting new residents, which I know is important, but it's equally important to attend to the needs of those of us who have stayed. I also believe that the cities that will be the strongest in the long run are those that use their resources creatively to look at the most important needs of all of the residents, irrespective of income level. After working in North Philly for more 22 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 than 25 years, I've come to see that it's hard to point to one, like, particular problem; there are numerous problems and they're interconnected and have a ripple throughout the City. But WCRP was created years ago by a group of people, women, 7 and men who saw the need to address the fact that 8 there was not enough housing that was affordable to 9 families, and that need continues today. 10 WCRP has built or rehabbed 110 houses and 11 has another 20 in construction. But for every 12 single house that we build, there are 50 families 13 that come to us that need those houses, 14 approximately 50, and almost all of them are looking 15 for housing because the current place where they're living is in really bad condition, or they're paying almost all of their income on housing costs, so they don't have enough left over for utilities or to clothe their kids. So I believe that affordable housing is a necessary first step for families, and it can provide a base for people to move on and deal with some of the other issues that come up in communities. But I've also seen and felt how 23 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 democratically and positively changes have been when people have an opportunity to participate in decisions in their communities. WCRP's part of two coalitions that support people, citizens in speaking out on community issues. The first is the Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporations, PACDC, and that advocates for community-development organizations that are led by and for community residents. And the second is the Philadelphia Affordable Housing Coalition that has as its mission to increase resources for affordable housing in our city. You'll be hearing from other members, and have heard from other members, of these coalitions over the course of these hearings. But I want to thank Mayor Street and Council, especially Council President Verna, for understanding the importance of focussing our city's resources on our neighborhoods. I believe the logical and important next step after these hearings is to have hearings on the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative in each Council CDC for community residents. These hearings would help assure that the decisions that are made by this body 24 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 and by the Mayor that are going to impact us for a very long time are understood and supported by residents throughout the City. WCRP's prepared to conduct outreach and help to do outreach to get folks to those district meetings, especially in District 7and 5 where we do most of our work. Again, I want to thank you and acknowledge you for your leadership on this important issue.
Sister, would you mind explaining again about the City of Minneapolis receiving $3 million in tax credits this year, while we in Philadelphia received $1.3 million? SISTER SCULLION: The City of Minneapolis worked in partnership with a national group called the "The Corporation for support of housing, which is an organization that works all across the country to provide safety and affordable housing to people that are very low income, homeless, and people with special needs. And the Corporation of Supportive Housing worked with the city, the state, and really came up with a plan to leverage as many resources as they could to provide this kind of housing. And 25 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 that was the result in Minneapolis, but they've done it in Atlanta, they've done it in Chicago and in other cities across the country. In other words -- but in Philadelphia, if we had projects in the pipeline, organizations and CDCs in Philadelphia could too apply to the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency for tax credits. And the federal government, one of the things that they just passed this year, there will be an increase in tax credits this year that the City of Philadelphia can compete for; it's a competitive process, it's not an entitlement, but you have to have projects in order to apply.
I am Alicia Christian, the executive director of Dignity Housing, which provides affordable housing and comprehensive social services for families and individuals in Philadelphia.
Excuse me. Alicia, do we have copies of your testimony? 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562
I am also a member of the Philadelphia Affordable Housing Coalition, and I'm on the board of the Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporations. My agency, Dignity Housing, has, since 1988, assisted more than 1300 formerly homeless men, women, and children. A number of former tenants have moved beyond Dignity Housing to viable employment, attainment, of educational objectives, and home ownership. Clearly, my agency sees the lack of affordable and decent housing as the most pressing issue and challenge facing our City today. The clients of Dignity Housing have their roots in all but the most affluent neighborhoods in our city. They are single adults working low-wage jobs, they are low-income parents and children. Most entered our program with annual incomes below $18,000. They are welfare mothers struggling to work, struggling to find work. They are entry level employees in service and retail industries, and 27 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 individuals who are recovering from substance abuse, seeking help to restore their lives. Once stabilized in Dignity Housing with affordable rental units and service supports, many of these tenants make remarkable progress. Some have become police officers, social workers, secretaries, small-business proprietors, and working-class, middle-income residents we want to keep in our city. They are among the proud, productive native Philadelphians who contribute to our tax base. Rebuilding neighborhoods can indeed help to rebuild the lives of low income indigenous residents. All too often, however, the needs and hopes of our poorest citizens are given short notice in grand plans to transform Philadelphia. We applaud Mayor Street's effort as reflected in the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative to begin a process that recognizes the positive future -- recognizes that the positive future of our city is inextricably linked to the stabilization of its neighborhoods. It is a beginning. However, we want to continued, 28 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 demonstrated assurances that low-income residents, too often left in the cold, are among the premier beneficiaries of our city's planned renaissance. We want demonstrated assurance that those with incomes of $18,000 a year or less have opportunities for balanced input in the development of strategies to improve their neighborhoods and lives The creation of affordable, decent housing, viable employment, and employment training that leads to a livable wage and social services are needed -- and social services as needed and where requested should be integral, not ancillary, features of efforts to strengthen and revitalize neighborhoods. In communities throughout the City, the specter of abandonment and blight provides little incentive for our aspiring upwardly mobile adults to stay in the City. You cannot, day after day, travel from or past deteriorated neighborhoods to an entertaining evening in Center City and still view Philadelphia on whole as a highly desirable place to reside and raise a family. The City's managing director for special-needs housing estimates that there are 29 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 25,000 homeless people in our city over the course of a year. Other studies indicate that more than half of the City's 230,000 renters cannot afford a market-rate two-bedroom apartment, and 43 percent of the renters cannot afford a one-bedroom unit. Thousands wait for Section 8 vouchers or public housing. The need is clear. We urge City Council to carefully review and expand goals for the production of decent, affordable housing. The Neighborhood Transformation Initiative cites a five-year goal of creating 3500 units of low-income rental housing, elderly housing, and special-needs housing. The need may easily be many times that. We encourage City Councilmembers to convene district-level meetings that provide front-line constituents an opportunity to discuss their need for affordable housing.
Such constituent forums would further inform decisions regarding other important priorities in the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. We also believe that community development corporations should be viewed as strong partners in efforts to promote neighborhood growth. CDCs have a 30 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 long-term commitment to working with low-income constituencies and residents in the development of community and leaders. Several years ago, the Mayor's Transition Team Committee on the Homeless prepared a report. It notes that to stabilize and rebuild neighborhoods, we must recognize the need to provide a sufficient stock of affordable, accessible, and decent housing. The report goes on to state that in doing so, we demonstrate that Philadelphia is indeed the City of Brotherly and Sisterly Love and that Philadelphia can become a city whose proactive initiatives reflect positively on how we live, how we relate to one another as individuals and families, and how we accept one another as neighbors and members of a citywide community moving forward.
Thank you The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
Sister Mary and all the friends up there, you talk about affordable housing, 31 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 and we -- and we've seen reports. Housing costs in Philadelphia are much, much higher than housing costs across the board in other counties. And if you're going to be able to meet the challenge of repopulating Philadelphia and bring back the middle class and create new homes, affordable homes for those working-class people and so on and maximize the dollars, how do we do that without entering to the exorbitant construction costs that is faced here in Philadelphia vis-a-vis other places across the Commonwealth? SISTER SCULLION: Well, I think that, Councilman Ortiz, there's been a recommendation that there's some negotiations with the unions to try to bring it down. I think the cost is with union labor. And, you know, you want everybody to make a fair and, you know, a justifiable wage, but I think there's going to be some negotiations with the unions on that.
But we're seeing also that most of the construction that takes place in Philadelphia is done by people that don't live and reside in Philadelphia, or 60 percent or even higher are nonresidents. How do we -- if we have money to 32 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 be able to build in Philadelphia convention centers, hotels, why don't we utilize in order to create the jobs in the neighborhoods that can begin creating a middle class, employing the people to construct and build in their own neighborhoods and attain the skills necessary in order to enter into all of these other building trades and so on? SISTER SCULLION: It's a great idea. You know, I wouldn't even pretend to, you know, know the answer to how to make that happen, but I think, you know, under your leadership and the leadership of City Council and the City Administration, you know, it seems like a very worthwhile thing to pursue.
But isn't this something that should be a part of any plan? Because it's going to, one, increase the amount of millions that we will be able to spend in building real housing. SISTER SCULLION: And keep the money in Philadelphia.
Keep the money in Philly and also help create a middle class. SISTER SCULLION: Yeah, exactly. Sounds like a good idea. 33 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562
So if we are going to build a plan to eliminate blight, we have to begin actually looking at how we create jobs for people who live and stay in Philadelphia because it doesn't make any sense to tear down, and then the people don't have jobs to buy the homes and so on down the line, all right? SISTER SCULLION: Yeah.
So doesn't it make some sense so that if we are talking -- if the Mayor is really talking about doing something along these lines, that he brings a proposal as to this to the table so that we have community development corporations that do very good work, and I see some of them here. So that they are able to build their own construction companies within the neighborhood people and staffed by people from the neighborhood, all right? It just makes since because if we're going to spend billions of dollars and we give billions of tax breaks to corporate people, that money does not stay in Philly, it does not benefit Philadelphians. So I think any part of any blight plan that the Mayor brings forth, when you say you're 34 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 going to build 16,000 units, you better specify how much the units are going to cost and who's going to build it, all right?
Sister, did I understand you to say that presently, there are negotiations going on regarding this issue? SISTER SCULLION: Oh, I -- just what I read in the newspaper. I, you know, read some -- you know, I don't know anything about that; I just, you know, read the papers and I understood that that is one of the principles of NTI. It's certainly been written about in various documents that I've read and it's been reported on, you know, publicly, so...
Okay, I didn't see that. Are there any other questions. Councilman DiCicco?
Thank you, Madam President. I just have a brief comment on some of the comments made by colleague Councilman Ortiz. And I probably agree with all but slightly disagree with the area when he got into corporate entities and, you know, they're going to make all the money 35 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 and leave. " There are those who think that if we make available tax incentives, business opportunities for the corporate America, that that, in effect, is somehow taking money away from poor people. Businesses are reluctant to come into the City of Philadelphia for a number of reasons, and some of reasons have been spelled out by my colleague Councilman Ortiz, in the area of the cost of construction. It's probably one of the highest in the nation to build. And I think we really need to all sit down and get away from the notion that it is us versus them. I think in order for to us come to some agreement on how we will move this city forward, how we will be rebuilding its neighborhoods, we can't always look at the business side and say, Well, their bottom line is going to be greater than ours, because these are business people who have an investment, and they do run a risk. And in the 36 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 society that we live in this country, people are entitled to make a profit for their investment. But some of the money would go back to the community, and can, if we don't just dig our heels in to suggest that we're not going to support you because -- "you," meaning the corporate folks, the business community -- because you're rich already and you don't need any more money. That won't work, it won't work. That's one of the reasons we don't have the development that we should have. And the only time we get development is when we do become creative and find ways of offering legislation that gives some tax relief or incentives to corporate America. And there is a benefit for the people at the lower end because that creates jobs and taxes, which we put back into the General Fund to do some of the social programs, the infrastructure things that we need to do in the City. So I think what we really might want to look at is creating maybe sort of a task force where you have people from the business community, people from the building trades, people from the neighborhoods, the CDCs, to sit down and start to 37 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 figure out a plan, a plan that includes everyone and not exclude some for the benefit of others, because I can tell you -- and I get criticized by a couple of my colleagues for being pro-business -- without business, there won't be anything that will happen in this town. Now, there were a lot of people who were criticizing some of the TIFs that we were doing for hotels. Well, 4,000 to 5,000 people are employed in those hotels. The large majority of those people, 70, 80 percent of them, were people who were once unemployed. So it isn't that big business is looking to suppress people; we have to look at them as our partners, and they need to look at the community groups and CDCs, I think, as their partners as well. But until we cross that line and get together in a room and discuss it -- I know I'm doing a housing development in South Philadelphia, and it's a learning experience for me. I never thought it would be that difficult to build new houses for people who are living basically in blight and offer them a better situation for themselves and their families. But there's a whole host of things 38 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 between government regulations, both locally, state, and federal that you have to deal with, and we have the issue of what it will cost to build those homes. It's off the charts, the numbers are off the charts to build those homes. So until we all come together -- and this is a great opportunity, I think, for us to express those concerns, but we really have to get serious, I think we really need to get serious.
And with the leadership of the Council President and, I believe, the Administration, I think we need to be able to put together that kind of coalition. It can no longer be us versus them. We all -- as we found out on September 11th, it is us versus a lot of other people outside of this country, and we got to stick together in these cities and make it work for us, and we got to find a way to do that. And I would be more than, you know, glad to work with you and your folks. Go to the Chamber of Commerce, sit down with these folks and talk about how we can make this all work. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke. 39 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. Sister Scullion, I'd like to ask you a couple questions since I'm most familiar with the work done that you've done in my district, and I want to thank you very much, you're doing a very good job. In a portion of the district around the 23rd Street area, you've been in the position to do several rehabilitations in a tightly-knit row home community, and I guess my question centers around your ability to proceed and expedite that process. Right now I think maybe you're doing 10 homes a year. And as you know, we have a number of vacant problems over there that if we don't do something sooner than later, they'll ultimately end up on the demolition list. I gues my question is: If you had the wherewithal, or the City had the wherewithal, to encapsulate those properties essentially to stabilize them and put a roof on them and stabilize the rears, which that seems to be the first part of the deterioration until you can kind of get around to the next phases or be in a position to expedite 40 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 the phases, would that be something that would help you to develop a broader strategy as you develop over in your area? SISTER SCULLION: Sure, that would certainly help.
All right. In terms of your ability to market housing, have you found it has gotten easier to market housing as you develop more and more of a critical mass. I notice the first ones, I think, are on 23rd Street, and then when you went to Crosskey Street for the next phase, it was a lot easier to market it and people kind of saw a kind of tragedy with what you were doing. SISTER SCULLION: Yes.
Can you talk to me about that? SISTER SCULLION: There was a lot of skepticism when we started to do home ownership for low- to moderate-income families in North Central Philadelphia at 23rd and Berks; people didn't think people would, you know, buy those units. And what we found out was that many people that actually live in the community, both the public housing and in the neighborhood, did in fact buy those houses, and we 41 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 did make them affordable to low-income families. We sold them for about $35,000, and it was affordable and people do buy them. And we do have a waiting list. No people have foreclosed since we've done the home ownership, and we do have a waiting list for more home ownership in that neighborhood.
On, I guess it would be, the 1900 block of Judson Street, it was a block that had a lot of -- I guess essentially three-quarters of the block are vacant properties. Is there the likelihood of anything happening with those properties, given the size, given the cost of renovation of those properties was -- you could probably say none and none. But somehow I'm still trying to figure out how you did this, you were able to get those properties demolished. And right now -- SISTER SCULLION: (Indiscernible.)
Yeah, I don't know how you pulled that one off. Divine intervention, I guess. Somehow you were able to get that done, and subsequently, you were in a position to build, I 42 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 guess, what we can say is a pretty nice housing development. Were you not in a position to have those properties demolished? I mean, do you think that you would have been able to create the type of housing that you currently have over there right now? SISTER SCULLION: No. 9
All right, okay. And the cost -- if you had to try and attempt to do renovate those existing properties over there -- SISTER SCULLION: The cost would be unbelievable.
Unbelievable. Would you say maybe double the cost of the new construction? SISTER SCULLION: Mm-hmm.
Okay. SISTER SCULLION: And the reason being is -- and we made a compromise because the houses were -- on the 1900 block of Judson Street in North Central Philadelphia were historically -- had some historic significance. So that definitely added to the cost, and we did retain some of the historic significance of those houses, which did add somewhat 43 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 to the cost. But the houses are just so big and weren't suitable for single-family dwellings or apartment units, and that's what really made it more complicated. That's why the -- and the houses were in such horrible condition. Nobody's lived on that block for over 20-some years.
Mm-hmm. And I believe in addition to what you've currently done as a result of your being able to clear out land and create a parcel that's in a position to be developed, you were also able to do something else, I think, that we're going to be announcing soon? SISTER SCULLION: A technology center in the neighborhood to provide real skills for children and adults in the neighborhood in the areas of technology.
All right. And that was based on your ability to clear that land. SISTER SCULLION: Right.
Thank you, Madam 44 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 President. I wanted to echo some of the comments of Councilman DiCicco. I actually agree with what he said, that this should not be us versus them. And I won't take this time to shamefully plug my entire legislative agenda, but I will take this time to thank you and your staff for your help on one particular piece of legislation that is both a big-business tax credit that gives money to community development corporations. And I'd like to take this opportunity too to flip that around and pose it in the form of a question. As we look at how to spur private reinvestment in low-income communities, I'll ask the members of the panel there to talk about what sources of private investment they think we should be targeting and where it should come from. SISTER SCULLION: I could just speak from our experience that we've had a few philanthropy organizations that stepped up to the plate, giving sizeable gifts to generate development for formerly homeless mothers and their children, the (indiscernible) Foundation, (indiscernible, the Sisters of Mercy and the Independence Foundation 45 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 made a commitment of $4 million, which was then able to leverage State and federal funding, for a total of about $14 million, which, you know, did a lot of units, both home ownership and affordable rental units for the lowest-income families, single-parent families. Also, a few corporations, I think a financial corporation and a few other corporations have stepped up to the plate to partner with the kids to give them jobs that at at least $8 an hour, kids in high school. As they gain skills in technology, that they will be able to work in the summer for jobs beginning at $8 an hour. And then helping them to go to school, to college, or to get a job at a liveable wage when they graduate from college. So that's goal for the technology center.
Essentially what I'm saying is we've been talking -- SISTER SCULLION: We're talking about housing tax credits. PNC made an investment of $3.2 million through the low-income housing credits. It's another way to get private investment in low-income neighborhoods. 46 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562
Low-income housing tax credits are obviously going to be a major source but there are going to have to be other major sources. SISTER SCULLION: The other major source too is the Keystone Opportunity Zones. Look at the amazing work. And they did that up in the Northeast. There could be -- you know, Keystone Opportunity Zones could be done in the poorer sections as well as the Empowerment Zones, although I can't really speak to the Empowerment Zones, I don't really know what happened with that, but I know that Keystone Opportunity Zones has brought a lot of private investment into neighborhoods in the City and produced a lot of jobs, too.
My point is -- and I really would like the panelists, as they come up, to discuss the public investment in neighborhoods to really not let the banking communities and other corporate sector off the hook. Essentially most of the money that's going to be invested in the redevelopment of neighborhoods, if this is going to happen in any significant way, is going to come from the private center, most of it is going to have to come from the banking community. We have to begin 47 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 to discuss that if we're serious about what we're talking about. SISTER SCULLION: But the private sector can only invest if the public sector has the capacity, the efficiency, and the competence to really carry the plan forward, and it really has to be a partnership, and everybody can do their part, but it all has to work together. And it's critically important for the City of Philadelphia, for the housing reorganization that's going to take place and the acquisition and the condemnation processes to be workable and viable.
I completely agree. I mean, for instance, we have tried to bring together the private sector and public sector and nonprofit into the areas through the Philadelphia Reinvestment Commission created through legislation done by this Council last year giving the banking community the opportunity to come to the table and say what they need done in terms of (indiscernible) housing and community development and what they need in terms of reinvestment authority and what they need done in terms of other public entities. 48 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 And Council sits on that commission, the Administration sits on that commission, the Philadelphia Association for Community Development Corporations, the Greater Urban Affairs Coalition, the National Community Capital Association, the six leading banks. So while we begin to discuss that process and that process is begun to happen, I think that we can never have an isolated discussion, just as we can't talk about downtown versus neighborhoods and low neighborhoods low income versus middle class, we have to talk about public sector and private sector, and we have to engage in a conversation that talks about what part of this real problem is, which is bank redlining. Thank you very much.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one kind of general question to the panel is to -- just for my own understanding. I've listened to your testimony; many of you offered very good ideas, and many of the concepts that have been 49 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 talked about with regard to NTI, I know, are a part of the package of materials that we received from the Mayor's Office. What I wanted to get try to get an understanding of is what your involvement has been, or contact has been, with regard to the development of the NTI proposal. Have any of you been involved in its crafting or creation or construction or --
Much less so. I can't speak -- I mean I would -- I -- I -- Dignity Housing has been more involved and approached recently than in the initial development.
How about back in April, when all of the materials were put together?
Other than receiving an invite to proceedings where the issues were being discussed and had largely already been developed, no, there wasn't an intense lovely of involvement. In fact, our involvement in articulating our views regarding the affordable housing needs of very low-income and homeless people were probably much more evident during the Mayor's transition team process than in the NTI.
Okay. Do you feel you 50 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 have a good understanding of what the proposal is and how it will work and how its various components will take place and who's going to do what and how things are going to happen in different neighborhoods?
We have a -- we feel we have a good understanding of the intent and of how some of the components will work.
The areas that we zeroed in on is whether or not, given the needs we face, Dignity's done about nearly 200 units of housing and largely because of a public-private partnership.
But we each day field calls from individuals that we don't have enough 18 affordable housing to serve. And we are very, very 19 concerned that the issue of affordable, decent, and 20 accessible housing be a priority. And while 3500 units is encouraging, it certainly doesn't -- it doesn't need meet the overarching needs. And we also have concerns about what happens when and where, timing, and who really, really, really benefits at each stage. 51 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562
And I don't think there's much dispute about the intent.
I'm actually more interested in the mechanics of step one, step two, who's doing what, who's in charge, who do you respond to. Do you have a good feeling and an understanding for that?
I'm sorry. I thought the entire panel had testified, I'm sorry. Okay, please proceed.
I think we have another Councilman too. I'm sorry, I was 52 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 distracted. Did you get an answer to your question?
For the most part, but, again, I was under the impression -- probably because I wasn't paying as close attention as I should have, I thought the entire panel had finished and I --
My name is Cheri Honkala, the executive director of Kensington Welfare Rights Union. And I apologize but my typed testimony is on its way. Good morning, Council President Verna and City Council and members of civil affairs. My name is Cheri Honkala, and I'm here to testify on behalf of the Kensington Welfare Rights Union, a multiracial, multilingual organization in Philadelphia. We are also members of the 53 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 Philadelphia's Affordable Housing Coalition. I would like to start today by thanking you for holding these important hearings on such an important topic, but I want to encourage all of Council to begin holding hearings in your districts for the voices of those that still need to be heard that come from -- excuse me -- for the voices of those who still need to be heard need to come out and speak, but they are busy working in their welfare-to-work programs or at low-wage jobs, working over 40 hours and who live in some of the City's most distressed sections of our city. We have no funding to lose as a result of our testimony as residents of neighborhoods, nor no 16 funding to gain; we just want better neighborhoods and we want our voices to be heard. The Kensington Welfare Rights Union daily works to ensure the needs of the City's poorest. We've housed over 500 homeless families as a result of our activities. Our folks in large don't suffer from additions and mental-health issues; they just plain and simple lack jobs that pay living wages and affordable housing. They send their kids to schools that are falling apart through drug-infested 54 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 streets, where most eight-year-olds know the difference between crack cocaine and heroin. And with the 5-year lifetime limit in March 2002 for welfare reform approaching us, the scene of larger and larger numbers of people struggling for survival will certainly fill our streets. In all of the years of my life, I have never -- although I've advocated my whole life -- had access myself to affordable housing. And some days get harder than others, and sometimes I just want to pack up and leave and go with my son to New York City. But I'm not going to run, I'm not going to be run from my city. I love Philadelphia and its people, and it's my home and I'm not going to go anywhere. Those of us who actually live below less than $18,000 a year have important contributions to this city. We're hard workers and our voices need to be heard from. We're worth the investment, and each and every one of us on every single block needs to be able to explain NTI, its benefits, the changes that need to be made, and our input needs to be heard. For imagine if we lived in a city that 55 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 valued ensuring the basic necessities of life such as living-wage jobs, education, and affordable housing over stadiums, entertainment centers, hotels, or reelection. Imagine if we lived in a city where large numbers of neighborhood residents actually participated in public hearings because they actually believed it made a difference and their voices counted. For us, the most essential question remains: Does the plan for Philadelphia include the large number of us who live below $18,000? We at the Kensington Welfare Rights Union will continue to go door to door educating the poor and moving homeless families into abandoned houses as they still exist about the importance of them becoming educated, about the changes taking place in the neighborhoods throughout Philadelphia, and the importance of their involvement. Only when we truly begin to partner together, not only in the implementation of the plan but in the development of it, can we truly create a Philadelphia for all Philadelphians. Accessible affordable housing is where we need to begin. Thank you. 56 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562
Thank you. Our next panelist is -- please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Dolores Shaw. I'm a member of the Eastern Pennsylvania Organizing Project, and on behalf of EPOP, I'd like to thank you for this opportunity for us to come here and give testimony today. The Eastern Pennsylvania Organizing Project is an organization made up of 15 congregations, schools, and community institutions 16 across Philadelphia. EPOP has worked with the 17 police and other City departments in 1993 to improve 18 and better coordinate City service. EPOP has also 19 organized with parents to upgrade instruction in our 20 neighborhood public schools. And in 1998, we 21 organized the First Union to keep CoreState branches 22 jobs and loans in our neighborhoods. 23 In 1999, the organization kicked off a 24 Neighborhoods First campaign to improve the quality 25 of life and education in Philadelphia. The first 57 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 issue was dedicated to the Office of Abandoned Vehicles. This included a hotline and clear service standards. We saw this as the first step in establishing reliable standards for basic City services. Last year EPOP and Temple University Center for Public Policy created a research partnership to investigate the causes and solutions to the loss of population from Philadelphia I live in Hunting Park, and I'm here today representing some of my constituents in Hunting Park -- parents and neighbors who can't be here today. Twenty five years ago in 1979, when my mother first purchased the home that I live in now, Hunting Park was a vibrant neighborhood. There were still tree-lined streets, clean sidewalks, and children played safely in front of their homes. That is no longer the case. Now we have debris-strewn blocks, abandoned homes, and children live in mortal fear from day-to-day as they go about their routine back and forth to school in drug invested neighborhoods. The loss of population in Hunting Park may come from a variety of different reasons. I, 58 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 myself, sit here, less than two years ago, two steps from being homeless in a bankruptcy, and I was not alone. When I checked -- when I was reading the paper, checking my own bankruptcy notice, I found lots of my neighborhoods in the same predicament I was. Less than a block away, a neighbor who I did not know got put out of her home, who was probably in the same desperate strait that I was. Now that is an empty home; that is a home which is now viable, but if it's not sold, if it's not protected against the elements, and it gets the destruction of the community, that home, too, will sit vacant like so many others in Hunting Park, which once offered lives, opportunity, and a place for people to raise their children. One of the things that I also feel is very important -- and I try to explain this to parents -- is the tie-ins to public education. Clearly, clearly, and I cannot reiterate this enough, our public school system is a product of the decay of the systems. So many of ours schools that are doing badly are schools located in impoverished neighborhoods, in abandoned neighborhoods that have been long ago neglected. 59 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 As people left, then -- a lot of my own friends and neighbors have left Philadelphia because of the educational system failing their children. They ran for cover. They ran to protect their children, they ran to protect their children's future. People with resources, people with opportunities have left the City, and have left it here to those of us who have know resources to leave. But our resources to leave is not underscored by a resolve to stay. I'm a Philadelphian. I believe in the future of this city. I believe that schools like my McClure that I helped parents to organize the library that we have put in place, our now community computer bank that will be open to the neighborhood. These kind of programs will work citywide. I won't give up, I want to encourage people not to give up. The City can be saved.
It's not without hope, we are not lost. Just the fact that people came out today to make testimony about the loss of population in Philadelphia, we will -- we will continue, the City will go on. And it will prosper; it will prosper because people will continue to come 60 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 out like Cheri, like the ladies here at this table, like Sister Mary, who continues the struggle to make lives and homes available for the people in this city. Thank you.
Would you say that public education should be our top priority in the City?
I definitely believe it is, 'cause, like I said, so many parents have either left the City or moved their children into alternative forms of education in order to make better lives for their children. But there's a lot of -- people have missed the tie-ins that say bad schools came from bad neighborhoods. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? really won't matter now because both of them clearly are in a failed state of disrepair. We need to come together to try to collate and find some way to fix both, 'cause both are in desperate need.
When you spoke about the block that you live in, how many vacant structures are there in the block that you're 61 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 presently residing?
You know, I thought about that a little while ago and it's interesting. Approximately six. I say that 'cause right now, "abandon" is a term that's kind of used loosely. I know of at least one neighbor who's living in a house that she wishes she had a major fire. She's living without utilities, so the house technically is not abandoned 'cause someone is living there. But clearly as a homeowner, if I have her living four doors up the street from me with no 13 electricity, maybe she's burning candles or maybe she's got a kerosene heater that she's not, you know, keeping a close eye on, that is in danger of, you know, destroying my own property. So abandonment and the term kind of get used kind of loosely.
Thank you. Who is our next panelist, Father Taraborelli?
Father Taraborelli, the pastor of St. Thomas Aquinas, and I speak from my heart and especially being resident in Point Breeze for 65 years in that southeast quadrant of 62 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 Point Breeze in Philadelphia and in returning there as a pastor in -- in '88, I was appointed. And prior to those years, I was in the suburbs. And I notice how in our community there, how it went through different transitions. It was an Irish-American community, then Italian-American, and now it is a very multi-cultural ethnic community. Through the census of 2000, there has been an increase of Southeast Asian immigrants living there, and it has been as a part of my experience that they do need housing. There's around -- over about 4, 500 vacant houses just within our territory. But being a member of Point Breeze Coalition over the past seven years, and the concern of Point Breeze, especially that section from Broad to 25th, from Washington to Moore, there is a need for, you know, more people to come in and to rehab those homes. But I -- I think the need is -- especially with this new immigrant population. You know, over 100 years ago, Philadelphia welcomed the European immigrants. Now there's the Southeast-Asian immigrants, and they come from -- especially the new arrivals, the Indonesians, they're entrepreneurs, 63 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 they're gifted with many talents, especially to run businesses. They ave been middle-class individuals over in their country, and they are very smart. So think if we keep the doors open as a very inclusive community there. The church is inclusive, we welcome everyone. So I feel that there is a need for affordable housing, more -- and some of those vacant homes around there, the 4 or 500 especially in that area -- in our cluster, there is also Grays Ferry, there's more, about 1,000 vacant homes. But there's always those issues. But I think for the City to survive, they have to in a way look at this new population, these new demographics coming in. So they're going to rebuild these neighborhoods, especially with the Latinos and also the Southeast Asians. So, I mean, I just speak here to come here to say that there is a need for these vacant houses to be rehabbed. Thank you.
Father, would you say that a reasonable strategy might rely less on immediate demolition and seek to put more money 64 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 not spent on demolition but put more money into rehabilitation and other supports to encourage new construction?
I feel that there is a need for that -- less on demolition 'cause it's going to be empty blocks. Be like a desert in Point Breeze.
Well, that's what I've been saying. I mean, if we go out there and demolish in the fashion that we're being told, I think in the Point Breeze area, we would have a prairie. Would you agree with me?
I think so. And also maybe years from now there would be developers 16 coming. But what's going to be there, we're going 17 to -- everyone will be leaving. 18
And there are 19 properties in that community that are structurally 20 sound and could certainly be rehabilitated in a short period of time.
Well, also a lot of I homes, I notice, like the Italians, the older ones who are in nursing homes, they're abandoning there, and the children don't know what to do or they're 65 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 just leaving them there, and they're good homes structure-wise. They just -- you know, they need someone to go in and look at them and see what it would be.
Doesn't the nursing home eventually take that property?
Can I make a statement about that? My own home used to be -- like I said, the ownership was in my mother's name. When my mother took ill in 1998, one of the first things they make sure they advise you of is to make sure you don't do title deed or transfers as far as seven years back because that way, it would make you ineligible for Medicaid and benefits. A lot of these houses, the seniors end up leaving them and going into nursing homes or dying destitute in hospitals. They die intestate without wills, they die in nursing homes. The State has no 23 ability to keep track of all of these homes. A lot of them just lie fallow until they are rolling out into the street. 66 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 I don't think there's any good tracking system. One of my concerns is that there isn't even a good tracking system to do testate and probate estates. No one knows when people die, who belongs to what, or where it goes. This is a dangerous situation; it's created havoc, particularly in areas like Hunting Park where a large number of homeowners are now seniors and who have a lifetime that is shortening, with no idea of what's going to happen or what's going to be the final disposition of these properties.
Thank you. Are you going to testify? Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony with your testimony.
My name's Gordon Whitman, and I work at Temple University, at the Center for Public Policy. And as Dolores Shaw said, a year ago, with funding from the William Penn Foundation and the Fels Fund, EPOP and the Center for Public Policy created Research for Democracy, and we did that because EPOP, through McClure School, through Father Taraborelli's church, St. Thomas Aquinas in South 67 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 Philadelphia, with different churches and other neighborhood institutions, has worked on a full set of local neighborhood issues, and over the last couple of years, begun to look at the broader policy issues that come out of those local issues. We believe strongly that local neighborhood leaders, community people have ideas and experience that should shape the City's policy. We also created Research for Democracy because we understood that there was a need for independent analysis and information for decision-makers for community people. And we're happy to play that role, we're happy to be able to brief Council in March and to continue to be supportive as you and the Administration work through and figure out a way to move the City forward. From our perspective, we believe that population loss is not just about people leaving the City. It's also about money leaving the City. It's also about families and business that live and work here not investing in their neighborhoods and in their homes because they don't believe in the future of the City. It's also about potential residents 68 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 bypassing the City. The best information that's out there on movement in and out of the City comes from the IRS and where people file taxes. If you look at 1999, basically, you had 27,000 families leave the City and you had 20,000 come in. So we had a net loss of 7,000 people in a typical year. But when you look at the economic impact of that, it's even greater. The amount of money that was reflected in that out-migration was $492 million. That means that in just one year, we lost as a city half a billion dollars in taxable income that residents would spend and that would be recycled in the City. " And that's not just money; it's also time. And part of this is an issue of confidence if we want people to make a long-term investment in our neighborhoods And finally, we're not doing a good job, 69 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 as has been discussed in Council and other places, at attracting immigrants. We looked at cities on 4 the east coast, the 12 largest cities, and 5 Philadelphia was number 11 in attracting immigrants 6 to the City, and that compare cities that are very 7 close -- like Trenton. The only city that did a 8 worse job was Baltimore. 9 In our view, families move for many 10 reasons, but they only abandon their homes and only 11 abandon their neighborhoods when they feel abandoned 12 by the City and by its businesses and by its banks. As Dolores and Father Taraborelli spoke about, feeling safe, looking out at your neighborhood and seeing poor physical conditions, from abandoned houses to abandoned cars too, which obviously we've made great progress in dealing with, to trash, a weak public education system are the main reasons families abandon their neighborhoods. Those have been the primary issues that EPOP has worked on since 1993. If you look at the City Planning Commission Home Seller Survey that was done in 1998, the top four reasons that are given for people moving out of Philadelphia are: Lack of safety, poor neighborhood conditions, high auto 70 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 insurance, and the quality of public schools. So we're pretty clear about problems that are driving people to leave neighborhoods. Our neighborhoods and region are very connected. People don't just move out of Philadelphia; they move from neighborhood to neighborhood.
We can't just look at one type of neighborhood as we think about a strategy to deal with blight and to deal with population loss. These issues are also regional. For every one new family in the Philadelphia region over the past decade, developers built two housing units. That means a tremendous oversupply of housing puts pressure on Philadelphia's housing market. It also means subsidies that ought to be available in the City go to subsidized unnecessary sprawl in the region. In the past, from our perspective, the City has not had a strategy to prevent abandonment and to stop blight before it destroys neighborhoods. If we want current and potential residents to invest in Philadelphia, we need to provide them with clear standards and clear expectations for what they can expect from City services day in and day 71 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 out. It is possible, as Dolores said, to make our neighborhoods magnets for families that want safe and affordable places to live. It's a great asset of Philadelphia that we have the potential to provide affordable housing to our residents. We're not doing the job we need to, but there's no reason why we can't. Our housing stock is made for people to own homes, for low-income working people to own their own homes. It's a great asset of Philadelphia that we've left, as we see, in the number of abandoned houses really deteriorate. We really need a comprehensive approach to neighborhoods revitalization. Over the last year, EPOP and Temple have been working to look at abandonment and blight in our neighborhoods. We've been developing a comprehensive proposal for neighborhood revitalization. It's involved large numbers of people in neighborhoods as well as some really good research. We expect over the next -- before the end of the month to be able to share our proposal with Council, with the Administration, and with the 72 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 public. So we look forward to continuing this discussion in the coming weeks
Thank you The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
Thank you, Madam Chair Flight, flight brings blight, I think. And as Alicia, right?
You said schools and bad schools. People leave the City probably because of bad schools and education more than other reasons. Hunting Park is a very clear example. You have a once-thriving neighborhood, then a series of job losses without any replacement of those jobs, and you have a new community moving into Hunting Park, a community of color, a community of African-Americans, Puerto Ricans, and so on. Jobs not being created that can give a living wage to these new immigrants that do come in. The schools that the children of these new immigrants come in do not keep pace and do not have the books, do not have the programs that are necessary to prepare these students for the new life of Philadelphia. So as the people leave because of 73 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 the schools, you have abandoned housing. And then into that come in crime, drugs. And I remember one time in this city and in this Council, around 1985, '86, in which a corner of Hunting Park became very famous and all of the TVs -- TV channels were going there. Butler, Eighth and Butler, 1985, '86, all of the Channel 6, Channel 10, -- Fox was not in existence then -- were stationed there because it had become a supermarket for drugs; it actually was in the vanguard of the new entrepreneur of drugs and the new marketing of the drug problems. We had the Yellow Tape Gang, the Blue Tape Gang. They marketed the drugs. But the problem was at that point sort of centrally located to that area. I remember saying in this Council that soon that will spread across the City. And it did, it did. But we kept on denying the schools the necessary monies. We kept on not reinvesting in the neighborhoods, so as businesses closed up and down Fifth Street, Frankford, Allegheny, and Ridge Avenue and so on, there was no plan to rebuild because those were constituencies that were going to be left behind or planned out of existence. 74 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 Now we have to begin looking at it. I think if we see flight as creating blight, we have to begin looking at how it is that we reinvest. And I think schools and how we define affordable housing, all right? And I'd like to hear from you how we define affordable housing, and I'd like to hear a comment from the panel about that.
Thirty percent of somebody's income is how I think most of us define affordable housing, or less. Did you want to say more about that?
I'm sorry, you're going to have to speak into the microphone. The stenographer's having difficulty hearing you.
I'm sorry. Thirty percent of someone's income or less. I think that's how most of us would define affordable housing. But I just want to give a quick little story. I mean this is something that Kensington Welfare Rights Union deals with all the time. We deal with once families try to get into a City shelter here in Philadelphia, they find out that there's no City shelter; or even worse, they're a 75 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 victim of domestic violence, and they can't get into Women Against Abuse. Or perhaps there is a language barrier and some of the City services just aren't equipped to deal with a family that's an emergency situation that faces homelessness. We'll take the family, and we've been for years now utilizing the abandoned properties throughout Philadelphia and moving homeless families into there. And we have always felt morally justified 'cause we think it's more important that a family is someplace inside of a building and that they're safe and that they don't freeze to death in the winter on the streets of Philadelphia. And so the example I want to give you is what generally happens is then the police and Licenses and Inspections identify that the families are in the abandoned house and then spend tons of money then putting them up in the Airport Towers Hotel for several weeks at the Airport Towers Hotel, and then hopefully, we're able to, you know, negotiate and fight to try to get them into some kind of emergency affordable housing in Philadelphia before their time runs out at the Airport Towers Hotel. And this has been going on for ten years. 76 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 And we have (indiscernible) and Margie mif you could just stand up real quick. They've been now -- this is just two other families and their children that have now been in for a month at the Airport Towers Hotel. The City's been spending thousands of dollars instead of getting them emergency affordable housing in Philadelphia. And their time runs out at the end of the week, in which they'll probably go back into abandoned housing in Philadelphia to reside. And we just think that it's a better plan to hook people up with emergency affordable housing than to spend, you know, tons of money bringing out all of the City's police and Licenses and Inspections. And actually, for these two young women's eviction, there were 30 officers and 5 members of Licenses and Inspections, and that's a lot of money to be spending on the relocation process of homeless families when some of those folks should be busy closing down, like, crack houses and things like that. (Applause.)
Dolores Shaw. As a homeowner, one of the things that's 77 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 interesting to me is that 50 percent of median income -- if the median income is $18,000, then 50 percent of median income will buy you nothing in this city except for more subsidized housing. And as a homeowner living in a block where, I assume, 40 percent of the properties are now Section 8 subsidized housing. We're creating havoc here. We're creating havoc because we have Section 8 properties that are constantly in a state of turnover. Where are the stakeholders? As a homeowner, I have a stake there. I can't get up and leave. Subsidized housing keeps turning over. One of the things that I hope the future will bring is an opportunity for more home ownership in these low- and medium income brackets and less rental properties. I think there's a way to structure this so that there is home ownership and not rental properties so people will have a clear and solid investment in communities and not keep switching communities like they do now.
So the issue, then, is how do you build those homes so that they could be affordable so an individual can actually buy those 78 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 homes and it could be cost-productive so that -- so that it could be -- there could be some public involvement in the building of it, because if there's going to be public involvement and then transferring of that, it has -- the cost of building these homes has to come down.
I agree. I mean, I don't have an answer for that. What I will say is that I know that Section 8 vouchers now in my community alone, some of them are in excess of 660, $700 a month, and there's not a home that you should be able to buy at that kind of mortgage rate. So there's got to be to try to work out something where, like I said, it's -- where these properties become homeowner and owner-occupied and not constantly turnover as rental properties.
So in order to prevent blight, you got to prevent the flight, which means a very huge investment in public schools
And then creation and reinvestment back into the creation of jobs, and then to lower the cost of building affordable 79 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 housing in Philadelphia so that a house -- if you're a middle-class person and you want to move into Chestnut Hill, for example, and I have -- I'm a developer and I want to build houses in Chestnut Hill for 200 and $350,000, and I want to bring in those people, then I should be able to build it but not at the cost of -- that I'm going to have the houses at $700,00 and nobody would want to buy it. And if I want to come back to Hunting Park, then if there's going to be public involvement, a house should not be able to cost $250,000 to build if we're going to sell it for $40,000.
So we have a three-prong plan that needs to be established and brought forth in which we have public schools that are decent, reinvest in affordable housing that can attract both the upper middle class, the lower middle class, and affordable housing for poor people.
I haven't seen anything 80 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 like that yet.
You know what's very interesting about all of this is that I was recalling a comment that my grandfather made years ago when he said that we make that which is basic so complicated, and that if this country just looked at what was good for the smallest units in the country, which is the family, and looked at -- if it's good in terms of the development of the child in a family, then it's good for neighborhood. If it's good in terms of the stages of growth and development where you might be at a point but you're not ready for home ownership economically or in terms of your maturity, you may need to be a renter, and there's an accommodation of that because that's the stage you're at in your development as part of a smaller family unit or the family of neighborhood. If it's good for the oldest member of the family, the elderly, then it's good for the state. And I -- and I -- and it's good for neighborhood. And I suspect that we don't pull back and see the needs of what makes a healthy family. Whether you're a single adult or not, you're a part 81 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 of the family of neighborhood. And it's a perspective that does not pit the needs of your grandfather against the needs of your baby brother. And I just find too many of our solutions are, "Well, we have to put that aside, we have to just blind ourselves to those needs in order to address these." And what you end up with is an imbalanced approach and then or years later, 10 wondering where you went wrong and why you failed. 11 There is a way to promote home ownership 12 for the lowest-income people. There are ways to do 13 that, but there's still an ongoing need for 14 subsidized housing. There are needs to create 15 integrated dynamics in these neighborhoods. And I do see a recognition of the need, maybe that's the way. I don't always see the will. (Applause.)
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke. His light's been on. Councilman Clarke?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Maybe I'm asking it wrong. In any of your 82 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 analysis as it relates to what needs to happen in the City of Philadelphia in particular as it relates to housing, have any of you looked at market-rate housing to any degree? And I guess EPOP in particular I'm asking. Is your focus soley on low-income housing?
Actually, we've been looking at a range of neighborhoods and a range of needs in those neighborhoods. So low-income and affordable housing is certainly at the center, but there's clearly opportunities for different kinds of housing, for mixes of rehab and ownership. And when we have an opportunity to put out our proposal, I think that you'll see that it's got some mix in it.
Mix? The reason I ask that question is when I look at three neighborhoods in particular that I'm relatively familiar with -- Old City and Northern Liberties and Spring Garden, which are row home communities that have kind of developed on their own to some degree -- I was wondering, and I didn't know if it was because of the proximity to Center City or if there was some other amenities or incentive that created that development process, and I was wondering if we could 83 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 look at those and simply apply that to some of the other areas around the perimeters of Center City and West Philadelphia and in South Philadelphia and in North Philadelphia with a little bit of maybe government assistance in terms of acquisition, in terms of some sort of a favorable government- inspired mortgage financing mechanism. 'Cause I -- it's clear to me that those neighborhoods are on upswing. I just happened to be riding through Northern Liberties Saturday and I was amazed at how that area has turned around with private investment. It looks like working-class families are in that particular community, and I'm wondering why we can't duplicate that in other neighborhoods with some minimal government assistance.
Councilman Clarke, I think one of our perspectives is that the consistency of services and expectations for services being common across the City is an important factor in people investing in lots of different neighborhoods. So one of the reasons why we felt it was important to have an office dedicated to dealing with abandoned vehicles and clear service standards and a hotline 84 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 for people to report vehicles was that we saw that abandoned vehicles were across the City and it was a problem that couldn't be limited to one particular neighborhood. And that goes back to if people are going to invest in the community and in their homes and neighborhoods, they need to know that City government is there for them and that they can count on it and that it's regular and can be expected. And I think that's a model as we look at a whole set of other broader problems that face our neighborhoods to look at. So that undoubtedly would be our perspective.
An important piece but not the only piece. Obviously schools and how we spend our public dollars.
All right, okay. 'Cause I just think -- I just think in terms of our focus on creating truly a first-class city, we need to look at this comprehensively. I mean, when we talk about schools and we talk about the lack of revenue based on our existing formula in funding schools, it's based on real-estate taxes to a large 85 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 degree. And the reality is, we have a substantial amount of vacant land that we're not getting any revenue from. So our ability to create revenue-producing properties, either commercial or residential and in an expeditive manner I think at a minimum can increase our abilities to enhance our School District coffers. So I guess I'm just looking at ways where we can spend either substantial amounts in some cases but minimal amounts in other cases where we can get properties on line to be tax-producing properties. If it's simply acquiring properties in a currently stable neighborhood and then marketing those properties with a mortgage package to get those properties on line. I'd actually had an idea about an Office of Early Intervention. We all know i some of our communities, in some of our older communities, when a senior citizen passes on and goes to a senior citizen home, that property becomes vacant and it sits there for year after year simply because the heirs to the properties can't be found or the kids just didn't want to be bothered with that particular property, and then three, four years down the line, 86 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 the property's vacant. And I would like to see us have some mechanism where if a property becomes vacant on a block, that citizen on the block or that block captain can call that and the City can immediately get involved in acquiring that property or getting a person in that property before it becomes deteriorated and then we have to spend $100,000 of government subsidy to renovate that property as opposed to simply finding a buyer and giving him a $10,000 major system grant and let him go out and get a mortgage and let him get it on line. So as you do your analysis, I would like to -- it would be helpful if you can come up with all kinds of creative mechanisms associated with us rebuilding our communities.
Yeah, we share that perspective and hopefully we can continue that discussion.
Thank you. And in that vein -- I know Councilwoman Tasco's waiting to be heard. But in that vein, Councilman, I think I 87 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 find nothing more frustrating than if I get a call from a constituent and they're talking about a vacant property. We check the computer and find that the owner of record may have ten or twelve properties, have not paid taxes in years, have not paid water bills. In fact, there's one individual who I think owed $85,000 in water bills. Why we allow something like that to happen is beyond me. It really is. I think we need legislation that says, If you owe taxes, if the property has been delinquent for X-amount of years, we should be able -- we, the City, should be able to acquire that property or take it. We can't depend on a sheriff's sale because I think the sheriff's sale takes at least seven or eight years. And I keep thinking of one individual in my district who owned something like 15 -- I don't remember, it's been a couple of years now -- something like 12 or 15 properties, most of which were rented. And he really had a scam going. Once he got a certificate for a Section 8, he did not, did not pay properties taxes for years. I think we're being derelict of our duty 88 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 when we allow that to happen, and I think that we have to have legislation which will give us the right and the authority. And I'm sure, Father, many of those properties in the area that you're referring to, I'm sure that many of them may be owned by one individual. And, again, they're tax-delinquent and they owe thousands of dollars in water bills, and we're allowing that to persist. I think we're causing some of our own blight, to be very candid with you. Councilwoman Tasco. Oh, I'm sorry. Were you finished?
I just wanted to follow up to your statement and tell you that I actually introduced a bill. So I will try to schedule it for a public hearing as soon as possible to talk about that issue.
It's a bill that creates development districts that eliminate these long processes associated with acquisition.
Wouldn't that 89 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 require State legislation?
Well, I'm definitely for that, believe me because, as I said, I have had experiences in my district which are, as I said, are really infuriating to me.
And then you get some little senior citizen who may owe $200 in water bills, and they're threatening to turn off their water Councilwoman Tasco.
Yeah, I was just going to add to that, council President Verna, because I represent a district where we don't have a lot of vacant houses or we have some abandonment. A part of the study done by Temple shows that. And what we need is -- as I look at the whole thing, people leave because of the failure of the City to provide the services -- enforcement, code enforcement. And certainly -- I mean, the example you gave of Section 8 housing, that's a lack of enforcement. 90 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562
The administration and poor management of program. They should go in and take away the right for him to even be a Section 6 8 home -- in the program because that shouldn't be allowed to go on. A lot of problems that I have found in just dealing with some of the many, many problems in the community is really associated with code enforcement, just making sure things happen. And people get very frustrated when they seek to get the City to enforce the codes and nothing happens. And they get just -- they get frustrated and leave. The other thing is the -- we talked about Hunting Park and why people leave. Certainly -- I probably think some of the issues are predatory lending. We don't have the lending communities in the neighborhoods. I agree with Councilman Goode and Councilman DiCicco: We have to form a stronger partnership so that they understand the responsibility -- their responsibility to the citizens. We got into this somewhat when we were doing the discussion on predatory lending to tell 91 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 them that they had a responsibility. They've abandoned the community. There are no products for people to use to -- for low-income home improvement loans. The lady with the fire should not be allowed to sit there. Where is the service that the City provides to help her fix her house and get utilities on it? That's terrible.
There are products available, and in some cases, the City isn't just -- they're not even being marketed properly.
I mean, a lot of the problems have been with the marketing of product that the City has that no one knows about.
Right. So, you know, a lot of this in particular are neighborhoods that are -- which I represent. New families are moving in and the houses are solid, but may need some support with a home improvement loan. And we also have to look at real estate practices. Are people being sold homes that they really can't afford to own? And so there's so many issues associated 92 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 with abandonment. And I'm -- I'm concerned that we don't look we don't look at NTI as the sole savior of the City because a lot of the issues that are raised can be taken care of now, without any NTI. It certainly has to deal with how do we enforce our codes. How do we help my community with driveways. Families, neighbors want to deal with driveways. The City can't afford driveways. What is the process? We've been trying to find a process to for at least five years to help them repair driveways. And that adds to blight too when the driveways are all broken up. City trash trucks use the driveways, but the City -- and they're saying to the City, We don't mind paying but help us make everybody pay. So a lot of issues that we can address that we don't have to wait to address that could be a need to be addressed right now in terms of code enforcement and the City agencies working together to make sure that a lot of these problems are addressed collectively. And so I'll -- I appreciate your coming here today. I've worked with most of you in one way 93 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 or another. But while we look at rehab and while we look at new development, we have to look at neighborhood stabilization, 'cause blight just creeps up. It's moving north, further north, because if we don't pay attention to what practices we have in place and lack of enforcement, we're throwing good money out.
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions or statements? (No response.)
Thank you very much, panel, and thanks for all of work that each of you individually and collectively has done in this field. Thank you. The next panel -- will the clerk please read those names.
Susan Klein, a representative from Liberty Resources, Joe Wingert, Judith Robinson, and Farah Jiminez. (Witnesses come forward.)
Thank you very 94 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 much. Welcome. We are prepared to have you begin as soon as you are ready. And we thank everyone else who is here to talk about this very important issue. Feel free to identify yourself in your own order and in your own statement.
Hello. I'm Susan Klein. I'm director of housing at the Philadelphia Corporation for Aging, and PCA is a private, nonprofit agency designated by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as the area agency on aging for the County of Philadelphia. Annually, PCA serves about 70,000 people with information referral, long-term care services, senior center activities, home-delivered meals, and other services that increase the independence and quality of life for our consumers. We are also charged with advocating for the interests of the elderly; and within this role, PCA is testifying today. My focus is on the housing needs of Philadelphia seniors. When you think of senior housing, you might think of subsidized high-rise apartments or even long-term care facilities. While 95 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 these are important options, most seniors live in their own homes. In Philadelphia, 79 percent of seniors own their own homes. One-third of Philadelphia's homeowners are age 65 or older and one half are 55 years old or older. We are an old city with old housing. According to AARP's housing survey, 85 percent of seniors want to stay in their own homes and never move. So when you think of elderly housing, you really need to think of the individual elderly homeowner in their home. Typically, they have lived in that home for decades, often raising their families there. Philadelphia has 60,000 low- and very low-income elderly homeowners. Because of their numbers, what affects seniors affects Philadelphia. If 60,000 low-income homeowners can't afford to maintain their property, the look and feel of Philadelphia and its neighborhoods suffer. Although these seniors cannot afford to move, not maintaining their properties will cause others to move. We're not saying that elderly residents are a drain on Philadelphia's housing. Seniors play many important roles in the community, such as being 96 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 the eyes and the ears of the neighborhood. I remember visiting one house in which we raised the porch on a row home so it was level with the entrance. It allowed an elderly man, who was now a wheelchair user, to return to his role as mayor of the street. No one got by him without his knowing who he was and where he was going and why. What do elderly homeowners need? The most important housing need is for home repairs and a secure system to access these repairs. Many seniors can't afford repairs, and those that can are very fearful and overwhelmed about hiring contractors. Unfortunately, they have legitimate reasons for those concerns. Problems with contractors are one of the highest areas of complaints received by the Attorney General's Office. Seniors need a range of housing services such as minor repairs, major systems repair, and home modification. While there are programs for each of these, they can't begin to address the total needs given the existing funding levels. Delivering these services has become even more difficult because of the new lead-based paint 97 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 HUD requirements, which become increasingly more onerous as the amount of HUD construction dollars spent on each property goes up. For homes built before 1978, programs that spend less than $5,000 in construction per house are required to repair any lead-based paint disturbed by those repairs. For repairs from 5,000 to 25,000, programs must provide interim controls such as painting window sills or removing carpeting and replacing flooring throughout the entire home, regardless of where the work was being done. If you spent over $25,000, you need to remove or abate all of the lead-based paint in the home. PCA administers the Adaptive Modification Program, which provides major home modifications for people with disabilities of all ages. We currently have over 800 people on the waiting list, and we anticipate it will take us over five years to serve everyone who is currently waiting.
The lead-based paint requirements have been extremely costly for this program. We have spent over $100,000 in the past year for pollution insurance, legal advice, training, risk assessment s solely because of HUD's new requirements. This 98 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 figure does not include construction, just simply finding out where the lead is and preparing to provide the interim controls. In most cases, we need to address lead paints wherever it is in the entire house. For example, we need to replace windows in a rear bedroom that hasn't been used for years but is painted with leads-based paint, and this is done in order to install an exterior wheelchair lift. Some homes will not be able to receive modifications from CDBG funds because the cost of the modification and the cost of the lead-paint work will exceed our per-property maximum of $25,000. OHCD supported PCA in the housing consortium for disabled individuals' application for Pennsylvania Access Funds, and we have received a commitment of $300,000 in non-HUD funds that do not carry all the lead-paint requirements. In our first 15 lead-based paint risk assessments, we need to use these access funds for five of those cases, spending $80,000, or over percent, of the 300,000 in 23 access funds that we received. These new 24 requirements from HUD are very costly and are 25 forcing us to utilize scare housing resources, 99 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 driving up the cost of all housing programs and thus decreasing services and production. PCA also administers the Senior Housing Assistance Repair Program. SHARP provides minor home repairs for low-income elderly homeowners and is funded at $325,000 from the City's CDGB funds and a million dollars from Pennsylvania Lottery. We currently have 1400 priority consumers waiting for 600 slots available this year. These are very low-income elderly homeowners who meet one of the following priorities: They're also over 75 years of age or older, living alone, or with a disability. OHCD has permitted us to use CDBG funds for administrative expenditures of SHARP since that will not trigger the need for costly lead-clearance activities. While the need to expand this program is great, we cannot expand using these services for the CDBG dollars. SHARP does not reach even a small percentage of lower-income elderly homeowners -- less than percent who need our service. Nor can we address all of the housing needs of those we are able to serve. Our average cost under SHARP is $1400 per home. With these funds, we typically can 100 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 replace doors, fix minor plumbing and electrical work, install railings and grab bars, and perhaps replace a window or two. While this is not a lot of money or a lot of service, it is often enough to help us maintain the home. It is truly a shame these services cannot be expanded. While not dismissing the health problems caused by lead-based paint, it is not the only need of our communities. Philadelphia must not be alone in these problems created by HUD's lead requirements. I'm asking City Council to advocate with other municipalities to change these lead-based paint requirements Last but never least is the need for major home repairs, either through expanding the basic systems repair program or through other programs. Because of the type of repair services the basic systems repair program provides, such as major plumbing and electrical work, that program has been deemed an emergency program; and, therefore, the lead requirements have been waived. Homes that receive basic systems repair services are at great risk of abandonment because their owners are very poor and the housing clearly is not in good 101 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 condition. People have to wait a long time for these services. And if they had other options, they would not wait. This is truly the last line of defense for home vacancies.
According to Gordon Whitman, who testified earlier, only 1 percent of the 12,000 homes that receive BSRP service over the last five years in Philadelphia became abandoned. PCA recognizes that there are other important services that are required to support the repair process such as legal services, financial counseling, and public education. In addition, all of Philadelphia Section 202 subsidized housing buildings for seniors have long waiting lists. Nevertheless, I wanted to focus my remarks today on the need for home repairs because that's the most overwhelming need that we see. Thank you for an opportunity to present our views to City Council.
Thank you very much. As you have indicated, there is a great need for home maintenance services. Have you received any information regarding whether elderly 102 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 households will be targeted for receiving some of the approximately percent of funds set aside for 4 rehab? If so, how is this funding to be 5 distributed? 6
Thank you. 8 Okay, our next witness? Good morning. 9
Just before I start, I just wanted to -- if anybody has questions, either you're going to have to come up to me or have me come up to you because I'm deaf, but because of the short notice of when these hearings were happening, I was not able to call your office, President Verna, and request an interpreter. So if I seem like I'm ignoring you, I apologize.
) and I'm on adapt activist who is acting chairperson of the board of directors of Liberty Resources Incorporated. LRI is Philadelphia's center for 103 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 independent living for any person with a disability. We are a consumer-controlled, cross-disability federal and state-funded nonprofit organization that provides crucial services to people with disabilities, young and old, services like advocacy, peer counseling, attendant services, and skill training. The need for affordable, accessible integrated housing is the number-one need for our people. OHCD, in its consolidated plan year number 27, identified 65,300 persons with disabilities who need housing in Philadelphia. It is precisely this need and the lack of currently available resources that Liberty Resources is a proud member of the Philadelphia Affordable Housing Coalition. The Coalition's expressed aim is to increase available housing resources and options for families and individuals making $18,000 a year or less. People with disabilities usually fall far below that cutoff, as 75 percent of us do not work and thus make on the average of only $6,000 a year. These hearings are being held to discuss population loss and the Mayor's presentation on his Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, or NTI. We 104 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 are here to have our voice heard. As part of the Philadelphia Affordable Housing Coalition, Liberty Resources wants to insure that affordable, accessible, and integrated housing options are continually explored, developed, built, and maintained regardless of what specific initiative that is being considered or evaluated. Social dynamics have determined a societal pyramid structure, with poorer persons occupying the lower echelons. As such, we are the base upon which society is built; therefore, you, as our local elected representatives, cannot afford to forget us. This becomes paramount when initiating any discussion and/or hearings on the Mayor's newest plan. To facilitate this, City Council must guarantee that neighborhood or district hearings be held, especially within the districts most impacted by NTI. District hearings would go a long way to include us to get needed input and advice on NTI's specific implementation. It is always the people most affected by something that are the real and true excerpts. The average person may not know the technical details 105 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 per se, like the hows and whys, but we know the realities of life because we live it daily and are under considerable constraints like fixed incomes. After all, if you wanted to learn, say, about art, you wouldn't ask a plumber; instead, you would consult an artist, or ideally, a number of artists of various backgrounds and identities. Here too, excerpts have their place, but it is the neighborhoods people, the people who live there and work there who know the most. District hearings would also ensure a greater variety of that neighborhood or district participation. On something as important and as expensive as NTI, one or two views are certainly not enough. Working people could attend district hearings far more easily than having to come down here, taking off work, and having to pay high parking fees in order to testify. I am not from Philadelphia originally, so I don't know Philly's past too well. However, I do remember a nationwide project that was supposed to help inner-city neighborhoods, ease blight conditions, and improve overall city revitalization. 106 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. " I'm sure in many this room remember that old project. Obviously -- and we can see this easily now -- it failed. In fact, it made matters far worse and, no doubt, gave rise to some of the problems that we now face today.
I'm not saying that NTI is like that older mismanaged project; all I'm saying is that our City of Philadelphia can ill afford not to carefully consider and examine closely any initiative that comes along. Nothing can be considered carefully until we hear from all of the people, especially those living within the areas most affected. Lastly, in order for NTI to achieve its goal of improving our fair city, no segment of society can be ignored. It's fine to cater to big and small businesses; in fact, it's necessary for community development. But we must not nix out the poorest of the poor, and that includes most people with disabilities. As a society, we cannot afford to pit one segment against another either in the name of competing for public resources. It is true those resources are finite, but we must include everyone 107 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 or we all the lose out. Even costly items can be included. I'm thinking of accessible features, because if planned before construction begins, they are far less costly to implement. It is a documented fact and reported on in several architectural studies that too long our nation, our state, and our city have ignored state and federal access laws, all with the excuse that it's too expensive to do, when it is not if it is planned ahead of time. Always to retrofit anything is much more expensive. People with disabilities remain incarcerated in nursing homes, state residential facilities, and other such horrible places, all because of the simple lack of available housing. This should be a crime. This has happened because disabled people are always delegated into the, quote, special-needs categories when there is nothing special about needing a roof over one's head. All citizens, all people of Philadelphia deserve to have affordable, accessible, integrated, and decent housing available to them. Poor people don't expect to live on the Main Line; we know we 108 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 can't afford that. But, again, all people should be able to have choices and options and not have to just pick the less evil one. No one should have to live with major holes in the floors, unstable roofs, and other deplorable conditions that many poor persons face every day. NTI planners, developers and builders must realize this and act upon their knowledge in a way that does include us so that we're not just swept under the carpet, so to speak, because we're not going to go away. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak up.
Thank you for giving the Partnership CDC the opportunity to present testimony today. Our written testimony fairly well encapsulates the programs that we've had success in 109 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 over the eight years that we've been in existence -- nine years, that is. It's meant more to illustrate what can be done when you have programs that are on the table right now, and I really think what we're here to talk about is how we're going to move into the future and to really capitalize on we already have working for us. With that, I want to outline a little bit about what we are. The Partnership CDC is dedicated to address affordable housing, vacancy, neighborhood revitalization, and economic development and revitalization in West and parts of Southwest Philadelphia. We accomplish our goals through coordination with community groups, other community development corporations, churches, government, public and private funding sources, and contractors, professionals, and concerned citizens in the West Philadelphia community. Our primary service area is located from 40th Street to 63rd Street, between Market Street and Baltimore Avenue. Housing rehabilitation of both rental and sale to low-and moderate-income residents is a major activity of the Partnership CDC. Since 1992, the 110 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 Partnership has secured over $22 million in public and private funds for these projects, and we're currently involved in projects that will involve more than 42 rental units and 27 units for sale to first-time home buyers within our program area. The funding for these projects include home funds, housing rehabilitation program money, State and federal funds, and funds provided by local and national foundations and corporations -- most notably in our area, Mercy Hospital and PECO. Mortgage counseling services are also provided by -- to any City resident or any other resident of the area who need assistance in the home-buying process. We also run a seven-week course called the "The Home Buyers' Club," which is hosted by Mercy Hospital and Presbyterian Hospital. The course takes prospective home buyers through the home buying process in a group setting, with guest speakers providing insights to the intricacies of their particular areas of expertise. So, for example, we will invite Realtors to come in, and they will discuss the agreement of sale. Home inspector service companies will come in 111 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 and they'll explain the home inspection process and the importance of having them done. We also have a title agent come in and explain the virtues of title to real estate. The Office of Housing and Community Development provides funds for the counseling services. The Partnership CDC also serves as a catalyst for business and job creation in collaboration with business groups, government and institutional partnerships. The Mercy Hospital District, the 52nd Street Business Association, and the 40th Street Business Association are currently active as a result of our participation. We are currently in the process of developing plan for the revitalization of 60th Street, for the 60th Street Commercial Corridor between Market Street and Baltimore Avenue. We believe that the impact of our programs has been positive for West Philadelphia, and a bunch of our program success is directly attributed to the support of Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell. In addressing the population loss, we all know that there are many factors affecting the decline in our population. It's been an evolving 112 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 trend affecting the overall quality of life in Philadelphia. The loss of industry and jobs is one example, public school system, crime, taxes, and outmoded transportation are often mentioned as well. All of these factors combined are compelling reasons for many middle-income homeowners to leave the City.
At the same time, not all Philadelphians have the option to leave the City, especially low-income residents who cannot find affordable housing outside the City limits. Most of these people are the ones we serve and they fit into this category. We strongly encourage the City Council to work on a comprehensive and coordinated approach addressing all of these issues to improve the quality of life and reverse the decline in population. Neighbor revitalization, which includes residential areas and adjoining commercial areas, is critical to this reversal. It must be done in a way that balances the needs of existing residents as well as addressing the needs of the new residents we want to attract. The role of CDCs is, I believe -- and I think many others who are involved in the process 113 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 believe -- is critical to this process. The CDCs are in a unique position to undertake an active and effective role in the approaches to neighborhood revitalization. Planning, vacant land management and housing development and rehabilitation, counseling, economic workforce development, and facilities development are among the activities that all of us around the City get involved with. CDCs are also uniquely positioned to incorporate public philanthropic and private funds in any of these efforts. CDCs also have a long-term interest in the communities they serve. We, the Partnership CDC, therefore urge the City Council to support the inclusion of CDCs in our efforts for revitalization and growth. Critical to any success in the endeavors for change is improving the efficiency of the City's development system. I personally am new to this process, working from the private sector, and I've been in the CDC world for about nine months, and I can say that it is -- it's very different from the efficiencies that are built into a market system. The many obstacles that now exist in the 114 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 property acquisition process for effective development activities -- I'm going to repeat that. Many obstacles now exist in the property acquisition process for effective development activities. Development costs are high, and there are many redundant activities for development throughout City government. Implementation of reform breaking down existing barriers will spur outside private investment as well as to enable CDCs to accomplish more with the community development resources that currently exist. The last thing I want to comment on is not in the written text but it's of vital importance to the continuation of existing programs, and that is helping with acquisition through Act 94 funds for CDCs. Most of the property inventory that CDCs operate with comes from this source of assistance, and we understand that funds are no longer there. And I have to say that there needs to be something in place to help implement and continue this process. Thank you very much for your time.