COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON HOUSING, NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND THE HOMELESS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, June 16, 2010, 1:15 p.m. - - - RESOLUTION NO. 100379 - To examine the roles of the RDA and the Department of Public Property in improving housing in the City of Philadelphia. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Jannie L. Blackwell, Chair William K. Greenlee, Vice Chair Darrell L. Clarke Curtis Jones, Jr. - - - 2 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379
Good afternoon. Thank you all for your patience. We will begin our resumed hearing from June 7th of Resolution 7 100379, and we will ask the clerk to read the entire resolution.
Resolution 100379, calling for public hearings before the City Council Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless to examine the roles of the Redevelopment Authority and the Department of Public Property in improving housing in the City of Philadelphia. Whereas, the Redevelopment Authority and the Department of Public Property have the responsibility to work with the District Councilperson and Councilpersons at large to improve the City of Philadelphia; and Whereas, it is vitally important to have a clear, transparent process to accomplish these ends; and. 3 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 Whereas, the Redevelopment Authority and the Department of Public Property are involved in the acquisition sitting and disposition of properties in our city; and Whereas, the Redevelopment Authority has the responsibility for condemnation in aid of redeveloping blighted neighborhoods in our city; and Whereas, there is much confusion with regard to the role of the Redevelopment Authority and the Department of Public Property to accomplish these goals; Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Philadelphia that the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless hold public hearings to examine the roles of the Redevelopment Authority and the Department of Public Property in improving housing in the City of Philadelphia.
Thank 4 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 you very much. We will begin this hearing by welcoming to the witness stand -- and thank you, Michael Sklaroff, for contacting us -- Steven Klein, Pat Gillespie, and anyone else from this group dealing with the Latter-Day Saints Church project that you would like to speak. (Witnesses come forward.)
Thank you very much. We thank you for being here today. We thank you for your commitment to this issue that is so very, very important to our city and to all of its citizens. Please identify yourself for the record and begin your testimony. Thank you.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Steven Klein, and this is my associate Clay Chandler. And to my right --
Michael 5 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 Sklaroff -- oh, Pat Gillespie.
I want to begin by thanking Councilwoman Blackwell and the members of this committee for giving us the opportunity to discuss our site at 17th and Vine Streets and the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints' outstanding proposal to construct a temple and meeting house on the. Site it's unfortunate that we must take this committee's time to discuss how actions taken by the RDA have placed this $70 million project at risk. In the midst of this severe economic downturn, with limited new construction in the City, the LDS Church stands ready, willing, and able to proceed. Jobs will be created, tens of thousands of visitors will be attracted to the Parkway each year, and what is currently a parking lot will be turned into a magnificent and worthy addition to the Logan Square Neighborhood Association -- if the RDA would simply 6 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 process the application for this project. My organization, Logan Place Associates, purchased this property many years ago from Franklintown Corporation. Franklintown is unique: It's a privately-funded urban-renewal project; not one penny of public money is involved. We were chosen by Franklintown Corporation to be the redeveloper because of our financial standing, our success in residential development, and our ability to develop the site in accordance with the redevelopment proposal. We paid the full, fair-market value have, and have actively pursued development of this site. In May, 2009, the LDS Church approached us to acquire and develop this site. We concluded our negotiations with the LDS and signed an agreement of sale on August 10, 2009. The LDS Church then took several months to do their due diligence examinations, including 7 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 environmental, economic, and fiscal analysis, and the preparation of site studies and plans. Early in this process, church representatives began reaching out to various stakeholders in the community. Among others, they met with Councilman Darrell Clarke, whose district includes this site; and I want to take this opportunity to thank Councilman Clarke for his support and leadership on this project. They also met with the Logan Square Neighborhood Association and the Parkway Council. They reached out to Mayor Nutter, and a first meeting was scheduled with the Mayor for January 7th of this year. On Monday, December 21, 2009 -- that's December 21, 2009 -- I and my representatives met with Terry Gillen of the Redevelopment Authority to make a presentation about the church's temple project. We informed Ms. Gillen that the 8 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 church would spend approximately $70 million on construction, that it would create approximately 300 construction jobs and 240 permanent jobs. We let her know that the temple would draw tens of thousands of visitors to the City each year, and that many of these visitors would stay in the Philadelphia hotels and eat in Philadelphia restaurants. The ongoing benefit -- economic benefit to the City of the LDS Temple is projected at $20 million a year. This information is contained in an economic and fiscal impact analysis that was prepared for the church by former Commerce Director Steve Mullin of the Philadelphia firm eConsult. We asked Ms. Gillen to start the process of allowing the church to proceed with the project and to prepare the necessary documentation. We also informed Ms. Gillen at that meeting that representatives of the church were 9 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 scheduled to meet with the Mayor on January 7, 2007 -- January 7, 2007 -- just two-and-a-half weeks later. Given the obvious economic benefit to the City, we expected Ms. Gillen and the Redevelopment Authority to embrace this project. So imagine how shocked and surprised we were when the Redevelopment Authority filed a lawsuit attempting to take the property on Monday, December 28th, December 28th.
The suit was filed exactly one week after our meeting with Ms. Gillen and ten days before the Mayor's scheduled meeting with the LDS. The lawsuit was filed on the first business day following the Christmas holiday. We can only assume that the RDA rushed to torpedo the deal with the LDS Church, and, more form, to tie the Mayor's hands. As I stated before, representatives of the church have been very active in engaging various neighborhood, community, and City 10 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 stakeholders. The church has received the support of the Parkway Council and the Logan Square Neighborhood Association. The neighborhood association sent a letter to City Council endorsing the project and testified on its behalf before a City Council Committee. At the same hearing, representatives of the Planning Commission endorsed the project. Most importantly, the members of City Council voted unanimously, to 14 nothing, to grant relief to the LDS 15 Church that they needed for the Parkway 16 height controls to allow for its proposed 17 spirals. Unfortunately, and in spite of the broad support this project has received from the community and City Council, the RDA continues to stand in the way. On May 10, 2010, we attended a meeting at the invitation of the RDA to resolve this matter. We were informed 11 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 that the RDA was working on a term sheet, and they would send it to us. As further evidence that the RDA's in no hurry to see the LDS project move forward, the term sheet didn't arrive until June the 4th, almost four weeks after our meeting. We wonder if the letter would have arrived even then, if not for a front-page article that ran that morning in the Inquirer about the lawsuit and how it was jeopardizing the LDS Temple project. Timing aside, it is obvious that the RDA still has no real interest in resolving the lawsuit since their settlement demands including paying them percent of the proceeds of the sale to 19 the LDS. 20 Had there been any attempt at 21 settling the lawsuit on the part of the 22 RDA, they would have looked at the 23 property next door to us at 16th and Vine 24 and said that they would treat us no 25 worse than they treated Grasso. The RDA 12 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 gave David Grasso and his company an 18-month extension for no money, with the option of an additional 12-month extension for $100,000. There is, however, a huge difference between Mr. Grasso's project and ours: We need no extensions; the LDS Church is ready, willing, and able to proceed now, and without one dollar of public money. I responded in a written letter to Ms. Gillen, stating that her demand was totally unacceptable. Furthermore, she was attempting to win a lawsuit that is without legal merit and should never have been filed. So here we are today, June 16th, in a city that desperately needs capital, jobs, and tourism, with a major project ready to go. The LDS Church is ready to spend $70 million, employ 300 construction workers, and bring in tens of thousands of visitors per year. Furthermore, we have the 13 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 approval of the local neighborhood associations and a 17-to-0 vote in City Council. And yet, I am forced to come here today to tell this mind-boggling story of how the RDA continues to obstruct this project because they either don't want it to happen or they only want it to happen after extracting an unwarranted and unprecedented monetary payment. I come here and humbly ask this committee to please ask the RDA to step aside and allow the LDS Church project to proceed. As their name implies, the Redevelopment Authority has an obligation and a mandate to support and encourage development in the City, and it's unconscionable that they continue in efforts clearly intended to scuttle a project that would be such a positive benefit to the City of Philadelphia.
Thank you, Councilwoman Blackwell and the members of City Council 14 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 for your time and attention to this important issue. I am prepared to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. I'm sure that all here have heard your excellent testimony, and we're going to ask, after you finish your testimony, that Ms. Gillen come up to respond to those issues; they're glaring. $70 million? You know, no public money, the vote by Council, 300 jobs, 240 permanent jobs, and all that goes with it, all that it would bring. It is unconscionable that this project -- and this is a great example, a large example, of the problems we're having citywide. And so, we will certainly welcome the rest of the testimony and then open it up for questions and ask Ms. Gillen to come forward and be prepared to respond.
Thank you, Councilwoman. I'll be very, very brief 15 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 because I'd be interested in hearing the Director of the RDA explain that. It's kind of ironic in a city that was founded on religious freedoms and on having a decent place to worship comes before us this wonderful proposal to not only, quite honestly, put 300 guys to work, or girls, but to have a place in this city that will be another positive attraction about Philadelphia and consistent with the whole idea behind Philadelphia. It's a wonderful program. The idea that they're coming in, they have their own money. No one else has money; there's a paralysis in our industry because of the shortness of investment capital. Here comes a project that could -- that could create a synergy in that entire community. So anything and everything that you could do I know the building-trade unions would be very, very appreciative of. Thank you very much. 16 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379
Thank you very much. Councilman Greenlee, question?
Thank you, Madam Chair. To the gentleman, maybe you could tell me -- I'm sure, with all this delay, the Church of the Latter-Day Saints have to be having some apprehension and concern. What have they expressed as far as -- I mean, is their patience running thin? I guess is the way I'm trying to get at it.
Well, I can't speak for the church, but I can speak for myself.
And they are getting impatient. They don't understand why this process has not moved forward. The City, under Councilman 17 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 Clarke's leadership, has been excellent. They've received an excellent reception from the neighborhood associations and City Council, but they don't understand why the RDA continues to oppose this project, and they are getting impatient. They have said to me, quote: "We are starting to think about a Plan B outside the City."
Mm-hmm. And that wouldn't be to anybody's benefit, I would think.
Okay. One other question. When this land, during the years that it was not developed, were taxes being paid on it?
Mm-hmm. I just wanted that on the record. So there has been money paid -- so the fiscal -- or the financial responsibility has been kept up on this land. 18 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379
Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I just want to concur with the statements made with respects to the development of this site, how -- what I believe to be critical that we not only send a signal to the local community that we're serious about creating opportunities both as it relates to jobs but creating opportunities that, frankly speaking, will bring a significant development that will fit in with what is currently probably the most attractive institutional row, as we like to call it, the Museum Mile, along the Parkway, the renderings of the facility fit in. We purposely capped the height 19 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 limit to match the basilica's height limit 'cause we believe they're essentially religious bookends, so to speak. And this has been a project that as recent as last night we talked about. I went to the Logan Square Neighborhood Association meeting, and they actually had a picture of it in the presentation. And I have to say that as a result of this project, I actually know more about the members of the Latter-Day Saints than I ever thought I would know, you know -- (Laughter.)
-- 'cause there were certain stereotypes associated with the organization early on, and those people know about what people believed them to be. And I think the most significant issue that related to the elimination of some of the stereotypes is 20 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 when I had my first meeting with them and the person that walked in the door, who was the facilitator and, I later found out, very high up in the ranks was a gentleman that apparently -- and I didn't know him at the time -- that grew up three blocks from me over in the Raymond Rosen public housing. And I was quite amazed to see, needless to say, he was an African-American. And the history associated with his upbringing and for him to be a member of the Latter-Day Saints in an extremely high-ranking position, frankly speaking, was quite interesting to me. And their ability and willingness to meet with everybody in the community and the community support for what it is they talk about not only having a religious facility but having a museum attached that would be open and available, having a job-placement center that's open and available to all the 21 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 citizens of the City of Philadelphia, I was truly impressed with what they want to do. I think having such a presence will clearly create an opportunity for them to do more in the City, more than they're already doing, 'cause, apparently, they have a number of churches throughout the City. So I must say I'm equally as perplexed as you are, Mr. Klein, why we haven't put shovels in the ground. I want to say, as recent as last night, in a meeting with the Mayor, the Mayor told me several times that this was a project that was going to get done, and he gave me his commitment, and I take him at his word. So hopefully, within the foreseeable, future we will be in a position to put shovels in the ground, 'cause I do agree that in today's economic times, we need job opportunities in the worst way. 22 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 As it relates to those job opportunities, I want to say that the members of the Latter-Day Saints actually submitted, as a part of the legislation that authorized the construction, submitted a equal opportunity plan that had the most aggressive participation goals for minorities and females that we've ever passed in this Council. It actually, I believe, surpassed the Convention Center. And there is no public money in this document. So for that commitment to be made, it shows that these people are truly committed to the City. So having the Mayor's word, I'm hoping, and I believe, that this will get done. But we really need to move this as quickly as possible. So I'm assuming that there will be some follow-up conversations with the RDA. But we need to move this. And I agree with you: It has been definitely too long to move this project. 23 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 So thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Obviously, from the conversation we've heard today, and as one who has not been involved, it's obvious that this has gone on a long time with the community involvement we hear about and with you knowing about a museum and with all the OEO, the commitment for inclusion and across the board. If Lucien Blackwell were alive, he'd call it "a sweetheart deal," right, Pat?
Yes, yes, yes. So certainly, we are prepared to ask the Redevelopment Authority to come up. And the Mayor made his commitment. I heard him make that commitment; I was in the room at that 24 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 time. We have only one question, then: When? So we'll ask Ms. Gillen to come forward.
Thank you. So perhaps you can stay around, in case she has a question for you, to hear the response. (Ms. Gillen comes forward.)
Sure. I'm Terry Gillen. I'm the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority.
Great. You have heard their testimony, you've heard Councilman Clarke's commitment, 25 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 verbal commitment, from the Mayor last evening. I was in the room when that commitment was made. So we'd like to know when.
Councilwoman, I'm more than happy to talk about this today. It is a project that's under negotiation. And it is the subject of a lawsuit, so there is -- there are many aspects of it that I'm not at liberty to discuss, but --
We merely asked about a timeline; we didn't ask for any details. We've heard all that we need to here at this point in this committee. We're not asking for all the -- to resolve any legal issues or the specifics of the contract. We are talking about a timeline as to when. If it's gone on this long, my goodness, who -- we can't afford to lose a $70 million project and all the jobs and all else that it creates and the ongoing money that it will create from 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 people visiting this site. We just need to know when. That's not asking for the whole issue of details of the agreement.
I understand, Councilwoman. And, unfortunately, I'm not in a position to give you a timeline today.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Gillen, I guess my -- if you heard my question, I asked about -- I call it "the patience level" of the Latter-Day Saints. Are you concerned that this project as -- and I won't get into what the legal thing is 'cause I probably won't understand it. Are you concerned that while this is going on that this project could be scuttled, that the Latter-Day Saints could decide it's easier to go to Montgomery County 'cause 27 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 they're not going to put me all -- you know, through all this. Is that a concern of the Redevelopment Authority or you personally?
I would remind you, Councilman, that the Mayor is the Chair of the RDA board, so I want folks to understand that this is the position of the Nutter Administration.
There seems to be some, maybe, lack of clarity about that. So I just --
About that -- this -- that the Redevelopment Authority is doing this somehow on its own or --
I'm saying it is the Nutter Administration. 28 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379
I just wanted to clarify. So no, I don't have that concern. And the reason, Councilman, is that we have been in discussions with Mr. Klein and with the Latter-Day Saints throughout the process. I'm not prepared to give you details about that, I'm not prepared to talk about what the nature of those discussions are or where I think they're going to go or what the timeline is. But I can tell you that the Mayor supports this project, he is committed to figuring out a way to make it happen, and we have been in pretty active discussions with them over the last couple of months.
And you said that -- and Councilman Clarke said that the Mayor gave his commitment to get this done, but -- I'm trying to phrase 29 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 this. So you have -- you have no 4 concern about -- that this project could be lost.
I would never tell you on any deal -- I've done deals for 8 years -- that I have no concerns. 9
Any deal can go 11 wrong for any variety of reasons. So no, 12 I don't want you to suggest that. 13
But overall, all I 15 can tell you is that there are active 16 discussions going on. The Mayor is 17 committed to getting it done, the Chief 18 of Staff has been, you know, working on 19 this as well. 20
And so, we -- we're -- we're working to try to get this to happen.
Okay. Well, would you say if something -- if 30 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 this does fall apart, that that sends a really bad message? Not just at this site, but in the whole city?
Councilman, I think there are a lot of policy considerations here. So this -- this is not a single action that we took with regard to a single project. I do want to say that back in September of '08, the Redevelopment Authority began to issue default letters on what is now probably more than fifty projects.
And we did that for two reasons that I think are really important for the public to understand. The one is because we wanted to make sure that developers who had committed to develop projects were not allowing those parcels of land to sit vacant. We have a serious vacancy problem in the City of Philadelphia, and we've got to get them moving. 31 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 That policy has been hugely successful. Of the 59 letters that we've sent out today, we have had developers 5 complete projects, we've had 12 6 developers start construction, or commit 7 to starting destruction, and we've had 24 8 developers give vacant property back that 9 we can then put out into the -- into 10 other uses. 11 So overall, this has been a 12 successful policy, number one. 13 And, number two, the reason we 14 did it was because we wanted to make sure 15 that if are were any developers out there 16 who have benefited financially present speculating that the public shares in the financial benefits, and that's really been the reason for this policy. So I -- somehow I don't want people to think that we directed this at a particular project or -- and, in fact, we started the default process on this process long before the Latter-Day Saints even appeared on the scene. 32 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 So it is, as I said a overall, you know, successful policy that we've instigated. We do not believe that it's going to result in the loss of this project. We're committed to trying to get this project done, but we're committed to doing it in a way that the public gets its share of the benefits.
I understand the policy, but I guess -- and, you know, I know something about it; I don't live real far from there. It would -- it would seem that with the -- all the -- I guess my question would be: Are the benefits that has been talked about here part of this consideration -- the jobs, the minority participation, just the amount of money that's being spent here, and the site, which is a site that you want developed and the kind of development that it's going to be?
Is that 33 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 all taken into account as far as when you're -- you're factoring in the policy?
Absolutely. And, in fact, we are required -- you know, our lawyers have been careful to make sure that we analyze every site on a case-by-case basis to show that there's a, you know, good, solid reason for the decision that we're making. And obviously, on this site, the benefits of this project are a consideration, no question. We are well aware of them.
Okay. Well, I -- I'm glad you have the confidence. I mean I think a lot of us have a lot of concern, and I think it's why City Council, you know, after the due diligence that was done, I think you know, from your activity now and others, that groups like Logan Square aren't easily pleased. They're friends of mine, but they have a lot of demands. And, you know, this Council isn't always easily 34 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 pleased. But I think this development answered questions of everybody. And I guess it is frustrating. And, again, I know you can't discuss all the -- all the legal things. But it's frustrating, and it seems like everybody else is onboard, and now we've run into this kind of -- since you can't talk about it, kind of almost mystery blockage. And it -- and, you know, I -- you know, I just don't get, and it I think a lot of don't get it. And I know you said you can't discuss it all, but, I mean, that's a problem, I think, for a lot of us, you know.
Well -- and I -- I understand your frustration. I think that's one reason that it's never good to try to negotiate these deals in public.
I understand that, 35 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 I understand that.
I find it unconscionable that you would sit here and tell us -- hold this up and even talk about the issue of vacancy, that you have to pull properties back. It is unconscionable that you could sit here and -- and delay this project who's providing $70 million, jobs, and all that the future can bring, all positive things, and tell us that you can't discuss it; not only that you can't discuss it, but can't give us a timeline, but you all are looking into it. How dare you come and insult us this way. It is unconscionable. I have here testimony from the Science Center. We know that it is the largest business of this kind in the country. They have a company that is the fastest-growing in the company, Energy 36 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 Plus, that is in their building. They were just written up in the Philadelphia Business Journal. We have testimony from them on all that they do. It's the same kind of thing. They're a 501 corporation, they are. From 65 to 2,014 buildings have been created. I'll only say a few things about the -- that it's the largest and most successful urban research organization. Some 8,000 -- their programs have generated over 42,000 jobs in the city and region, they've contributed over million to this city 16 in taxes, and so on and so on and so 17 forth. 18 I'm only giving you a few of 19 the smaller details of this project in my 20 district. At least you can say that 21 that's in court, and that maybe wasn't so 22 obvious. But the unconscionable way that you could say that to reduce vacancy, you sent out 50-some letters. One of the 37 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 considerations is vacancy, and you take these back. It's just obviously unconscionable, obviously doesn't make sense, and obviously not true. You cannot insult our intelligence. We've been here too long, we've been here -- we've worked with these groups, we've worked with these organizations. We know our districts, we know what works. And to try to say that there is some reason -- and, you know, we're very, very, very upset. This is unacceptable. We will not take this as a committee. We have public hearings. You talk about not -- not having these discussions in public. We had to; we had no choice. I'm on the team. But when one's back is against the wall, when we have a stalemate when it comes to your department and when it comes -- related, it's spilled over into other departments because everything is stuck, projects don't move. Trying to 38 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 get anything done that makes sense doesn't happen, then we were forced to come to public hearings to try to move things forward, because we have to use what is at our disposal. And what we can do as Councilpeople and elected officials is have public hearings. We are here to straighten these areas out, to field. The Mayor told me last night the issue was communication, but there's no communication when you just say you can't talk about it and that you withdraw properties and pull them back from agencies and individuals and companies and institutions who obviously have the ability to buy, as has happened with the Church of the Latter-Day Saints. Your comments are absolutely unacceptable. This committee will not accept it, and we will move forwarded to what we have to do to change things if you continue to take us there. We need answers, we need 39 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 answers. These people aren't here and haven't taken off work in their busy schedules because they just want to be here, because they want to visit us. They see us. We are here because we need an answer to the stalemate that exists with regard to the Redevelopment Authority and related departments as they relate to you so that we can move our city forward. And we need answers, we need answers.
I need to know why the Science Center, we need to know why the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, we need to know why these departments, these projects, these companies, these institutions aren't moving. I mean, the shareholders in the Science Center or at Penn and Drexel and University of the Sciences, Temple, Thomas Jefferson University, I mean, you know, they have -- they have 8,000 full-time workers right on their campus. I don't understand why these 40 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 projects are stalled and we want an answer.
So obviously, we won't get one. (Laughter.) Let me say so for all those who are here and who watched or were here at our last hearing, that we had Damon Jones from Bibleway, the reverend doctor. We had the Partnership CDC. And in Councilwoman Donna Miller's area, we had the Rays of Hope. We had these other churches, institutions, community leaders who were here and people that you said you would contact and work it out; all of them have said they haven't been contacted, they haven't been contacted. We are not here because we have nothing better to do. You said you would contact those people, you would work those things out, and we want you to respond to those issues that were raised 41 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 and those projects that were raised at our last hearing. We'd like you to do that. And let me note, while we're here, that we have a quorum: To my left, Councilman Bill Greenlee; to my right, Councilman Darrell Clarke, Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller, and Councilman Curtis Jones.
I'm happy to respond to the points that were raised in the hearing on June --
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to follow up on a couple of issues with respects to Ms. Gillen's testimony on Latter-Day Saints facility. Ms. Gillen -- well, first of all, let me respond to Councilman Greenlee's question about whether or not there's the likelihood or a possibility 42 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 of the Latter-Day Saints selecting another location if this continues to drag on. In our meeting with the Mayor, that issue came up, and they told us that they had actually looked at a number of locations. The various locations were -- from a geographical standpoint in terms of actual constructing a building, there were a number of them. They came down to two desirable sites: One was in Valley Forge, and that's obviously not in the City of Philadelphia; and the other was the site that we're referencing today. And they told the Mayor at the time that this was their preferred site for a lot of different reasons because of the City, and they wanted to make a commitment to the City, and they wanted to have a presence beyond what they currently have in the City. But understanding the level of people that have been involved with this 43 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 and the fact that they have put themselves out on a limb -- I actually almost had an opportunity to meet the -- I believe it's called the apostle, who is, like, am I right, Mike? The apostle, who's like the international person? MIKE: (Inaudible, off-mic.)
Yeah. Well, this was the international. So, I mean, that was the level of seriousness. So -- and they continue to be concerned. So I say all that to say that at some point, there's going to be a time when they are going to just simply throw up their hands and say, We have to move to Valley Forge. And they have not said that, to their credit. They are committed, they want to be here. But I'm just concerned that the level -- the length of this deliberation is getting beyond even their patience. Ms. Gillen, you indicated that the policy with respects to issuing 44 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 default notices, which is one I actually -- and I said in a earlier hearing I actually don't think it's legal, but that's a discussion for another time, but I don't think you have the ability to take back a property that has been paid for with market value. In this particular case, it was -- it was taken by the Redevelopment Authority for another entity. So it wasn't like it was originally a Redevelopment Authority, but that's another issue for another day. You mentioned a number. Can you give me those numbers again, please?
Sure. Yeah. Of the default letters we've issued to date, which is 59 --
We've had 16 people complete their projects since after the default letter was -- 45 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379
Can you forward, through the Chair, the list of those 16?
Indicating the size and the scope; i.e., the cost of the projects, please.
Certainly. We've had begin construction or commit to 12 begin construction immediately.
Absolutely, yeah, certainly. And then, we've had 19 developers agree that they had no ability 20 to do the project and to revert the 21 parcel back to the Redevelopment 22 Authority. 23
In some cases, 46 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 yes; and in many cases, no, or they paid nominal.
Okay. Can you give me, through the Chair, the specific information on the properties that were reverted to the Redevelopment Authority, those that were market value, those that were not -- were nominal.
And in terms of the process of the redistribution of those properties, the 24, what will be the process?
It will go through sort of the standard process that we will follow with vacant land, which is that we'll ask the Planning Commission to look at the parcel and give us their sense of what they think should happen with the parcel. So if it's on a commercial corridor, should it be commercial, if it's in a, you know, industrial area. So whatever. So we'll ask the Planning 47 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 Commission to give us some advice on what we should do next; that would be the next step. And then, if we think that we should sell it, we can try to sell it, we can try to do an RFP, if we think it's the type of property that lends itself to an RFP. So, you know, we'll make decisions on a case-by-case basis.
And is that soley the staff of the RDA that makes those decisions? Is there public --
Is there, like, any public process, or is there a process that, like, when those properties are disposed, it's done in a public way?
-- you guys selling properties and a person buys it 48 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 and --
Well, it's not the staff of the RDA. I mean, we'll be working with the Planning Commission staff, so it's not us.
But the Planning Commission, is it a recommendation? I'm actually talking about the pure disposition of the property.
Well, we can't dispose of property without Council being involved. And so, what we said last week --
Well, what we said last week pretty clearly was that we would come to you before we would make any disposition decisions. And we will do that.
Well, there was a commitment -- I just want to make 49 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 sure 'cause I want it on the record.
We're on the record now. That language is not in your contract.
So the language in the letter from the Mayor, because we wanted the Mayor to send a letter, 'cause he -- as you indicated earlier, he is the Chairman of the RDA Board. It's the understanding that the Redevelopment Authority on the disposition of those properties, or if 19 any change in plans in the other 20 properties, will come back to the 21 District Councilperson for those 22 properties. 23
Okay, okay. I'm good. 50 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379
Before I call on Councilwoman Miller -- and I gave a copy to the Mayor yesterday. We had a hearing on the 7th and on the 8th of property in my district move forward. And when the Mayor asked me what it was about, even after we had the hearing and you committed to not moving forward without our Councilmembers' input, as it's supposed to be with projects, you didn't. I have the document right here, where it's supposed to go to the board on June 8th. We had a hearing June 7th, and you were supposed to stop moving ahead on projects without our knowledge, since we have to be involved with zoning and so forth. And nothing changed.
Yes. Councilwoman, the Mayor shared that letter with me last night, and we both 51 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 agreed -- and I think he may have said that to you -- that that letter was probably the result of the RDA Board process running through its normal schedule. But rest assured that we have changed the way we've addressed these projects.
Well, we think that you all should have cared enough to review it, you know, before -- if you knew you were having a hearing today after our hearing, could not you have just picked up the phone or called, or somebody could have done something. But this just goes through the process and we're supposed to accept it. You know, I'm very disappointed. And the last thing I'll say before I call on Councilwoman Miller is that I told the Mayor we were disappointed. I have a right, as a District Councilperson, to be involved in the 52 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 fight for development in my district; that's what I'm elected to do. It's one of the things I like most about my job, trying to say neighborhoods change. And I told the Mayor I was very disappointed, or I asked him about calling the federal government, HUD, because I want Mill Creek Farm moved about three blocks. I got a map, we got a little map. About three blocks from its current site is another site close to Sulzberger School, for people who know the area. Next to it, where we can't build, because there's water underneath the Mill Creek, and it's much bigger than the land that the Mill Creek Farm is currently on. And we would transfer that, do a bit of a land swap, or some such similar arrangement, and take the Mill Creek Farm that's only weeds and dirt and debris all winter long is great. I support vegetables, I support feeding the 53 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 homeless; it's what's closest to my heart. I support all of that. But if we can have a block square of housing, move it three blocks away, and the community agrees, you all not only fought me, you go to HUD, and it put PHA in the position of saying that -- and it made it look like I'm on PHA Board and we are in some collusion. I'm trying to figure out anybody can be in collusion to help poor people get housing in a area that needs it. And, I mean, it's just unconscionable. And it put PHA in a position to say maybe I can't interact with Councilpeople if I'm -- if HUD is called and PHA is put in a position to say they're trying to do something that is against their mandate. It's unfair, it's wrong. I have to right to fight for housing in my area. I have a right, when I can have housing and a garden within three blocks I have a right to be able to say that, to 54 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 advocate for that, to fight for that, without somebody calling HUD to say we're doing something wrong. How can you -- and not just you and the Mayor, I don't understand how you can act as executive director and head of the board, I don't understand how you can fight the very arm that you need to help make everything move forward. It's absolutely unconscionable to me. Councilwoman Miller, who I'm calling on next, also had an issue where we -- we have to work with all agencies we can -- public, private, and otherwise, labor -- to get things to move forward, and why somebody would call HUD and say there's some issue involved when we're trying to do housing is unconscionable to me. Maybe you know why.
I'll just -- I know that you had a conversation with the Mayor and I think I'll just --
I sure 55 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 did.
Yeah, yeah. Obviously, I didn't get any answer then. There's some policy as to farms. You know, I mean, it's just ridiculous. Councilwoman Miller.
Okay, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to get clarity for the record. Earlier you made a statement that said these decisions are the Administration's decisions, and I think you meant not yours singularly; is that correct?
Okay. But -- and I assume that you're talking about the RDA Board.
Correct? Okay. 56 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 So -- but isn't it the role of staff to do whatever needs to be done and do the work and then make recommendations for the board to make decisions before they take action?
So when you say "Administration," you mean the RDA Board and the staff at RDA.
Well, then who makes the -- who does the work and gives the recommendations to the board for action; is it you?
In some cases. And in some cases, it's other members of the senior staff.
Okay. But my point -- I guess for the record what I want the answer to is, when the RDA Board takes action -- 'cause they don't work for RDA; they're just board members. And I don't know that they're 57 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 there actually doing the work completing any tasks that helps them make decisions. I believe, as in other boards, the staff does all the work, and they make the decision to the board or the executive committee normally, and then decisions are made to take action, to take votes, et cetera. Who gives the board the information to make a decision?
Is it you only, or sometimes you and other staff members?
Okay. So when you say "Administration," the Administration makes the decision, then you're including yourself.
A while back, you started a process by which your staff and others were starting to put their arms around property acquisition and disposition in the City of Philadelphia. Please tell us where you are with that kind of study, because a lot of this frustration I'm hearing and heard at the prior hearing both from developers, both from Councilpeople, and both from people that are just trying to get housing, is that there is something wrong with this. And I don't want to believe that what is broken is sent from the 59 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 Mayor. I don't want to believe that we are not getting the kind of cooperation that -- I mean, all my life, I ran for office so that I could make a difference. And then to be told that we can't do some of the things by way of property acquisition. I have a street called Market Street. And on Market Street, from 46th Street to 63rd Street, because of the el construction, we have 40 percent abandonment. We lost 50-plus family-owned businesses. And the only hope that we were telling the community and the Chairwoman long before I got there was that at the end of the day, we were going to transform this neighborhood based on this new infrastructure -- the City, the private sector, the community working together to do that. And it's been three years since I've been here. And I am equally frustrated with the lack of 60 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 ribbon-cutting, progress, job creation development. So if there is a study and if there is a master plan, please tell me where it is.
There is no master plan. But, as you know, we have been -- the Redevelopment Authority has been working with our sister agencies -- I would say there are seven or eight -- related City agencies that we have been working with to try to figure out how we can fix the broken system that we all knows exists. We have started to brief members of City Council. We've gotten in to some of you; in other cases, we were waiting until we -- until the budget's done. I think we did get in to you and gave you a little preview of how we're approaching the thinking on this. We have several working committees, some of which include members of City Council. We want to get more 61 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 City Council members involved in that process and to try to figure out how we might fix the system. It's going to require, I think, a lot of dialogue this summer because in order to fix the system, we'll have to really rethink a lot of the way we -- we do business in certain City agencies. And it's a very complicated process.
So I don't want to suggest that this is going to be simple or that we're going to roll out a magic plan this summer that's going to make everybody happy. I think what we've got is the beginning of a dialogue. And that's really -- you know, it's -- we're committed to keeping the dialogue going.
All right. Here's the thing we have to have two tracks. We have to have a track that -- I don't mind getting down the road on a donut tire to the gas station to know that I'm going to put a fixed tire on, 62 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 but we still have to make progress. And paralysis analysis is sometimes what the City and governments in general get. The people out in the business community, in the community are not working. They're not -- there's a job not happening on Market Street because there's not a construction project because we couldn't get acquisition dollars to get site control to do what we needed to do to get financing in a difficult, difficult banking, financing environment. The confidence -- I had a developer say to me the confidence to have faith that site acquisition would happen made him say it's so much easier to do it down the road. And that frustration, as we start to bring people to Philadelphia, to our respective districts and say there is a opportunity here. Yeah, there's a recession; yeah, you should take a risk and invest your capital here. They look 63 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 at us and say, You have a system that doesn't give my investors any belief that we can start on time and on time and build within budget because of that uncertainty. And so, the frustration that you hear often is because -- I just know there are other districts that have had, you know, other administrations where they've actually been able to point to projects that they helped bring online and bring to fruition. And it's difficult. There's a joke that I have all the Councilpeople sign a piece of pipe saying you have to get in line in the pipeline. And at first, it was funny. I mean, and I said, you know, I'm going to figure this system out. I've been in development, I've been on that side of the table. But this is getting increasingly frustrating. And I really don't want to believe that it is the 64 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 policy of this administration to analyze to a point where we are ineffective. And that's borderline where we are. And whatever it takes to fix this -- I don't want this hostile kind of interrogation. I'd rather build something, I'd rather cut a ribbon. But at the point where a Councilperson doesn't get answers, I mean, what's left to them but to have a hearing to bring this to a public forum. And I just get -- I just get saddened by the fact that we can't figure a way to move properties, to move projects, to put people to work.
Yeah. I -- I sense your frustration. I certainly share it. It's a -- you know, it's a tough time. And I just will make two points. One is, at the hearing last week, you did ask us to bring a list of the projects that the Redevelopment Authority has done in all Council 65 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 Districts.
I shared that with the Chair. And so, I just want you to know that we did give that you information. And there are some projects getting done. There's no question it's not as many as any of us would like, but -- and you'll have to decide whether your district is getting as many as other districts, and I'll leave it up to you. I do want to make the point that I think we're all feeling that the NTI audit slowed everything down. And that is, again, as I said last week, not the fault of anyone in this room. But there's no question that the Controller's audit, which put NTI acquisitions on hold, meant that a lot of deals didn't get done while the audit was 66 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 going. I mean, as you know, that process has restarted. I think you're going to see us jump-starting a lot of acquisitions this summer. And I'm cautiously optimistic that things are going to improve the second half of this year.
Well, I'd like to share that optimism, but when we walked from 63rd and Market to 57th and Market, the community wasn't as optimistic. And if we don't start to show them some progress, I mean, I think their optimism will turn to pessimism; and from there, just throw their hands up. And I really think we have to do something. I understand audits, but this is the longest audit in the history of audits. And we have to, at some point, come to a conclusion that there was a financial defalcation or there wasn't. And if there wasn't, let's move on; if there was, let's deal with it. 67 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379
But analysis paralysis is not where we need to be. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much. And let me know, 'cause I started working for the late Lucien Blackwell January 3, 1976. This is the worst I've seen it. Talk about -- we've had glitches in the system, we've had hearings. Generally our hearings -- I mean, we -- I had eight hearings at the close of the administration of former Mayor Street; that was to protect employees when they reorganized, but it wasn't at this level. We were trying to protect workers. It wasn't that we felt that everything stopped, to not -- to charge a senior citizen fair market value for a lot next door that she cleans and tries to keep neat for a block, to take a little plot of ground that somebody 68 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 plants flowers on and say you have to provide fair market value, and to make fair market value totally different, using different standards for different areas such that we all admit they're not fair, it's just -- it's just unconscionable. I've never seen it this bad. And as I said, we go public when are -- when we have no recourse. So we're not at all satisfied. We're going to -- we have one or two people left to testify; we'll ask you to stand by. And then we will finish our line of questioning, and that is after -- so after Councilwoman Miller speaks, we're going to ask Reverend Christian Buggs, who's in for Reverend Kenneth Porter, who's out of town, and Community Bible Deliverance Kingdom Ministries to come forward. Councilwoman Miller.
Okay. Two quick questions as follow-up from 69 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 last week. We need to get together and have a meeting, a follow-up meeting, regarding the Rays of Hope project, with all of the parties, with all of the parties that are involved. So I don't expect you to give me any dates and times today, but I need you to make that commitment to do --
And if she doesn't, we'll have another hearing just on getting a date.
Right. Okay, great. And, yeah, I just want to make a comment about the broken system. I guess the system's broke. I guess it depends on who's looking at it. I know that we were always able to acquire land and get projects moving. And I wasn't paying full attention to your response to Councilman Jones, and I do think you said something about we'll do something over the summer, 70 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 but I'd like to know -- you've looked at that system now for two years in terms of our acquisition NTI dollars, and we need to begin to wrap that up so that we can move forward with acquisitions and disposal of land. So how soon -- is that what you were making reference to when saying you'll be doing some work over the summer?
No. I was making -- I think Deborah McColloch's prepared to talk to you about the NTI schedule if you want that. No, I was referring to our looking at the overall vacant land system in the City and briefing Councilmembers over the summer and talking about ways that we can tweak the system.
Okay, okay. So Deborah is going to be the one to deal with the NTI acquisition dollars?
You know, 71 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 I think Councilmembers have been pretty patient and, you know, sat back and waited with the audit of audits to be completed so we could move forward with our projects. (Deborah McCulloch comes forward.) MS. McCOLLOCH: Good afternoon. I'm Deborah McCulloch, the Director of Housing. I'm not sure, Councilwoman, if you received a copy of the letter that the Mayor signed last week providing the acquisition timelines. I have another copy of it here for you today if you'd like to that.
I think you gave that out at a hearing. MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes.
I think the Finance Committee hearing? 72 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes.
Right. I'm not a member of that so I did not get a copy of that letter. MS. McCOLLOCH: Okay.
Thank you. MS. McCOLLOCH: Here's a copy -- another copy of the same letter, and it outlines -- there are three different acquisition timelines listed in this letter: One is for properties that I'm calling "the old properties," which would be the previously-submitted list of acquisitions. A second is a timeline for properties that would be required for low-income housing tax-credit deals for which developers would want to submit in the next tax credit round. And the third is the timeline for what I'm calling "new properties," which are properties that are not needed 73 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 for the low-income housing tax credit round but are priorities that you would want to have submitted from your district. So in that paper that I just handed out, it lists the timeline for each of those three sets. And what I will be providing -- my commitment is to provide to you the follow-up to our meeting of last fall that follows up on some issues that were raised when we met last fall to discuss NTI and gives you again the list of property that we're calling the "old properties." My commitment is to submit that to you by the end of this week, by June 18th, and then for you to respond which properties from the old list you want us to pursue; if you have tax-credit properties, what those are; and then what the new properties are. So this -- the letter that was just distributed -- that was handed out 74 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 last week outlines the timeline for that.
Okay. So once we review the list and review what's the old, whether it still remains a priority or active, when will we begin to move -- MS. McCOLLOCH: Over the summer. Then once we get that list, you can see, if you look, for example, on the page for previously-submitted NTI acquisitions, that's what we're calling "the old ones." You would return the list to me by the end -- in two weeks' time, and that would authorize the RDA to then begin ordering appraisals, which is sort of the next step so that we can match budget resources with properties. And then the Interagency Review Team -- that's called IART -- will review all of the lists, make a set of recommendations to the Chief of Staff with the -- again, with the appraisals. Once we get the appraisals, we review the 75 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 budgets, we review them with you. I view this as an iterative process, where we get the budget, we come back to you and say, Here's the budget, this is what it's going to cost to acquire these properties. If there's enough money for what you want, we would move it forward; if not, we would talk to you about which ones do we want to drop, are these the ones we still want to do. We get that approval. Then we -- the steps are, it has to be back to the Redevelopment Authority Board, it has to go to the Planning Commission, and then it comes back to City Council. So our goal is to try to get the list back to Council in the fall --
Okay. MS. McCOLLOCH: -- when Council reconvenes in the fall.
Okay. And we'll do the new -- the old versus -- MS. McCOLLOCH: Right. 76 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379
-- the new in two weeks, correct? MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes, mm-hmm, mm-hmm.
Thank you very much. Again, we appreciate Reverend Christian Buggs for Rev. Dr. Kenneth Porter and Community Bible Kingdom Ministries, would you come forward. (Witness comes forward.)
Thank you all for coming. Would the members of this fine church in the 3rd District stand, those who are here. (Church members stand.) Thank you all for coming. (Applause.) 77 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379
Thank you very much for taking time from your schedule. We appreciate your time. Reverend Buggs. REV. BUGGS: First of all, I'd like to take this time to express our appreciation for the time to Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell and the entire Councilmembers today for this opportunity for us to come before you to express our need as to what we want to accomplish here at Community Bible Deliverance Kingdom Ministries. Once again, my name is Christian Buggs. I am the head trustee and minister for Community Bible Deliverance, and I am here on behalf the Dr. Kenneth Porter, who is the founder and pastor of this particular church. This church has been located at 3951 Haverford Avenue for over 20 years. I have here, in this binder, over 43 pictures of the alleyway that is directly located behind our church. And 78 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 these are pictures that were not taken by a photographer outside of the ministry; they were taken by myself. And I can honestly say that when I stepped back there to take these pictures, it was as if I had walked into a third-world country. We also have here 169 petitions from the residents of the Mantua community and the surrounding neighborhood asking the City of Philadelphia to help us to proceed with the condemning process of these properties on Mt. Vernon Street and to make these mentioned properties available for redevelopment. Condemnation of these abandoned properties was requested over two years ago; and to no available. And since then have been used to the detriment of the community and to the detriment of the livelihood and the morale of this particular community. When I went into this, what I 79 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 have found, we have members here today and members also who have witnessed prostitution, drug abuse, alcohol abuse on a daily basis. And we're talking all day, every day, all night, every night. When I took these particular pictures that are located here -- and if any of the Councilmembers would like to see them, I would ask that you would look at those. I took these pictures on last Friday, between 12 noon and 12:45. And, honestly, I was appalled at the condition. These pictures only tell a partial story as to what is transpiring in this particular alleyway behind our church. During the time that I was there, I was in there for, like I said, between 12 and 12:45, two Philadelphia officers on foot patrol came into the alleyway, and they stayed for a few moments, and we were able to look at a few things, and they pretty much asked me what I was doing, and I told them I was 80 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 taking pictures for the church. And after they left, within five minutes after they left, a man and a woman arrived in broad daylight to only -- to do what I can only leave to your imagination. This has been a two-year process that we started -- like I say, we started this over two years ago, and we are now back to square one, and nothing has been done. What Dr. Porter, the church hierarchy, the members of Community Bible Deliverance and the Mantua community, what we want to do is, we want to build a building that will add to the community. Dr. Porter and the particular church has not made a five-year commitment, it has been not been a ten-year, it has not been a fifteen-year; it has been over a twenty-year condominium. We want to feed -- we have fed, we have clothed, and with the facility 81 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 that we would like to build, we will continue to feed and clothe people in this particular community. There are boarded-up houses that you can see in those pictures that have been broken into. And what we want to be done is that we want this credited to the community, and the community came together to stop the blight at this particular location. Once again, I also have the 169 signatures from the members of the particular community.
And all we want done is that something be started immediately that will allow us to bring something positive to this area. As Councilwoman Blackwell aptly stated earlier, what we want to do is, we want to add to the community. What is going on at these particular properties, even as we speak, is daily taking away from this community. Once again, we have members here. To my right, I have Lisa Bowers, 82 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 who is the secretary for the church, who has an office that backs up to this particular area, and she'll be able to testify to some of the things that she's heard and dealt with out there. And at this point, I can promise you that if this process is expedited, we will build an edifice that will add to the community for years to come. But at this point, that cannot go forward until these particular properties are condemned. And those pictures that I showed you were not taken three weeks ago, they were not taken a year ago; they were just taken this Friday, in broad daylight. And even as we speak, there are illicit sex acts, drug abuse, alcohol abuse going on as children play -- not 20 to 30 feet away, yards away. Even as we're having church on Tuesdays and Thursdays and every day that we church, we have to deal with this particular 83 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 thing. And what we want to do is -- Dr. Porter does not want to leave this area, but he wants to actually do all that he can to add to this. But we need the help of this particular committee to help us go forward.
Thank you, Reverend Buggs. We learned -- we've been out there with your church, doing cleanup activities, so we know about that area behind there. As of yesterday, Licenses and Inspections tells us that they're going to demolish them. So that's a start. And to -- on the third aspect of it, we will ask Ms. Gillen with regard to this too. We sent a letter two years ago regarding condemnation, but we haven't received a response with regard to condemnation of these properties for the church. Ms. Gillen is coming forward. 84 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 Councilman Jones.
Just a quick question. Are there any occupied properties on this block?
To our knowledge. REV. BUGGS: To our knowledge, it's one. But those pictures are coming behind four unoccupied properties.
And that one is a PHA house, so these are one of the kind of blocks that Councilwoman Miller fights for, where you try to get more PHA housing. But then, if we get in a position where we ask PHA to work with us and then they get approached by HUD, like PHA is in collusion. We're trying to find some entity who's able to move, because when we depend on the City, we're just stuck. Councilman Greenlee.
I'm 85 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 sorry. You partially answered my question, Madam Chair. I was just wondering who are the owners. Are these private owners? I understand one is PHA. Are the rest privately owned?
They're all privately owned, okay, they're all private owned. REV. BUGGS: I just have a follow-up question. Now, I did hear that Licenses and Inspections is going to be coming out to do the cleanup in the back alleyway. When will that commence?
No, we've done that, we've done that. REV. BUGGS: Okay.
And the church has done that with you. REV. BUGGS: Okay.
L&I is 86 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 not going to seal it; they're going to demolish them. REV. BUGGS: They're going to demolish them.
They'll demolish them. REV. BUGGS: Okay. And do we know when that --
And we learned that as of yesterday. So they -- Sandy? (Councilwoman Blackwell confers with staffperson off the record.) So the order is in, the order is in to get them done, so we'll stay in touch with you 'cause L&I said they will tear them down. And so they're not -- so we won't look for them to be sealed; they said they're past that. REV. BUGGS: Okay.
They don't want to invest -- as old folks say, "spend good money after bad." They just 87 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 want -- they want them torn down. So we'll let Ms. Gillen comment with regard to our request for condemnation as of two years ago. We didn't get a response. REV. BUGGS: Okay. (Ms. Gillen comes forward.) REV. BUGGS: Thank you.