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.
Thank you for coming in to testify. 115 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 Our next witness?
Hello. My name is Farah Jiminez, and I'm the executive director of Mt. Airy USA, which is a community-based development corporation. Before I begin my remarks, I also wanted to comment that you've heard from a number of community-based development corporations already, and I think as we move forward in terms of analyzing the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative and what it can do for the City of Philadelphia, we should recognize that community-based Development Corporations have been working as neighborhood transformers for the last years in Philadelphia. 16 So they're an important partner in this initiative. 17 Mt. Airy USA's mission is to improve the 18 quality of life for Mt. Airy residents through what 19 we call "responsive community development," and over 20 the years, we've carried out our mission by 21 providing housing counseling to first-time home 22 buyers and now to older homeowners as well, 23 providing high school students with summer jobs that 24 are career-oriented, and teaming up with the 25 business associations to deliver supportive services 116 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 to our area merchants. We've also developed business recruitment strategies, and most importantly, we've acquired and rehabbed commercial properties along Germantown Avenue, which is our primary commercial corridor. Recently, Mt. Airy USA broke ground on an 18,000 square foot office and retail complex that will deliver new businesses and services to our community. It includes a branch of the Philadelphia Federal Credit Union and offices for Nationwide Insurance. Our work over the past five years has also brought new businesses to Germantown Avenue. The Trolley Car Diner and North By Northwest are just two examples of new businesses that are claiming citywide media attention. And more entrepreneurs are considering Mt. Airy as a viable location for their businesses. With respect to the residential market, we're finding that housing prices are rising and Realtors are frustrated buyers who are encountering limited supply. But does this evidence of a rebounding business climate and rising housing prices suggest 117 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 that people have stopped leaving Mt. Airy and that they've been leaving it, really, for lower Montgomery County, which is our adjacent neighbor. Unfortunately, the answer to that question is no. 6 And the reasons for our continued population loss are many. They're the same ones you've heard earlier today, which include inadequate public schools, quality-of-life crimes, which in Mt. Airy are auto theft, burglary, and muggings, and high taxes. And they are the same issues that plague all of Philadelphia's neighborhoods. However, in Mt. Airy, that is not the full story. Because people live in our community for second reasons: It's a historic neighborhood that's been recognized nationally for its significant and successful racial and socioeconomic integration. It is a community of acceptance and activism, and it's a middle-income neighborhood that is very attractive as it's defined by trolley tracks (inaudible). But the rest are willing to put up with the public schools. They get involved in terms of trying to support it through parent-teacher organizations, or they serve on the Mt. Airy Schools Committee. There are cooperative schools and 118 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 home-teaching associations. We have superb parochial and private schools, so we offer lots of options for our homeowners. In addition, they adjust to repeated burglaries and car thefts, and they just seem to shake off the nuisances. But one of the things that's having an impact is the cumulative effect, and people are beginning to pack and leave. The post office, for example, our community post office, is expected to close in May, and there is no discussion of another site for that.
The poorly maintained supermarket is threatening not only to leave, but they're saying they're going to put a restrictive covenant on the land so that we won't have another supermarket in our community. For every high-quality establishment that we seem to open up, there's another nuisance business that opens its doors. And the blight along our commercial corridor is infecting our houses in our housing community by creating abandonment within the unit blocks. Mt. Airy residents are getting used to 119 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 leaving the City for their shopping and their entertainment work and sometimes even for school, choosing school choice in the informal manner of fake addresses. And eventually, it just makes sense to leave the City altogether for some of them. So what can we do to stem the tide of out-migration from one of Philadelphia's stable neighborhoods? We need the City's help, we need to be a partner with the City. With respect to the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, we're excited about some of the aspects it offers. For example, it offers government reform, which, for in terms of a community-based development corporation, if we can have the City reform some of its operations -- for example, we spoke about some of the challenges with acquisition; there's problems with the Department of Records in terms of being speedy and in terms of delivering property that's owned by the City of Philadelphia. For example, it took us 12 months as part of our development project to finally settle title on City-owned real estate. And then after that, we're still dealing with some of the $20,000 in back taxes that the City hasn't 120 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 cleared from this real estate, which threatens our development project. So those are some of the things in terms of the promise of government reform that's one of the ideals of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. It also promises renewed investment in all neighborhoods, including middle-income neighborhoods like Mt. Airy. We need this investment in order to keep our residents from leaving Philadelphia and crossing the county line. And it also promises a spirit of cooperation between government, the private sector, and community-based organizations like Mt. Airy. I welcome questions at this point if there are any.
Thank you. I don't see anyone with any questions.
I just want to applaud all of you for just the wonderful work that you do. I think that the hearings have been very informative. And, again, I want to thank you for coming in. Thank you so much. I believe we have one more witness. 121 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562
No. We're going to spend -- this committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon. Yes, sir? UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: We want to speak now before recess because of all the people that are waiting to go.
Are you scheduled to testify this afternoon at 2 o'clock? UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Yes.
I'm Nancy Salandra, with the Philadelphia Affordable Housing Coalition.
We are a collaborative of organizations, including Congresso de Latinos, Dignity Housing, Disabled in Action, Kensington 122 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 Welfare Rights Union, Liberty Resources, and Women's Community of Revitalization Project. We are committed to increasing resources for affordable housing in the City of Philadelphia. Affordable housing for us means housing that is decent and accessible and for which families earning less than $18,000 a year do not have to pay more than 30 percent of their income. We are invited here today to address the question of what we see as the most pressing question facing our city. For us, the issue is affordable housing. We as organizations work every day with people who work hard at low-wage jobs, often two jobs seldom less than 40 hours a week and who commonly spend well over half of their income on housing, housing that is frequently deplorable. Anyone who drives around this city is visually assaulted by the conditions of the City's housing. It literally takes your breath away. A lot of what is called "blight" in Philadelphia is actually housing, places where people live and try to raise their children -- delapidated, vermin-infested, coated by harmful lead dust, freezing in the winter, leaking when it rains, 123 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 vulnerable to fire or outright collapse, often very crowded, but seldom cheap. In the past months, we've been hearing a lot from elected officials, policy-makers, and planners and academics about the Mayor's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, an ambitious proposal that promises to do much that needs to be done. It also is certain to transform radically Philadelphia's neighborhoods. One expert's perspective missing from the debate so far, however, is the people in the neighborhoods who will be affected most by this massive program, families stretched to the limit to keep a roof, any kind of roof over their heads. These families know what the lack of affordable smells like, tastes like, feels like. They know the difference decent, affordable, accessible, and permanent housing can make in Philadelphia's neighborhoods. Will the Mayor's plan mean more of this kind of housing? This is one of the questions low-income Philadelphians might want to ask the planners, City Councilmembers, and the Mayor. There are other questions: Which houses 124 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 will be demolished? Will my family be able to stay in my neighborhood? Will my mother's property taxes go up? Will new housing be created that my daughter can afford? Can my son get a job keeping the lots clean? Do I, who have lived in the community my whole life, have a say in what happens in my neighborhood? The Neighborhood Transformation Initiative will be unlike any other neighborhood initiative undertaken in recent memory. The stated intent of the plan, again, is radical transformation, a complete overhaul from top to bottom for the City's most depressed neighborhoods. Given the enormity of the impact of the transformation initiative will have on the residents of these neighborhoods, it is essential that every effort be made to involve them as partners in the initiative planning process. A necessary first step in accomplishing this is the District Councilmembers to hold hearings in their districts. This is especially important for districts likely to be primary targets of the initiative. Hearings here in City Hall are not enough because the central location is actually a 125 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 barrier in a far-flung city, and because City Hall hearings take place during the day, preventing working people, especially the working poor, from attending. We at the Philadelphia Affordable Housing Coalition believe that holding hearings, public hearings, in the districts is an essential first step that City Council can take towards making sure that NTI meets the needs of all Philadelphians.
A fair and just approach to the neighborhood transformation will make every effort to include the voice and priorities of current Philadelphians, not just the theoretical voice of the possible future residents whose incomes allow them the flexibility to move to revitalized upscale neighborhoods where blight has been eliminated. Thank you for this chance to speak.
Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record, please.
My name is Jimmy Shrode, and I am with Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania. 126 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 Disabled in Action is a grassroots agency group by and for people with disabilities. We have been in existence for 28 issues and address the issues facing us in education, employment access, attendant services, health care, and most importantly, housing. We serve all people with disabilities no, matter what their age or their disability, and we have members in all of the areas of the City of Philadelphia as well as some in outlying Pennsylvania. There's a dire housing crisis in the City of Philadelphia for people with disabilities. Housing is a basic necessity for everyone and especially for people with disabilities who live in Philadelphia. According to the Office of Housing and Community Development on of the Year 27 Consolidated Plan, the number of people with disabilities in need of housing is 65,300 people. This is 30 times more than people with AIDS, 10 times more than the frail elderly, and 10 times more than people with mental -- health and mental retardation. The housing crisis for people with disabilities has been due to a lack of enforcement 127 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 and implementation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, especially concerning the Philadelphia Housing Authority, a lack of 1affordable housing for people with very low incomes. People with disabilities live on an income of approximately $6,000 a year or less. There is an 85 percent unemployment among people with disabilities. Affordable housing for us really has just been a dream. We have never been able to have access to it either physically or economically. In 1997, the Office of Housing and Community Development entered into a partnership with the Disabled in Action to try to address the unmet housing concerns of people and family members with disabilities, but after four years, it's become apparent that the City has not been able to significantly alter or diminish our housing crisis. The vast majority of people with disabilities cannot afford any of the accessible housing units, which have been developed with tax credits and City financing because it is aimed at 30 percent below median area income. People with disabilities disabilities are 80 percent or more below the median 128 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 area income. As an advocate, I have come across many people with disabilities who are living in the most horrible circumstances. People are paying anywhere from 80 to 120 percent of their incomes on rents for inaccessible apartments. These apartments are usually owned by slum lords. These slum lords keep these places in horrible and deplorable conditions. There are many people that live without windows that adequately open or close or even glass panes in the windows, heating, any of the major systems such as electricity or water. And yet these slum lords have been able to make profit off people with disabilities and also people who are poor in this city by thumbing their nose at Licenses and Inspections and never having to meet any of the codes that housing has to meet. That is why the Disabled in Action is a member of Philadelphia Affordable Housing Coalition, and we endorse the call for affordable and accessible housing for people who make under $18,000 a year. We really need housing that is integrated. 129 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 Currently, housing that has been built for people with disabilities have been in congregant settings. People with disabilities have been and are still placed in disability-only apartments controlled by nursing homes and other services providers. These apartments have been placed away from the community as a whole. " We want to live in homes that are integrated with non-disabled people of all ages. We want to be a part of every community and be a vital, giving member of the community.
We cannot do that in the segregated high-rises, often in a forgotten corner of town. Moreover, we need to increase some of the access-modification program. Currently, it's only at $2 million and underserves people with disabilities, many of whom who live in housing that doesn't often meet the codes required by Licenses and Inspections. A lot of people with disabilities who do own their own homes do not have the money or the means to fix up their homes when their homes need repairs. So there needs to be some coordination 130 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 between the access modification program and any emergency home repair programs in the City so that people with disabilities don't have to lose the homes that they do have, and these homes don't have to turn into blighted shells. " By being visitable, we mean a home with a zero-step entrance, a 36-inch wide doorway, a path of travel that is 36 inches wide, and an accessible powder room that a person in a wheelchair can use and be able to close the door behind them. This allows people with disabilities to visit other people in the neighborhood and it allows elderly to age in place so that they are able to keep their homes. Already the United Kingdom has embraced this concept. In the United States, Austin, Texas, and Atlanta, Georgia, have adopted these ordinances. Disabled in Action has information and videotapes regarding visitability. In the end, what we really want is affordable, accessible, integrated housing. 131 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Council will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. Thank you. - - - (Counsel stands in recess, then reconvenes.) - - -
Good afternoon, everyone. We're back in the public hearing regarding Resolution 010562. Mr. McPherson, who is our next witness?
Good afternoon. And thank you very much, Madam President. It's my honor to address this Council regarding the issues of neighborhood transformation from the standpoint, 132 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 one, as a longtime resident and community activist of some sorts in North Philadelphia primarily based in the 28th Ward and the 5th Councilmatic District of Councilman Darrell Clarke, and also as a business owner in that same neighborhood who's decided to pull down stakes and to make sure that we could maintain as much positive activity as possible in the community. I was here earlier this morning for approximately two hours and listened to a lot of the testimony from a number of the neighborhood groups and in addition to some of the people who were stakeholders in the process -- or potential stakeholders in the process. One of my concerns -- and there are many, but one of my primary concerns is that the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative develop what is a plan of action that can be distributed amongst the people in the community so that we know exactly what the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative is and how it's going to be implemented in our neighborhoods. In the initial meetings regarding neighborhood transformation, we had requested 133 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 information about the plan, meaning that exactly how resources are going to be deployed, exactly what areas, and why, so that we could justify what is going to be done in our neighborhoods. We don't want to see general and wholesale demolition without their being a plan in place to show how that demolition then is going to affect our continued occupancy in the area, because we have a lot of problems in North Philadelphia and we feel that an initiative of this type in intent, as was discussed earlier, could absolutely benefit the residents of this city, but we also want to make sure that it is not just a political process which doesn't lead to effective change for the people in our community. The best way we feel that that could be done is the make sure that the people who are the subjects of the transformation initiative are actually workers who are involved in the transformation process. Because one of the major that problems we have in our community is employment for those who are unskilled laborers or those who are lowly-skilled laborers. And we think there exists a lot of opportunities in an initiative of this type which could help a lot of the people, who 134 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 are outside of the labor pool right now, to help transform themselves, in essence be a part of the solution, instead of staying outside of the process and then remaining a part of the problem. So that is one thing we're really concerned with how the people in the community are going to be involved, if at all, in the transformation process -- the physical transformation process, meaning how they're going to work along with whatever community organizations or municipal agencies that are going to be involved with actually implementing this plan in a comprehensive way. Secondarily, one of our concerns is how do we ensure that we move to stabilize the existing communities that exist, the housing stock, and to maintain and improve our economic development corridors and strips. Because one thing that I find a lot in traveling around North Philadelphia and West Philadelphia is that the areas that are closest to the economic development strips in, for example 52nd and Market Street, in North Philadelphia, we have 29th and York Streets and the like. In and around those areas, you have blighted conditions 135 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 that have not really been addressed so that they can then be a part of improving on what those strips are, because most of those commercial strips developed out of the late '70 in the Model Cities programs.
Some of them may have developed in the '80s under the Enterprise Zone programs, and then in the '90's under the Empowerment Zone programs. So at every interval and every decade, there was change, and there's a lot of change that is going around us in Philadelphia, but we're not keeping pace with the change because we don't have an effective plan that then replaces over time the things that we lose every ten years or so. For example, we don't have an effective plan which replaces population in the housing setting, and we don't have an effective plan which replaces businesses that go out of business in economic development setting. So we're not replacing what we lose. And that's, I think, one of the things that the resolution was designed to address: To identify how we can replace the population and how we can replace the businesses that we have been losing in our cities. We don't see a real distinction in a real 136 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 sense between housing and economic development. Earlier a lot of the speakers spoke about affordable housing, and a lot of the concentration was on the housings stock. Absolutely that is critical, but it's very important also to maintain economic development in a coordinated fashion that connects with the housing. 'Cause a lot of times what will happen is that the people in the neighborhoods where the housing is will then take their dollars outside of that neighborhood and spend those dollars with businesses in other communities, which there is no problem with, but ultimately, we need to make sure that the business that is exist in those communities are supported by the residents that live there. So I spoke very generally. And specifically, I would like to speak about the housing issue as we see it, as I have been requested from some community groups to address, because I guess me being a lawyer and me having some experience in this regard, there are some things that I could address. One of foremost problems in stabilizing, as I talked about -- I'm still under the 137 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 stabilization issue -- in stabilizing the housing stock is that the buildings as they get older, those that are not in imminent danger of collapse and that do not present a very significant problem in terms of structural condition in our communities, they will at some point present those problems because those properties are not being repaired. So I think there needs to be at some point an initiative to make sure that there is a fund developed, a grant fund. And if that can't be supported in terms of our budgetary issues, maybe a loan fund, but some type of fund which allows for anywhere from 2,000 to $5,000 so that people can apply for that money to fix up those properties which are not in imminent danger of collapse but which just need repair.
I'm speaking of properties that may be maintained and, in some instances, yes, vacant properties. Because a lot of us, it may be a roof needed to stabilize the property and --
In the concept of this program, there is encapsulation.
So the encapsulation would address part of what you are talking about, would it not?
Yes, it would. But then the other part, if I were to go and attempt to acquire a vacant property on my block from the Vacant Property Review Committee and I go through that process, then once I would acquire that, then the -- realistically, there becomes a need at some point in time for financial resources in order to stabilize that property. Sometimes folks can come in and do that, but they can't raise the money in order to stabilize the process. So they can get the property but they don't have the funds to put a roof on it, to repair some beams or some joists that may be faulty, to prepare a utility system, whether that be heating, electrical, or otherwise. And this is something that they could do potentially with small contractors and organizations that exist out there already which are City-certified and which would come in and do those 139 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 repairs. But if the cost then becomes a or a $15,000 issue, then often that's way beyond the scope of what someone can do in getting that property repaired and then get someone in there so that they can either get rental income or they can buy it for themselves or their families. So I feel that if a fund exists in that range of 2 to $5,000, that amount of money really 10 can repair a lot of the properties that may eventually go under demolition and act as a preemptive strike in a sense against wholesale demolition. And there was a discussion earlier about some of the cost of rehabilitation as opposed to the cost of demolition. And certainly, it would probably be easier to demolish some of the properties, but then is there a plan upon demolition to address what the potential use would be and how much the cost would be for including that property in an overall area-wide plan? One of the good things about North Philadelphia plan, even though it fell short of its broad-based goals, was that it did identify what were some of these significant issues, and you can 140 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 still go and look at the plan and see what may have been achieved and what may not have been achieved. " I don't know if that exists in this current initiative. I hope that it does, and that is what we have been asking all along in terms of the initiative. Does it present a plan of action which allows us to get involved and have input into that process? So those are some of the issues from the standpoint of stabilization. It's a very, very real problem when you create more and more needs from demolition as opposed to stabilizing the existing stock in and around our city, and I think we need to focus on stabilization and secondarily on demolition. Thirdly, we've talked about a number of the other issues which have a collateral effect upon development in our city, and we know those issues are education, those issues are crime, and those 141 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 issues are just general neglect, but not neglect in some cases. On the issue of education, we feel that it's important to make sure that the educators understand that there is a causal link between the outcome of education and how the young people in our city are educated and the continual repopulation of our communities. If our people are not educated in the proper way, then they cannot then get the employment, which allows them to joint the tax base, which allows them to then purchase houses, which keeps the link of activity going and going and going. And in and around our schools a lot of times, it gets back to stabilization. There are a lot of vacant properties which could be utilized, if rehabilitated, for some type of training program, an initiative which is going to link the education of the young people to their daily activities in school.
So that if you know that you do not have the resources to have a great computer program in your school, then there may be a community organization that can have the property across the street and then to utilize that nonprofit structure, 142 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 if supported through our local foundations, to then service the students in the school where they can come after school and get training, which is going to help to develop their skills and talents, whether that be computer training, whether that be basic -- basic construction training, any kind of training which allows them then to not only go from the school but then to link into other activities which are happening in the community that would then increase the output of those young people being involved in a productive manner once they graduate from school. I don't see the properties that are around and near our schools which are vacant properties being utilized as buffers or in any way linking school activity to the activity that's going on out of school. I see a lot of those properties being used for a lot of negative reasons -- being used to sell drugs and some other things, when those properties can be shored up and made a part of the school extension. I know before, there used to not only be the major school, but there were extension activities which helped those schools to graduate our young people. 143 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 So from the standpoint of housing and its influence even upon the surrounding reality of our schools, that's one thing Also crime. The overall impact of crime upon our communities is very devastating, but one of the issues that is important is that the Police Department and the law enforcement community be more proactive in reaching out to our communities and working along with us. And you see that happening now where you have some community policing efforts going around the City, which are going to help with effort like neighborhood transformation and others to try to transform our communities. So it's important, we see, to make sure that there is no separation in the way that we look at this population loss and the way that we look at transforming our communities, that education is linked with crime, crime is linked with housing, housing is linked with economic development. We look at them all as being part and parcel of a larger process, which we as a community believe to have some input into. So I would like to challenge Council to continue to reach out in efforts of this nature to 144 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 make sure that community residents -- and not just those who are already involved in the process, but those who are out there who have not been involved, who may not even know about these types of sessions, and certainly may not have access to get to these type of sessions, that Council continue to reach out to people and make sure that folks are involved. That means that then Council holds meetings in the community at our churches, at our schools, at our other places of activity. I think those are important things because Council really serves as the body which is protecting the interests of the larger communities. And its pure legislative function is one thing, but I think also Council's function goes beyond just enacting legislation but making sure that the people are involved in the processes of government. And a lot of that will not take place necessarily from an executive level. It really has to happen from the standpoint of Council in its role as a legislative body. So I would encourage the Council to try to reach out and to take that reach-out into our communities and make sure that people have a part in 145 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 what happens with not only this particular initiative but with everything that Council is doing, because a lot of times we don't really know out in the communities what's going on down here in City Hall.
And our people are largely not informed in many cases, and in some cases, overwhelmed by the nature of the process that exists here in this governmental body, and they just will not saying anything because they don't know what's going on. So I applaud Council for this effort and encourage you to continue to reach out to the people and make sure that they know what's going on. Councilman Nutter spoke earlier about the mechanics as it relates to this process, and he discussed his concern that people know about really what was going on, and he asked some questions, and folks said that they didn't really know from a planning standpoint where this process was. That is in essence really why I am here. I wanted to take the message back to my community to let people know what was going on and what is going on from the standpoint of the plan, from the standpoint of the ground level, not those who are already necessarily involved, but those who would 146 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 like to be involved in this process, and to make sure that Council demands as a part of its charge to the Administration that that information be transmitted to the public. Because so far, we really don't know -- I mean we -- we support the Mayor and we support exactly any effort that's going to try to bring Philadelphia into the 21st century and make us the world-class city that we are and make us a better city, but we certainly want to know what the reality is, the real deal, not just, you know, the speeches and the like. We want to know what the transformation really is and how that's going to takes place. I don't think we can know that without the involvement of Council and Council buffering some of that information down to the community from whatever levels that that exists. Those are some of the issues that I just wanted to raise for the purposes of my community. And if you have any questions, I will gladly address some of those.
Thank you I know that you were here earlier this morning, and we did call your name out, but 147 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 apparently, you had left.
I'm delighted that you came out, because I think you have clearly expressed your concern and I guess not really knowing too much about the program. We are hoping to have community meetings and I'm sure that Councilman Clarke will undoubtedly want a meeting in his district, at which time I think that we could spell out exactly what the concept is of the blight program. Presently, nearly 75 percent of the proposed new money in the NTI initiative is dedicated to demolition. In total, about 4,000 lots are proposed to be cleared. Given no other change in resources, I just can't imagine how many of these lots either your organization or many of the organizations throughout the City would be able to redevelop during the next five years. This is a five-year program, as you may be aware.
And I know that some people are thinking that we're moving at a 148 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 snail's pace on this. Nevertheless, I think it's something that we should all be very aware as to how this money is going to be used. And you talk about vacant buildings. There are schools. That truly disturbs me because I don't think that we should ever have a vacant building near a school because I know that in my district, there was a very large vacant building directly across the street from the school, and there were such nightmarish stories that I heard about what was going on, and it cost a great deal of money to have that building demolished. But it was demolished and we still have a vacant parcel of ground there that could certainly be developed into something worthwhile. But, again, it's the resources, and not everybody has the resources in which to build something there. But I'm sure that there will be a great deal of discussion on this, and we would be more than happy to come in to your community.
Are there any questions or comments? The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode. 149 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562
For the record, Mr. Sharp is a friend of mine for over ten years and a campaign contributor.
Mr. Sharp, because I've had the benefit of talking with your for many years over these type of subjects, I wanted to have you reemphasize a part of your testimony where you talked about education, investment education, and the fact that an investment just in the school district is not enough. And I don't want to paraphrase, but you're saying that basically, there has to be community involvement after school by community-based organizations. Could you just elaborate upon that vision and how investment in the school district and reform in the school district itself is not enough, but investing in community-based organizations that are concerned about education. 150 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562
Yes. What we have been able to do up in Strawberry Mansion is that we have made a concerted effort to go into the schools and to pull out as much as possible young people who were interested in being involved in activities beyond the scope of just their normal 8-to-3 reality, and we found that there were a lot of young people who were interested in that, but the resources that they have to do that are somewhat limited, and they depend largely upon the business in our community and the nonprofits in our community to present them with opportunities to continue their education and to broaden the scope of their training. So what we've seen is that when we bring in young people from the community and teach them the way to operate a business, teach them basic computer training and how to navigate the Internet, when we teach them how to plan and organize special events, because of a lot of times, young people would like to put together special events to raise funds for some of their activities, their organizations, their sports needs, etc. When we have gotten involved with the schools and we've gotten involved with the young people, we've seen a 151 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 greater interest and involvement not only by the community groups but by the young people in those communities, and that they are very willing to be a part of the process of the redevelopment of our communities. Now, we have a long way to go, but we feel that the community is a very important player in the process of reorganization and transformation from the state that we are into the state of the reality that we'd like to be. And, unfortunately, the funding issues and problems in our schools, which we all know about, and the involvement of the private sector and the Edison organization and the like have caused some concern because some people feel that they have not been allowed a voice and a say in what should happen with our schools, and they're the ones out there on the front line who are working to make the educational process as beneficial as possible for our youth. So certainly, we feel that the community organization is a very important player in the process of transforming not only the physical realities in our communities but also the mental 152 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 realities and making sure that people are involved in change, because right now, there's a lot of change going on anyway around us. The change has kind of exceeded our capacity to deal with it. But I think that with efforts of this nature, if we open up the process to the people in the communities who are dealing with the problems, then we will catch up to the changes and get ahead of the curve. Right now, we're a little behind the curve.
Clearly you're saying also that if we don't stimulate our young people's minds after school, then it's going to be a reflection upon what happens within the schools and within the community.
Yes, it will. It will have a negative reflection if we don't. And it will also mean that the folks who are primarily going to be benefiting from whatever initiatives we have like neighborhood transformation will not be a part of that process. And if such, that means that we can build up great structures but if the folks who are going to benefit from that then destroy those structures because they're not a part 153 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 of the process, then we've actually wasted a lot of time and money on doing things that are not going to reach the desired result because we don't -- we didn't involve the people in it who were supposed to actually change the process. And that's one of the things that's just wrong now with a lot of what we do as leaders and such, but it's a very difficult job that you all have, but you just have to make sure as much as possible that you try to involve the people who are going to be most affected by the decisions that are made by this body and other bodies in the actual process of decision-making.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Mr. Sharp, thank you for coming in to testify, and thank you for your patience.
And thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 154 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562
Is a panel. Ellen Somekawa, Kevin Conare, Steve Culbertson, Paul Malvey, and Ed Schwartz. (Witnesses come forward.)
Mr. Schwartz, I guess you're going to be last, are you not?
So we'll be getting ourselves quite comfortable for your testimony. Who's going to testify first?
I have prepared testimony but it doesn't speak specifically to the initiative but looks more broadly at the question of blight and makes the assumption that blight is the product of 155 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 people choosing to leave the City, so I'm thinking that we have to really examine what makes people stay or leave. My family and I have made a commitment to making Philadelphia our home. We bought a house in Olney. My spouse is a public school teacher of ten years, and I have spent a good part of the past twelve years helping to build Asian-Americans United, a community organization dedicated to strengthening Asian communities in Philadelphia. For the past six years, I've been executive director of Asian-Americans United. The single factor that has ever caused my partner and I to discuss leaving Philadelphia has been the thought of sending our son to the Philadelphia public schools. We want to stay and be a part of the fight for quality education for all children, but what if the cost of staying is to sacrifice our child's opportunities to develop to his full potential? We want to be a part of the diverse and vibrant mix that is Philadelphia, but we also want our child to have access to schooling that is challenges, rigorous, and safe. And I know that we are not alone in this. 156 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 What families want is to live and raise their children in healthy, environmentally-just, and sustainable communities. Baseball stadiums, regional performing art centers, and hotel rooms do not get us there. Tow trucks and wrecking balls will not get us there either. Today I want to talk specifically about the crisis of Philadelphia public schools. This nation and this commonwealth have made it a policy to turn its back on poor children. The underfunding and unequal funding of public schools in poor communities in this country should be called out for what it is: Neglect, willful, criminal child neglect. What else do you call it when children go to schools with leaky roofs, peeling paint, closets for bathrooms, and filthy bathrooms? What else do you call it when children can go through 12 years of schooling and leave without being able to read? What else do you call it when children are labeled "failures" for the failures of the adults who are responsible for them? It is repugnant that Tom Ridge and State legislators have been using the failures of the 157 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 Philadelphia public schools as a rhetorical wedge in the push for the privatization of public schools. The public schools in Philadelphia are in their current state of neglect because of the inadequate funding from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. With its unjust and inequitable State funding formula, the Commonwealth is violating its constitutional responsibility to provide for the thorough and efficient education of all children. The Commonwealth has shown it would rather pour money into imprisoning our children than in educating them. And then these same decision-makers are the very ones who now say that they are appalled by the conditions of our schools. I am speaking to you about this because I find that there is an unforgivable lack of City leadership in responding to this crisis of our schools. What the folks of this City expect and deserve is for City leaders to stand up in defense of our children in the face of the attacks. I'm talking specifically about the Mayor, City Council, and the School Board. What we expect is for City leaders to be addressing the crisis of our public schools with a 158 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 sense of urgency, moral outrage, and purpose. Instead what we have been giving is vague and simpering resignation. I expect City Council to take a stand in principle against the privatization of Philadelphia public schools, to examine and pursue all avenues for fighting against this fundamental and historic step backwards. Why? 1.
Privatizing the public schools would be a fundamental betrayal of the principle that all children are entitled to a free public education. " Why is the Mayor so anxious to say that to our children. Is City Council going to be complicit in its breach with a century-old social contract, the promise of universal, free public education? 2. Public education works. Just look in the suburbs, in places with an adequate tax base to sustain quality public schools. Why is it that school districts serving poor children, like Chester 159 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 and Philadelphia, are subjected to these experiments in privatization? It's because privatization is A crass attempt to get out of committing adequate funding for our schools by instead disclaiming responsibility for them. The same suburban politicians who tell us that you can't fix the problems of public education by throwing money at it lavish money on the schools of their own children. This society has the money and the will to educate an elite, but rather than commit the same kind of resources to the children of the poor and disenfranchised, we engage in a charade of commissioning study after study to learn how to make schools that work. We know how to make schools that work. What we lack is the will to do it. I expect the City Council to join in as a plaintiff in the racial discrimination lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Every time the City agrees to postpone action on its racial lawsuit against the Commonwealth, it is submitting to extortion. It is trading off the only long-term solution to the crisis of our public schools for temporary favor with State officials. 160 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 By allowing the Mayor alone to speak on behalf of the City of Philadelphia and to postpone action on the lawsuit time after time, City Council is ceding its responsibility and giving up its own responsibility for the well-being of the children of this city. I expect City Council to examine its own funding priorities, even as it is challenging the Commonwealth to live up to its obligations. I expect City Council to demand that the Edison report be made public and that there be public engagement on this issue. Don't allow our children's futures to be decided in backroom deals and behind-the-door trading. It's bad enough when those practices bought us NexTurf; let's not make the same mistakes when it comes to decisions that affect the life chances of future generations of Philadelphians. For our part, we will fight for our children, we will fight so that they are able to grow into the literal, articulate, analytical, critical, passionate, creative, committed, confident people that we know that they are capable of being. We ask that you join in the fight with us. 161 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562
Hello. My name is Steve Culbertson, the executive director of the Community Development Corporation of Frankford Group Ministry. I want to thank you, Madam President, and members of City Council for allowing me and all of us to speak today. In a moment, I'll speak about my experiences with population loss and neighborhoods revitalization in Philadelphia. However, I want to be clear at the outset that I am in support of the Mayor's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. I am in support because we need to embark down this pathway of revitalizing neighborhoods wholesale in Philadelphia. I've been involved in the revitalization of low-income communities in Philadelphia for the last 12 years. Currently, I'm working to stabilize and revitalize parts of Frankford. I've also worked in eastern and North Philadelphia and West Philadelphia. If there's one thing I've learned in Philadelphia, it is that there's no easy answer to turning around neighborhoods that are declining economically. However, the solution to 162 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 neighborhoods decline is out there. It is not simple, fast or cheap. If we want to change our neighborhoods, we must invest heavily in four things: Land acquisition, demolition of existing structures, abatement of environmental hazards, and restoration of the infrastructure. This is number one. And in other words, the Mayor's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. Real-estate development and home improvement to stimulate residential and commercial markets in Philadelphia's neighborhoods; in other words, a little bit of NTI. Crime prevention to make neighborhoods completely safe. And education, because all of these other things are irrelevant as long as the public school system of the City of Philadelphia fails to provide a decent education for its children. Let's take the last one first. I believe in order to bring about neighborhood transformation, the single most important issue that we must address in the City is education. It's the single most important factor in why people flee Philadelphia. 163 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 People appear willing to put up with some petty crime and high taxes if there is a decent public school for their children to attend. The most recent example of this is in my neighborhood with the new public school in University City neighborhood. Property values in some sections of my community have more than doubled since the announcement that Penn was backing a new public school. Then there's crime. Crime is actually the second most cited figure in population loss, as far as I know. People leave Philadelphia because they are scared of being victims of crime. I won't talk about this issue because I'm no expert on it, and it appears that we're starting to deal with crime under the leadership of Chief Timoney -- though I do believe that there's a limit to what can be done as long as any guns -- that's right, I said "any guns" -- within the City limits. With these things said, removal of blight, or more exactly, the transformation of our neighborhoods through land reform is absolutely necessary if we are to stem the tide of out-migration from Philadelphia. And I think even 164 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 more importantly make Philadelphia a destination residential community which, let's face it, if we fail to do, will leave Philadelphia without the revenue to support City government. This picture is rather bleak. I don't want to leave you there. The Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, which, I would agree, is not perfect, and asks that we trust the executive branch of government way too much for comfort, is the best shot we've had to bring about Philadelphia's neighborhoods. What will be the result of this initiative? A lot of cleared and hopefully clean land. Is that enough? No. But it's a lot better than what we've got now. And I do believe -- and I guess I would say if I don't believe that if you clear it, they will come.
I don't believe that for one minute. In select sites close to Center City, the rivers and the outer rim, yes, some for-profit market-rate developers will come and be able to make a lot of money. But guess what? If you give me cleared land and cleaned land in large quantities in the majority of Philadelphia's neighborhoods, I'll 165 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 give you community development corporations. Yeah, that's right, here we are. That's what we've been doing for the last ten years, with no land, little support beyond the Office of Housing and Community Development, the Redevelopment Authority, and the Commerce Department, and truly meager resources. We're here, we're planted, and we're ready to develop all that land. Use CDCs. CDCs are creative, flexible, nonprofit real-estate development organizations under community direction, staffed by crazy, dedicated tenacious people who rarely take no for an answer. Who better to be working with over the next two years while we acquire, clear, and clean all that land to plan with and to continue to develop Philadelphia's neighborhoods. Use CDCs. In short, CDCs are going to need a lot of money to build new communities and rebuild old communities within our neighborhoods. In fact, we're not just going to need $250 million. The figure is probably more like 4 or $5 billion. So, yes, I'd like to see us allocate more of the NTI resources to development through CDCs and low- and moderate-income communities, but we can't 166 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 afford that right now. What we can afford and are poised to do is just start the acquisition process, which is the beginning of all development projects. So let's start it now. I beg of you, pass NTI. And while we're going through the acquisition phase, use CDCs to plan, figure out financing, and then develop stores and houses and apartments and schools and factories for the future of Philadelphia's neighborhoods. Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is Paul Malvey. I'm director of land-use management at New Kensington Community Development Corporation. I'd like to thank the Council for this opportunity to address the issue of population loss in Philadelphia. According to our surveys and community meetings, we have found that the quality-of-life issues are the most important to the people in our community. Among these life issues, the quality of education stands out. For couples with children, the primary concern is the quality of education at 167 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 all levels. Although there are fine examples of good schools in this city, such as McCall, Masterman, Girls', and Central High, across the board, the perception is that there is the lack of quality education. Another concern to residents and business owners alike is the problem of the City's tax structure. Of major concern to most of our neighbors is the law enforcement issue. The perceived lack of police response and the failure of Licenses and Inspections Unit to enforce laws that already on the books are problems that must be addressed. Teen vandalism, recklessness, underage drinking, drug use, troublesome neighbors, unlicensed car lots, and misuse of vacant land are some examples of our neighbors' complaints. I have personally been to Town Meetings where police captains have promised zero-tolerance for underage drinking and drug use, but with no 22 constant and continued campaign to address these issues, they just creep back to business as usual in no time at all. Quality-of-life issue should have some 168 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 parity with criminal issues if good people are going to be encouraged to stay in the City. An issue we have been dealing with New Kensington, Fishtown, and Port Richmond has been blight, vacant land, and abandonment. We know the people with resources will not live for long in a dump. Since 1996, our partnership with the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, new Kensington has aggressively targeted vacant, abandoned lots for cleanup and renewal. From simple stabilization -- for example, trees planted around the perimeter and mowing of grasses and weeds to community gardens and pocket parks and by working with City Council and other City agencies, we have transferred over 160 vacant parcels to adjacent homeowners and transformed over 500 parcels of land, each parcel representing a row home, into attractive green spaces. All of this has been accomplished by engaging the community in the planning and development and by insisting on workdays to ensure a feeling of investment in the process and the pride of accomplishment. While once-large tracts of vacant land and 169 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 trash were ignored or avoided, a couple of tires or a small pile of trash now bring calls to us in City services to have the mess removed. This represents a major shift in perception. What was commonplace before is no longer tolerated. The people who live around Comrade Square, a small park dedicated to a firefighter killed in fire in our neighborhood in 1996, have worked constantly with the help of our councilman, Frank DiCicco and the Philadelphia Horticultural Society and New Kensington CDC to clean and restore this park to a bright green space and a fitting memorial to a fine and decent man. These Friends of Comrade Square are now working with the police and with each other to bring -- to begin working on this use of drug-dealing that has sprung up around the park. By coming together to clean and regreen this once-rundown park, they now feel empowered to begin working on other issued related to their quality of life. In the last three years, several new businesses have moved into the neighborhood, including Yards Brewery, which has relocated from 170 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 Roxborough.
Most of these businesses have noted the maintained appearance of the neighborhood and have said that it looked like a place where people care about their community. Recently, a long-term vacant building on Frankford Avenue has been purchased by a business owner who plans to open a bicycle shop. We like to think that the building became more attractive as a result of the two community gardens next door and across the street that we and the neighbors created. By working to change the visual appearance of a neighborhood, you can encourage people to stay. Where abandonment and trash are commonplace, people feel an emotional depression, a feeling that they have been abandoned along with their surroundings. But if a concerted effort is made to reverse this downward spiral to a positive, uplifting turn, a sense of renewal, a feeling begins that maybe things could be improved with hard work and good will on a community level. Not so long ago, we constantly heard people saying that the first chance they got, they were moving out of here. Now more often we hear that the old neighborhood doesn't look so bad after 171 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 all, that things seem to be improving, and that maybe we can stick around and see what happens. We believe that the reform of education, tax, and law-enforcement issues will take time and determination to accomplish. While these issues are being worked out, a concentrated and sustained effort to attack blight and abandonment with community involvement could be accomplished fairly quickly by comparison. By improving the visual image of the neighborhoods throughout the City, it will lift the spirits of the people who live there and hopefully attract new people to share in a feeling of progress and renewal. Thank you again for allowing New Kensington to address the Council.
Hello. My name is Kevin Conare. I am the executive director of Action AIDS, and I will thank Madam President in absentia and all of the members of City Council. My comments are mostly going to be based on the experience of our clients, but they're also going to be based on the staff of our staff, our 172 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 volunteers, and also myself as a professional who came to live in the City eight years ago. And I think all of those are important because the work that we do does enliven neighborhoods, and it involves all of those people at the same time. We serve about 3,000 individuals and families throughout Philadelphia. And when I say "throughout Philadelphia," I mean not many in the Northeast, but in North, South, Southwest, West Philadelphia, and Center City. And we have about 90 employees, 400 active volunteers. One of the major initiatives that the Mayor has had is redeveloping neighborhoods, and we are extremely supportive of that, and we actually believe that that's what needs to happen. Over the last ten years, we have developed -- you know, we have offices in North Philadelphia and West Philadelphia, and our -- our direction is to develop more and more in those neighborhoods where it makes the most difference. I'm going to say what probably has been said before and it's pretty obvious: Simply tearing down abandoned buildings and putting up new ones does not build a community. That's not to say that 173 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 we shouldn't do it and that's not essential, and I absolutely do believe that it is essential, but it has to be a part of the part of a plan. Real communities are a combination of having people involved in their community and having services at those communities, and those are service of all kinds, whether they're health clinics, social services, cultural centers, recreation centers, stores, parks, good schools, affordable public transportation, etc. And I know that seems really obvious, but I think the way we do our planning makes it seem like we don't believe it, and I just want to make sure that we -- make sure our planning looks to the fact that we do believe that, that we cannot have a neighborhood simply by tearing down a building or building a new one. The way it happens is by having -- and I guess I'm repeating what Mr. Sharp -- I don't know if he's still here and I think that was his first name, the first gentleman speaking said, which is that you have to engage those neighborhoods in that planning. That includes private businesses, that includes not-for-profits like many of us at this table, that includes churches, that includes health 174 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 clinics, schools, but engaging them in the planning there. The City has a lot of strengths, and I think we don't capitalize on that. You know, we have the museums and we have the cultural and seasonal and neighborhood events, we have great hospitals, we have great clinics. People come into the City from the suburbs to go to our hospitals, but then they flee back out to not have to experience the other things that happen here. But I think if we could build off of those relationships and let us, those of us who are working in communities and particularly those of us that have particular plans for those communities be a part of what's happening there, even down to the land-use portion of it. If you're going to tear down a building, have somebody adopt that piece of parcel of land; don't have 4,000 empty parcels of lands there. You know, President Verna's letter was actually very specific and gave us four questions to answer, so I think maybe I'll go back to those four questions, but I'm going to skip some of my answers because some of them have already been said here. 175 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 The first is, what are the most pressing issues that Philadelphia faces?
First of all, I want to say that coming from a health-care agency, working in AIDS, I will say that health care is not one of the most pressing issues, and that says a lot about both our City clinics and our hospitals and what we're able to do. I do want to emphasize that that's a wonderful thing, there are things that we have done. But two things are education, which I'm not going to talk about because it's been spoken about by a lot of people here; and housing, decent, affordable housing. All I do want to say about education is, though I will say for our volunteers and our staff, and I've watched this as we opened up offices in North and West Philadelphia and hired people from those neighborhoods, almost 100 percent of them, when they have kids, move to the suburbs, even though they were hired and the reason they're working in those neighborhoods is that they were raised in those neighborhoods. So without going further and really letting the words of the people really speak for it, it can't be under-emphasized. 176 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 I want to take a slightly different tack on the affordable housing piece, though in a population we don't think of when we look at economic development, and I'm talking folks who are in subsidized housing or people who are trying to get subsidized housing but can't because there's not enough slots. There are not -- there are so many folks in the City who need subsidized housing and they don't get it. It's simply because there are not enough slots right now, and that means that they live in overcrowded conditions or on the streets. And the people with subsidized housing are living in awful conditions, terrible buildings, ones that are really substandard. And then, of course, people who are not in subsidized housing are still living below standards in terms what they're getting. The reason I'm talking about this, though, is that I think when we're thinking about economic development, we're really thinking about the tax base, and it doesn't seem like helping this group of people is going to help the tax base if these are people who earn entitlements. But not doing something about this is going to continue that downward spiral that we're in because as those 177 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 people live in overcrowded conditions, it is -- it's debilitating in two respects. Number one, it just simply debilitates the buildings they're in and the neighborhoods they're in; it's just that simple. And it debilitates their families, which, in turn, causes the crime, which, in turn, you know, puts other pressures on -- on the neighborhoods and the cities they're living in. So do I think that part of a redevelopment plan really needs to be looking at those folks and making sure that they have decent living conditions so that the whole area is an area that people want to live in. One of the things that -- I guess let me actually go back to what were the questions. The first question was the main issues, how should they be addressed? I guess the way they should be addressed -- what concerns me a little about the current plan, the 250 million plan, which, I will admit, I have not read; I've been told about it. But is that -- $250 million is not a lot of dollars, but there are a lot of dollars out there right now, and I wonder whether those dollars should be used to leverage other dollars, both private and public, and 178 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 make a larger impact that, in fact, infuse the dollars that many of us have either from HUD or dollars that we have from community development, other kinds of dollars, and have them work together, whether you might not get a bigger bang for your buck. We are building -- we have seven lots up at Sixth and Lehigh and are going to be building 10 transitional housing units and an office space 11 there. And I'm using this as an example.
And 12 what's very interesting is that people said to me, people are -- who don't know and who have not worked in these neighborhoods, and we've been at Fifth and Lehigh for many years. They say, Well, are these people going to want you to have, you know, an AIDS housing up in their neighborhood? Well, in fact, there's none of that prejudice in the neighborhoods. We haven't experienced that at all. The community is very supportive. They're partly supportive, though, because we're not just building housing there; we're building our office there, and that we're becoming a part of that community. And I will tell you, very interestingly, on those plots of lands, now that we have decided that this is our 179 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 neighborhood, we're going into those plots of lands, putting up fences, clearing them up every six months; they get filled with trash if you're not monitoring them. The reason I'm using this example is I wonder if you're going to have 4,000 empty lots and they're not adopted and they're not a part of some community, whether it's any of plans that have been spoken here -- I'm not saying it has to be, you know, an AIDS agency building housing, but if they're not adopted, they're going to be a problem for folks. So it's really the two things that working with the communities to see what they want to do with those areas and making sure that a plan is already being done with it, and also seeing if you can leverage some of the dollars that we have. The biggest thing that prevents us from doing this -- and I will be fast and end quickly. The biggest thing that prevents us from doing this is the cost. I have to be careful because I could get a lot of people angry at me, but the cost of building in the City is exorbitant, and we're not going to get anywhere if we don't figure out how to 180 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 deal with it. Some of it is, we have to figure out how to get the costs down. Those of us in the not-for-profits aren't going to go and build in the suburbs anyway because we've already committed ourselves to this city. But if I weren't a not-for-profit and weren't committed to doing this work, I wouldn't try to do it in the City. So some of it is getting costs down, and again, I think some of it is leveraging the City dollars. If in fact community groups can get some sources of funding, can the City put in other sources of funding? So rather than putting in $250 million unaided -- again, it's the whole leveraging thing -- is there a lot more that we can do? So I guess I'm going to end it with that because I think most of the other things have already been said. I want to just reiterate that I think the most important thing in all of these plannings is to really involve all of us who are in the community, let us be a part of the plan -- not just tell us about it, but actually let us be a part of the plan, and then see if there's ways that we can start bringing some of the different sources of 181 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 money to together to make it more than -- to make it that or $5 billion that we really need. Thank you.
I'm wondering if the four of us on the panel that have testified could take questions now, with due respect to Ed Schwartz. He's got a very poignant point and should probably have this table to himself when he testifies. So I'm wondering if there are any questions for the four of us.
Sure. Are there any questions from the committee for the four panelists at the table? (No response.)
No. But I would like to say that I thought that your testimony was absolutely excellent, and I appreciates your coming in. Thank you so much.
My name is Ed Schwartz and 182 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 I'm here from the Institute for the Study of Civic Values. My testimony itself is in the five and a half pages with the cover and the title on the top. I have shared also with you a rather elaborate packet of data from which this testimony comes. I'm happy to leave it here and let you explore it. I refer to it to the extent that you have questions about things I say in the testimony that might be further answered here. I'm happy to do that too. I guess I'll make one added point. The computer databases from which this comes can also generate this sort of thing by Council districts and planning districts, and I'm willing to work with some of you if you're interested to do that for your own districts. As I understand it, the purpose of this hearing is to gain new insight from the public as to why people continue to leave Philadelphia and what, if anything, City government can do to reverse the trend. It's a question well worth asking. Of the top five cities in the United States, Philadelphia was the only one that lost population. We were one of only two cities that lost population in the top ten, the other being 183 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 Detroit. We do have company in Pennsylvania, however, given that Pittsburgh and Erie lost people as well, three of our four major cities. And in fact, the percentage decline in Pittsburgh was percent, higher than here in Philadelphia. But 7 this is small consolation given the historic role of 8 Philadelphia in the country and the assets that we 9 would like to think that the City has today. We used to take solace in saying that all cities face the same problems that we face, but this is no longer the case. Having spent the last five years in managing national e-mails lists of urban activists on the Internet, I am now persuaded that Philadelphia's in significantly worse shape than many cities, and it is still not clear to me that we know how to recover. So I welcome these hearings as a new opportunity to address this critical problem, which gets at the heart of our overall strategy for improving Philadelphia as a whole. Moreover, as I've said, I'm pleased to provide with you a packet of demographic data that sheds considerable light on what happened within this city between 1900 2000 that points to the areas we need to focus our 184 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 attention. IFCV has been tracking neighborhood data for more than years, both in and out of 5 government. Some parts of that tracking occurred 6 right here on this floor. Over the past few years, 7 we have made considerable use of the serious crimes 8 between 1991 and 1997 database on the Philadelphia 9 Inquirer's Web site which enables us to see every 10 crime created around individual addresses during 11 that period of time. 12 Finally, I have held on to a four-year 13 housing production report that was put together as I 14 was leaving OHCD in 1992. The document on 15 rehabilitation activity in every sense was tracked 16 in the City. The report goes back nine years, but 17 OHCD is continuing to work in most of the same 18 areas. It is interesting to see, therefore, what 19 impact, if any, these efforts are having on the 20 demographic patterns of these inner-city neighborhoods. The results are revealing and not encouraging. Within this framework then, I want to first review how population has moved within the City over the past decade. From there, I will 185 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 relate these patterns to other data that we have relating to crime, schools, and housing rehabilitation. And finally, I will lay out what I believe needs to be done to reverse population decline and what the Institute for the Study of Civic Values is already doing. The data here is extensive, but I will summarize what it shows in each instance. 3 percent decline as opposed to the 8 percent that was predicted.
This, in turn, was due to the higher-than-projected influx of Latino and Asian residents to the City. But of 366 census tracts in Philadelphia, only showed an increase in all of 17 our major groups: White, African-American, and 18 Latino. These were mostly in Center City and around 19 University City, with the rest scattered around the 20 small areas in West Philadelphia, Northwest Philadelphia, and the Northeast. Conversely, there were roughly 50 census tracts with a net outflow of all three groups, and that outflow of all three groups -- white, African-American and Latino -- were mostly in 186 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 Southwest, West and North Philadelphia and West Oak Lane. So there were more than twice as many census tracts, which everyone, regardless of race, color, and national origin, left; as there were tracts where all groups wanted to live. There were census tracts where whites 8 moved in while African-American were moving out, 9 mostly in Eastern North Philadelphia up through 10 Hunting Park. There was net population decline of 11 in these areas of 9,507 people. 12 But the main reason for population decline 13 in Philadelphia, both citywide and within individual 14 neighborhoods, remains what everybody knows -- and I 15 would add, but few in the public arena want to 16 discuss openly, namely white flight. 17 There were 848,546 white residents in 18 Philadelphia in 1990. There were only 683,287 white 19 residents in Philadelphia ten years later, a drop of 20 165 270 people. There were 631,936 African-American 21 residents in 1990, 655,824 in 2000, an increase of 22 23,880. And as has received wide attention, there 23 were 89,193 Latino residents in 1990; 128,928 in 24 2000, an increase of 38,735. 25 These citywide statistics are 187 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 well-reflected in the population shifts in our neighborhoods. There were more than 190 census tracts where the white population declined as the African-American population increased. This wasn't even close. An increase of 92,000 African-American residents in these areas was more than offset by the departure of more than 155,000 white residents. The same was true in the 250 tracts where the Latino population increased. 46,000 Latino residents moved in, 146,000 white residents moved out. 108,000 whites left the roughly 80 census tracts with significant Asian populations as well. So while some of us may applaud, as I do, Philadelphia's new look as a multicultural city, nearly percent of our population dropped over the 17 past decade in response, the most compelling reason 18 for why we continue to lose population while most 19 other cities actually grew over the past ten years. 20 The racial and ethnic harmony that now does exist among the civic and political leaders of Philadelphia has yet to be found in many of our neighborhoods. And until we face up to this harsh reality and start addressing it directly, this process will continue. 188 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 Moreover, if there are tangible problems, such as have been addressed in testimony today like crime and failing schools, that contribute to white flight, then these will end up driving out African-American and Latino residents as well. Between 1980 and 2000, the population of lower North Philadelphia dropped from 170,000 to 125,875, more than percent. In 1980, North 10 Philadelphia was mostly African-American. 20,000 11 people left lower North Philadelphia over the past 12 decade, despite the North Philadelphia plan aimed at 13 turning this process around. The same has started 14 to happen in West Oak Lane, as its elected 15 representatives tell us. Today's white flight 16 becomes tomorrow's black flight if serious social 17 problems aren't addressed along the way. 18 And both crime, especially on our major 19 commercial corridors that serve as neighborhood main 20 streets,coupled with the neighborhood climate not 21 conducive to education, are at the top of this list.
22 Germantown Avenue in Northwest Philadelphia, where I 23 not only live but where I've lived around for my 24 entire life here in Philadelphia 1at one place or 25 another, is a good example of the impact of corridor 189 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 crime on the areas around it. According to the serious crime database that I mentioned before, accessible through the Inquirer's Web site, more than 55 major crimes were committed between 1991 and '97 between the 5500 and 5800 block of Germantown Avenue. 588 white residents left, offset only in part by 264 African-American residents who moved in. Of 10 census tracts around Germantown Avenue between 11 Chestnut Hill and Wayne Junction Station, however, 12 14 lost population. 13 We are now examining the population shifts 14 around other commercial corridors for a distinct 15 report on this phenomenon, but the patterns are the 16 same. In North Philadelphia, Central Philadelphia, 17 90 percent, 99 percent African American, 19 major 18 crimes were committed on the 1900 block of 19 Montgomery Avenue between 1991 and '97. The 20 population and census tract 152 along the avenue dropped from 8,134 in 1990 to 5,167 in 2000 in response. No white flight here; just people moving to safer grounds. The educational climate of the neighborhood plays a strong role itself. The 190 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 population in 72 census tracts, where more than 500 adults did not have high school diplomas ten years ago, dropped by more than 23,000 people in the '90s, with a white flight of more than 74,000. You may recall, some of you, that in the middle of this decade, when welfare reform in the '90s occurred, I came in with data from which this, in fact, comes about the impact of not having a high school diploma would have on the quality of life in neighborhoods. Well, now the census data is the other shoe dropping. Here in the census tracts where there's a sizeable number of residents who don't have high school diplomas, people leave. On the order hand, the population where most adults did have high school diploma -- fewer than a hundred who didn't -- actually rose by 3700 people. Here only 6600 whites moved out, which was, by comparison, a remarkably small outward migration. Clearly, the higher the educational level, the less racial and ethnic differences play a part. And what role is housing rehabilitation, much of it initiated during my four years at OHCD played in reversing this project, especially in areas of greatest need? My answer is, virtually 191 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 none that I can determine. There were 75 census tracts where OHCD financed the rehabilitation of more than housing 5 unites between 1987 and 1992, when I was director. 6 Of these, only 6 gained population. One reason is 7 obvious: There was not then, nor is there now, 8 enough money to deal with the more than a tiny 9 fraction of housing units at any given time. 1 percent of the people who were living in those areas. So unless housing rehabilitation is a part of a broader plan to make the neighborhood clean, safe, economically viable, and a decent place to raise our children -- a point that I have tried to make again and again, both before I was at OHCD, while I was there, and since then -- it will have no 21 impact whatsoever. The Rendell Administration showed no 23 interest whatsoever in adopting such a strategy, as the voters kept saying throughout 1999, We have now to do something for our neighborhoods. The results 192 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 speak for themselves. So given this data, what should we be doing to reverse the population decline over the next decade and make the City a better place than it was before? I can tell you what the Institute for Civic Values is now doing as an example.
We are bringing our resources and leadership-development programs down to the block level through what we call "Philly Blocks," an effort to build a citywide network of block activists and neighborhood groups working to make every block clean, safe, economically viable, and a decent place to raise our children. As part of this program, we've been conducting monthly meetings in the American Street Corridor -- under contract, by the way, with the Empowerment Zone between representatives of more than 30 blocks, City departments, and area organizations like the Norris Square Civic Association, a CDC, not only around cleanups, but around code enforcement and demolition and cleaning vacant lots, around improving neighborhood safety, especially as it affects very young people, around 193 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 strengthening community services for kids and building stronger partnerships with the schools. And as part of this project, we assigned as many 30 TANF participants working with the (indiscernible). I would add here that Norris Square is one of the few areas in the City with a very active CDC, where that one census tract virtually lost no population. And having worked there myself over the last four years in one way or another, I can see why. Because they are, yes, doing housing, but they're trying to solve all of these other problems that you've heard today, and they're making some real difference. There are two or three major organizations that are working together. And that's really what's needed. Beyond American Street, we have created a Philly Blocks e-mail list that has grown from 60 participants last April to more than 230 this month, with new people signing up every day. More than 6,000 activists use our Philly Neighborhoods and Philly Blocks Web sites every month to file 23 complaints with the City, gain information on all aspects of neighborhood revitalization, and how to help one another. 194 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 And on September 15th, just four days after the World Trade Center catastrophe, representatives from more than 50 neighborhood and block associations participated in a Philly Blocks Town Meeting with Ray Jones from the Mayor's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative and Paul DeLorenzo from the Mayor's Office of Children. In the 1970s, ISCV helped build a Philadelphia Council of Neighborhood Organizations to help empower the neighborhood groups of that decade. We are starting to perform the same role in relation to block activists and associations today. And a critical element of this process is finding ways to bring the diverse groups on our blocks and in our neighborhoods to work together so we can overcome the ethnic and economic divisions that still divide the City, as we have seen. " to make the point that we are all in this together. Perhaps our current national crisis has driven this point home as well, I certainly hope so. Either way, this is what we are attempting to do. 195 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 So then, what do we advise City Council add the Mayor in relation to the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative? Put plainly: Take seriously the framework of the entire program and not just the so-called blight reduction plan that admittedly lies at the heart of it. Mayor Street has made it clear that if the program is conceived simply as knocking down buildings, clearing vacant lots, and then finding a handful of CDCs and developers to rebuild 'em, it won't work. Even with the $250 million bond issue supplement annual federal allocations for housing and community development, redevelopment will take years, as we have seen City residents waiting for improvement walk away, especially if there is no improvement in neighborhood appearance, safety, and education along the way.
But if we see the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative as a powerful framework not only to clean up the neighborhoods but to bring us together around comprehensive strategies for improvement, such as we are trying to develop in Norris Square through Philly Blocks and in other through similar means, then it most definitely can 196 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 succeed where other programs have failed before. The Mayor is calling upon every City department to participate in this effort. And let me add the one line that not only City Council needs to join them, but the program desperately needs perspective and the geographic representation and the resources that this Council always has to be able to put these kinds of comprehensive strategies and plans into effect. I want to thank you for the opportunity to share this data and to testify here, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you Your testimony is very informative. I notice in your last paragraph, you do say that the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative is a powerful framework. I think that there are many people who truly believe that the $250 million bond issue is going to be a cure-all. I don't see that ever happening.
Well, anybody who thinks that the $250 million bond is a cure-all hasn't read the plan. I mean, the fact is that the plan is laid out both in the five-year plan that you get through 197 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 the City's budget and some other material and it doesn't even begin with that. It begins with the discussion of comprehensive neighborhood planning such as needs to occur. It talks about what in fact is unfolding now, which is the interim step to remove cars and to clean up vacant lots, demolish buildings more aggressively, and then to develop an interim strategy for maintenance. It talks about the need to add a thousand or more block captains to the current group of block captains. It talks about tightening up the restrictions and regulations on code enforcement. It talks about longer-range efforts to integrate all of this with the Mayor's programs for children and new efforts around social services. So that's what neighborhood transformation in paper from the Mayor means and what, in my judgment, is happening in the Administration. Now, my problem -- and I do have one -- is that I think there are a lot of worthwhile initiatives moving forward, but I don't think they're moving forward in an especially coordinated way. And then we do run the risk of raising a lot of expectations on some simple matters that will 198 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 destroy confidence in the program before anything else gets off the ground. Example: While we're talking about let's not demolish, let's not start before we're done, the fact is that barn door, you know, that barn door has already opened and closed. The City has moved more aggressively to demolish properties. And, frankly, in the American Street Corridor, which I know best, people are delighted. We have spent the first six months of the year helping block and neighborhood activists get action on demolitions that they have been trying to get done for years. Now they're very happy that lot cleanups have occurred. The problem is that the system for maintaining those lots, now that cleanups have occurred, is not yet in place in any way that I can see. And so we run a real risk right now within the next thee months of having all of those lots pile up with trash and, thus, negating the role of the cleanup. Now, I think it would be a fine thing if every Councilmember in your district were working with the Administration to see to it that as a lot is cleaned, blocks and others had the resources to 199 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 be able to maintain them, because that's what's going to have to happen over the foreseeable future. The plan, as described, is usual described in two steps. Step is demolition and cleanup, Step is redevelopment. But in fact, the real process is three steps. Step 1 is demolition and some cleanup. Step 2 is maintenance, and that's the long-range effort such as is going on in New Kensington right now. And then Step 3 over time is redevelopment. But between 1 and 3, there's all of this other set of proposals about reorganizing the way this government works with neighborhoods around the day-to-day quality-of-life issues that we talked about, on improving human relations, on strengthening the quality of life for young people, and reducing crime. All of those things are now being put under the framework of neighborhood transformation by the Administration, and it seems to me we all owe it to the City to start talking about this project in those terms, because that's the only way it can succeed and that's where it becomes a really useful new point of departure for everything that we might 200 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 be doing in the near future.
Where do schools come in the aspects that you talked about?
Because it's essential in any flight program or blight program, and in order to be able to handle that, that we do fix up and construct a viable public school system.
Well, I think that, you know, I've stayed away from that here, but you're obviously -- when I go into these neighborhoods, we talk about clean, safe, economically viable, and decent places to raise our kids.
But you're talking about Norris Square, which has Shepherd, Hunter, schools that are close to a hundred years old and have really no facilities really to educate those kids.
Well, what's interesting about those schools, in fact, is that between Norris Square Civic Association and Norris Square 201 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 Neighborhood Project, they have worked very hard, as you know, with those schools, and it shows in their test scores. Now, we have been -- just as we are negotiating social contracts between, let's say, L&I and a bunch of blocks in Norris Square around cleaning lots, in Logan, we negotiated a social contract between the Cook Middle School and the neighborhood groups and, frankly, the ward leader, Shirley Gregory, in that surrounding area, around their mutual responsibility to improve education. And going back to a point Councilman Goode maid earlier, some parts of it did involve improvements within the school but an all lot of it involved the creation and advancement of after-school programs and other resources within the community to help those youngsters. A lot of kids are just not going to be able to make it at this five or six hours a day. Now, we have this phenomenon at the school district and this incredible crisis at the same time as the Administration is significantly expanding the resources available to use after-school programs. They've just put out an RFP and were awarded a 202 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 number of grants. None of these things are coming together. But they can come together at the neighborhood level. What I would love to see, you know, is that after test scores come out for these schools, there ought to be Town Meetings in every neighborhood area that, in fact, is served by a specific school to discuss what, in fact, where the schools are and where they need to be, such as we did between Cook and the area of Logan surrounding it. And where I live in Mt. Airy, they'd be a small group of schools where -- the Northwest Schools Committee, in fact, is paying careful attention. It would be the focal point of our attention. Back in Germantown where I was, there would be another group of schools. So, I mean, that's how I would integrate improving education to the process that we're describing. Now, I have no way of knowing, Councilman, what is going to be negotiated here in terms of the funding of the schools, so I stay out until we see that. I do know that whoever runs the schools 203 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 and whatever funding we have, education is not going to work unless this kind of partnership with the neighborhood takes place. And I'm not just talking about it; we have actually done it. And in fact, beyond the social contract, Kelly Green on my own staff has worked with the civic education group, but I can tell you, we've done it almost despite the lack of support from the system. I mean what made that possible was the special 21st century grant that the Olney Cluster coordinator managed to raise independently that paid for the work that we did. And that grant has continued along with some additional support from the William Penn Foundation. We tried to get that process going in other schools and we had the superintendent's support and all of that but, you know, you've got to be paid, and we never raised the money. So that is my answer to you. I think we that we need to ask the question. The Mayor has put out the -- Safe and Sound has put out the Children's Report Card; that's another vehicle I've been using. You give a group of people in a neighborhood that covers not only education but health and safety. You say, All right, this is where the City's report 204 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 card on kids is, what's the neighborhood's report card? And what comes out really right now is that youth violence is a huge problem that's understated in the public arena, and we've had some meetings recently about it. But that's another way to go about it.
Any situation where we can create public goal for improvement, whether it's improving test scores, reducing crime, bring the people from the neighborhood together with the relevant agencies that are, in fact, doing this. That's where we can do it. I want to make one final little point. In Los Angeles right now, there's a kind of democratic -- a small derevolution going on. The city charter of Los Angeles passed last fall, set up -- authorized the creation of neighborhood councils. These councils -- you know, they report to the Council district. The council there even under the new charter has more power structurally than this council does structurally within our system. So all over Los Angeles right now, there are groups of citizens working to develop and build 205 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 these neighborhood councils, which will have advisory authority, not only over housing but over the entire city budget, a critical say over development projects, and even be considered in the performance reviews that city department managers go through for reappointment. " Five different areas of Hollywood that are negotiating and building these neighborhoods councils brought me in, and I was able in a week to give them the benefit of what took me about ten to fifteen years to learn here. But what was exciting about it is I'm having this argument with them. This started with them with the city budget. I walked out and came out there and then one day downloaded their entire 160-page five-year plan related to the city budget, turned it into "Clean, Safe Kids, An Opportunity," was able to start the discussion the next morning, and by the end of the week, we had a social contract that they now are making the centerpiece of their neighborhood agenda. 206 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 That is where we need to start, and I had people in the room -- I had the police captain from this area in the room for the entire session discussing safety. I had two people who were working with the schools, many church and civic leaders as well as the head of the Chamber of Commerce, the labor unions that were active in the area. They were all there and we put that together. And it's integrated. Nothing like that exists here now. And therein is the starting point of the problem. We are fragmented to death and we cannot deal with comprehensive problems without comprehensive structures to help us solve them.
Are there any other questions of Mr. Schwartz? Yes, the Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon, Councilman.
Let me start with saying that I agree with a lot of what you said. I think the research you did, you put a lot of time into and you should be commended for it. But I believe that you made so many points today that I'm at a loss for where you're really trying to go in terms of delivering a message. So I will focus on some of the things I think I heard and ask you some questions based upon that. The first being, you drew a -- you compared CDBG investment under your tenure and the tenure of John Kromer to population loss. Did you do any analysis regarding CDBG investment and population gain? Was there CDBG investment in areas where there was population gain?
Well, I don't know about the last seven years, but the data that you have in your packet shows that there were only 6 census tracts out of 75, whatever I said, that actually gained population.
No, I'm saying these are the ones -- see, what I have in my briefcase here -- 208 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562
That's a question, Councilman. My question to you is: Is it likely that where there was population gain, there probably was not CDBG investment? I'm just asking for your opinion.
Okay, let me suggest in the record a point that I've tried to make over the last months. The real correlation between 12 investment and population gain or loss is probably 13 private investment, not public investment, and 14 definitely not CDBG investment. CDBG investment is 15 less than $100 million. We have $3 million 16 operating budget and we spent over a billion dollars 17 on schools. We have a capital budget that's over 18 $100 million on an annual basis. 19 So CDBG investment you would never be 20 something you would examine in terms of population 21 gain or loss. And as far as I'm concerned, you 22 probably would not even have examined public investment, but you would probably examine private investment in terms of population gain or loss. And would you also say that it is most likely true that 209 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 the areas that experience population gain had private investment at a level that dwarfs the areas that had population loss?
Absolutely. And I'll give you the compelling example here, where we're sitting. I mean, Center City' a success, right? $2 billion, we add up. Some of it I voted for, right? Starting with Gallery I, the Center City Rail Connects, a $327 million investment, the Convention Center, $150 million from the State, as I recall, another multimillion dollar investment. Gallery II. All of that is put into place, so that's a couple of billion dollars. Then in 1991, while I'm still in the government, the leadership comes to the Goode Administration and says, We cannot let this huge public investment be subject to the vagaries of uncoordinated City departments and, therefore, we're going to make a deal with you: We want to create what at that time was called "a Special Services District" so that we can help market the area, but also get some control over safety and cleanliness and social problems in our area, and in exchange, we'll even raise more money from the businesses to 210 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 support it, we'll give 'em what anybody else might call "a tax increase," and there was a quarrel in the administration about it, and we went forward with that. And now the one area of town that's really going gangbusters despite the fact that we are charging them more money, and their real-estate values are among the highest in the City in the City, is Center City. And no CDBG dollars went into that.
Well, in my judgment, however, public investment was necessary as every developer who came in here from every particular project that involved anything at all was necessary to make the private --
My point is that I understand that public investment drives private investment, but in the end, you can't measure public investment if you're trying to draw a correlation to population gain or loss. You actually have to measure private investment. That's the only point I was trying to make. 211 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562
I think that's one variable. It's not the first. It's like the housing market --
But private investment is more of a variable than public investment is in terms of population gain.
Well, but you see, here's the problem: The Average citizen -- we heard five groups testify, saying pretty much the same thing -- crime and schools. The average --
Let me -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.
Councilman, thank you. Let me go to my second question.
Even those areas that have experienced population loss for whatever reason, be it public investment, private investment, what is the role of community development corporations as it relates to dealing in those areas that have experienced population loss?
I think if there is a community development corporation and some part of 212 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 parts of the recovery effort depend upon an agency to do the development, I would put that in the hands of a community development corporation. Hell, I spent most of my four years in housing helping to get them off the ground, because they have the best chance for us to be responsive to the community needs and accountable to the community.
Well, beyond those developers, what is their role in terms of neighborhood planning?
I think they play a part of the role, but they're not -- right now, they've not been permitted by the fragmented structure that we have to get as broad an involvement as would be needed. So in many neighborhoods where there are good CDCs, there may be other groups more appropriate to helping in the planning around security or planning around schools and kids. But in an area where the CDC has branched out into those areas, it's certainly a key player in anything where it's chosen to have an impact.
So you would or would not agree that community development corporations should be the primary planners in areas where we've 213 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 experienced population loss?
No, I would agree that some community development corporations that have developed a wholistic vision for their neighborhoods should play that key role in those neighborhoods. In many instances, there are no CDCs, and in some instances, there are CDCs that tend to be housing developers, and I think there I would turn to other organizations.
I agree with that, but, you know, what I'm saying in the end is, who's going to coordinate the stakeholders there? Is it the District Councilperson is it the Community Development Corporation? is it the State rep? Who is it going to be?
Oh, if there is a strong CDC that's in a position to command the loyalty and the sort of involvement of the neighborhood, that's a logical place. In Norris Square, you've got Norris Square Civic Association and New Kensington. We've been talking with them about doing the block captain meetings. At Frankford, which you've just heard from, that would be a logical group. So those are 214 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 three areas where that would play. In Germantown, Greater Germantown is already playing a critical role. But what I'm saying here -- and this is -- in John Kromer's book, you know, he makes his point that CDCs are, by their nature, centralized, not terribly democratic, and they need to be centralized undemocratic 'cause they got to make fast decisions. Well, if that's the case, who talks to the block captains? And right now, you see, I, meet with 30 or 40 block captains, and there have been good CDCs and they've done some block organizing, but they haven't really benefitted from a lot that the CDCs have been paid to do. So these structural changes need to be put together if it's going to work.
Councilman, that's not particularly fair. I mean, to suggest that you as the housing director and then John Kromer as the housing director have any criticisms about CDCs that they don't think they can they contributed to, I mean, let's just be honest about what CDCs do. CDCs are forced by nature as a survival instinct to do what the funders dictate. 215 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562
I'm not arguing that. In fact, I'm arguing quite the opposite for seven years. Look, when I came to housing, as you well know, there were no CDCs that were getting significant funding from the City except South Central. Four years later, this whole network of successful CDCs existed for the next administration to carry them forward. What I wanted then and what the CDCs have wanted by their own platforms is the opportunity to be players in a much broader range of areas and issues than simply housing development.
And as a movement or an industry, do you think that they are there yet?
As a movement in industry, do you think they are there yet?
I said exactly what I mean: I don't think it's an industry that has been given enough money or leverage or time to think through what they would do, but I think where they're operating --
They have the most 216 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 comprehensive neighborhood strategic plans, and giving them more money is our job.
I think they have, in some instances, the most comprehensive; and in other instances, they don't.
Just -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
I'm sorry, I'm not boing to make a blanket statement about that. I didn't as director, and I think there are some neighborhoods, frankly --
I can go neighborhood by neighborhood and name the CDCs. Just give me some examples of neighborhoods where you see housing and economic development, community involvement in education in some comprehensive way has been planned out that is not being done by community --
Well, let me just say that to me, the core work needs to be on a block-by-block basis, and in many neighborhoods what we have is a clean blocks program that operates with isolated block captains and a CDC with no connection no 25 connection to any of them. And I do believe, in 217 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 contrast to what you're saying, is that there needs to be two elements -- three elements of what goes on here that CDCs largely are not right now involved in. One is block organization. The second is improvements in education through direct partnerships with the schools, and the third is serious involvement in crime prevention. Those are often three very different networks of organizations. In Norris Square, you've got the Norris Square Civic Association doing one set of things, and Norris Square Neighborhood Project, which manages the Weed and Seed Program and a number of other valuable programs. So I don't make it a religion. I funded a lot of CDCs, and I think they're valuable, but it's not a religion for me. There are all sorts of civic groups in the neighborhood, and they all have to be involved, and CDCs are certainly an important part of the process. And if a CDC wants to take it on, it --
My question really was related to what community-based organizations are actively involved in housing and economic 218 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 development, along with education initiatives, along with job creation initiatives that you can name and in what section of the City that are not community development corporations.
Look, you ask the question that way, then I agree with you.
If you ask that question, but if you -- my point is that neighborhood transformation is -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
I asked the question. If you can't give me an example, that's fine. I'm finished.
If you're talking about economic development, you're right, but I think --
For housing and economic development, you're right, but I think neighborhood transformation involves a lot more.
Councilman -- 219 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562
My point is that if that's the only way you're thinking about neighborhood transformation, my advice is to think again because you just heard five groups beyond me here say two things that have nothing to do directly as housing and economic development is fine.
I mentioned education and job creation as well. I mentioned education and job creation also.
Are there any other questions for Mr. Schwartz? (No further questions.)
Thank you. Do we have anyone else who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Seeing no one, this committee will be recessed until Wednesday, 220 10/15/01 WHOLE COMMITTEE RES. 010562 October 17th, at 1 p.m. Thank you all very much for your attention. (Proceedings end at 4:15 p.m.) - - - 221 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia's meeting of the Council Committee the Whole of Monday, October 15, 2001, are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. RE: Resolution No.010562 _______________________________, Josephine Cardillo Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)