Hi. Terry Gillen. So I want to make sure I understand what you're asking, Councilwoman. So this -- can you tell me the name of this church again?
Yes. The name of this church is Community Bible Deliverance Kingdom Ministries.
And they're, like, near 40th and Haverford, that area.
Okay. Did you 88 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 send a letter to the Redevelopment Authority two years ago asking --
Yeah. And so, obviously, I'm not familiar with the details, but was it is your intention that we would use NTI money for this?
Okay, all right. Well, all I can tell you is that we'll look into it. My assumption is that it was going to be paid for out of NTI and that that's been on hold, but now that NTI's back up and running -- 89 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379
Yes. Ms. Gillen, in prior testimony in another hearing, you had made mention -- it might have been actually during the budget process -- that there is a demonstration program on marketable properties. Which districts were they in?
You made mention that there was a disposition demonstration project. And I may be characterizing it differently.
But I believe, if memory serves me correctly -- and I'll find out from transcripts, but it was in Councilman DiCicco's district and, I believe, maybe President Verna's 90 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 district; is that right?
Yeah. Well, I think there are two things going. One is that we did a broker's sale program, pilot program last year --
-- in those two districts to see how the documents might work, how the system might work. We are interested in expanding that this year and taking that to a broader scale and including other Council Districts, so --
Terry, my issue with that is that we found a way to create what was necessary to move properties in those areas, which are -- without question, Center City, higher demographic, higher ability for marketable projects. But where government works best is to assist areas that don't have the private-sector spark -- 91 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379
-- to spend CDBG dollars and/or dollars for -- by this government and quasi-publics to kind of create markets through private -- public investments to attract private investment.
And it seems to me that if we can find ways to be innovative and Center City and in South Philly and in parts of -- marketable parts of the City, that we should be just as creative in places like this, where -- when I looked at those pictures -- I don't know if you've seen them, but I've never seen anything like that. And if we can't figure a better 92 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 use for publicly-owned land than that, I just don't understand the rationale as how we can be innovative in one area but we can't figure out things in poor areas.
Yeah. Well, let me just say we did ten properties just to test the system, so it was really a pretty small pilot program. I would love to pull your district into this, so I'm happy to hear you say that because, in fact, we would love to include the 4th going forward. And I would say the other thing that was the biggest surprise to us, we actually didn't focus on kind of Center City properties because they kind of sell anyway, but what we did -- what was a surprise to us was that people were willing to buy parcels that we didn't think would sell and that real estate brokers were able to sell parcels that we 93 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 thought were in very weak markets. And that was the pleasant surprise for us. So we're kind of excited about the possibility of expanding it. So I'm happy to work with you going forward.
I think that most District Councilwomen want in. We understand the 1st, the 2nd and the 5th were chosen because of their -- they're adjacent to Center City, and that was the issue, but I'm sure --
Well, Councilwoman, we did not have the 5th in our program. Now, there was a project that Public Property did, the Department of Public Property did, where they had the 5th in theirs. But in ours, we did not have the 5th. And I just want to clarify that.
So the 1st and 2nd got a double bubble, and 5th was included, and the rest of us, we just sit and go, Maybe, maybe, maybe, you know. 94 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 But we really would like to be -- we really would like inclusion. Councilwoman Miller.
Yes. Since your back up at the table, I'd also like to get some information or a date on when the RFP for NSP2 Nicetown will be -- you know, will be implemented. I know that NSP2's Grays Ferry was already out, so I'd like to know what's going on with Nicetown and I'd like to receive a written response to that.
We have placed that loose-leaf book with the photos in it and the petitions in it for you to see it. And then it's Reverend Buggs'.
But 95 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 you'll at least get a chance to see that while you're here.
And we thank the church for coming. Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Gillen, quickly. And this is kind of a general question, although it's based on Reverend Buggs' testimony. Is there a usual, like what you would say, sort of target time that you would have? And I know every development, every issue is a little different. But, you know, the church has a plan for this land. Now, whatever happened -- the communication with Councilwoman Blackwell, you know, whatever happened there. But now it's -- the request is coming in. Do you have, like, sort of a target time where you think reasonably 96 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 the land should be turned over and development can start? Again, given that this plan meets certain requirements. You know, I'm just assuming that. But, again, not just on this one, but just generally. Because, obviously, we've heard the question of when a lot today.
And I'm just trying to think, is there a policy that we'd like to see this get started in such a time?
Councilman, when I came to the Redevelopment Authority, people -- outsiders complained to me a lot that the process was slow, and I spent a lot of time looking at it.
And what I found is that the acquisition, disposition process within the Redevelopment Authority works relatively quickly. And by that, I'll say things can move within 97 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 six to twelve months as a rule -- with one exception. What I have found in many, many, many cases, I would say in the overwhelming majority of cases, when things don't move, it's because there's a financing issue.
It's because there's either not enough money or the proper source of financing hasn't been identified for the project. So that would be the best answer I could give you.
So you're saying given everything sort of in place, six to twelve months; is that what you're --
That is correct. And I know that statement is going to come back and bite me someday, but I will 98 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 say that --
Any more questions on this particular issue or project? (No further questions.)
Thank you very much. We would like to ask Brian Kelly, Net CDC, if you are still here? Brian Kelly? (Brian Kelly comes forward).
Thank you. Thank you very much and thank you for presenting your proposal. Thanks. Feel free to identify yourself for the record and continue with your testimony. 99 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379
Yes. My name is Brian Kelly, with Net CDC. I have submitted a few copies of testimony so you all have it. But if it please the Council, I will read it into the record.
Well, hello. And thank you to the panel for receiving my testimony. The issue of Public Property disposition is of great concern to the community development community and us in particular, as Community Development Corporation operating in north central Philadelphia, between Temple University and Temple Hospital. We're greatly concerned about the process undertaken by the Department of Public Property, which operates outside of the Vacant Parcel Review Committee process. Without a built-in right of reversion clause, if a buyer fails to make intended improvements within a specified time frame, the 100 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 process will further contribute to land speculation and negatively impact our communities. Although we understand the need to get properties off of the public books and back onto the tax rolls, it is equally important that these properties actually be developed. 22 annually for the right to keep a lot vacant, trash-strewn, and blighted; and $450 annually to keep strategic commercial buildings abandoned and awaiting City infrastructure investments so that they can cash in on increased property values. The small increase in revenue by getting these properties off the public books is more than offset by long-term costs to the City of large tracts of blighted land and buildings. The City Council, by 101 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 implementing recommendation of the Philadelphia Tax Reform -- oh, wait, wait, wait. I apologize. I'm reading... This will exponentially increase the cost of implementing strategic neighborhood plans in the future since, instead of working with the City to put vacant land to productive use, community development corporations like ours will be forced to pay large costs on speculated land. It would seem reasonable that when public property is sold, there would be some guarantee that the public good is achieved beyond just collecting the cash. Furthermore, since four different agencies principally control the public land in the City -- PHDC, PHA, RDA, and the Department of Public Property -- there are many cases in our target service area alone where adjacent properties are both publicly-owned but by different agencies. Without a coordinated disposition process, the City 102 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 runs risk of one agency selling a property that lies adjacent to other publicly-owned land. The sale of these properties in isolation ruins the opportunity to gain greater benefit from offering to sell all of these publicly-owned parcels in one single package. There's also limited public information about how the Department of Public Property's new disposition program operates. We recommend that Council receive and make public any written information regarding the process whereby citizens may compete for these properties. And then I would be remiss in my testimony if I did not mention the largest slumlord, absentee landlord in our community is the Philadelphia Housing Authority. I know that this Council hearing doesn't particularly pertain this to them, but it seems related that this 103 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 entity operates in a vacuum and with what I consider reckless abandon and utter disregard to the impact it has on the surrounding communities where its properties are located. I recognize that they have initiated several projects of a larger scale; however, with the scattered-site units, specifically the vacant lots and abandoned structures that plague our community, there does not seem to be any comprehensive plan or leverage over the agency to work within the City. They fail to engage community stakeholders in their development disposition plans and leave properties vacant for decades. " For an institution that controls so much City land and fails to 104 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES.
100379 pay taxes to the City, I would expect that the local city government would exert more control over the agency or, at a minimum, that PHA make itself more transparent. Along with our partner agency, Village of Arts and Humanities, we have identified several problem PHA properties that have been vacant since the mid-1990s, addresses: 2514 and 2516 North Alder Street. And despite approaching PHA for purchase over ten years ago, the request has been continuously refused. Meanwhile, our partner agency has borne the cost of sealing this property, and it has further deteriorated with several break-ins and fires over the years. Neighborhood residents are suffering due to PHA's bloated property rolls. However, if PHA simply packages up groups of its scattered-site properties for disposition, small organizations like our own, who have 105 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 shouldered the cost of PHA's negligence, would be shut out of the process by land speculators and developers who have deeper pockets and can scoop of up the larger packages. Once again, the average Philadelphian citizens will lose out as the bureaucracy mismanages assets for years and rashly makes decisions in the midst of crisis that work in contradiction to the best practices of community economic development. Additionally, the issue of side yards is important, which I know you mentioned earlier in previous testimony. Many residents have stepped in and taken responsibility for adjacent properties due to historic failure of the City to address vacancy problems. Under the guise of the $1 lot program, many residents were given verbal assurances that they would be able to purchase the lot for $1 as long as they maintained it. Now they're being told 106 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 everything will be at market-rate sales. I don't understand how the Council can penalize its proactive citizens that took the effort to maintain their communities at a time when the City was unable to. So we support Councilwoman Blackwell's request that the City Administration prepare and submit a written disposition policy for the Committee on Housing's review and, if necessary, a public hearing. Urban gardening agreements are also an important way that citizens without large financial resources help maintain large tracts of vacant land, add to the domestic economy, and promote food security. Community groups and senior citizens needs their agreements to legally enter the land because they do not have the funds to purchase the properties. Could not a review be conducted in the middle of winter, when there's no 107 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 gardening instead of a suspension beginning the start of this past growing season. I guess, lastly, in a community that is plagued by large tracts of vacant land such as our own, we recognize that this is a complicated process. We testify today to make sure that the disposition process by the Department of Public Property does not simply transfer publicly-vacant land from the City only to be added to the 25,000-plus vacant privately-held parcels that lie undeveloped and continue to burden our communities. We find this large volume of privately-held land to be the primary destabilizing factor in our communities, not to mention the large accrued real estate tax bills on the majority of these properties. We support a process that gives the City possibly through the RDA -- but, I guess, apparently through the testimony 108 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 today, maybe not -- the ability to put a maximum term of tack delinquency on real estate -- three years, for example -- before granting the ability to seize that property and put it under a developer development with someone else. This will also help to serve the same purpose of increasing public revenues.
We applaud Council's recent efforts to go after absentee holders of vacant property and feel that the repossession of property can begin with the over 25,000 privately-held vacant properties. This would help to make sure that our low-income and elderly populations are not an unsuspecting negative (indiscernible) of the legislation or action. Furthermore, since the entire discussion is couched within the rubric of raising City revenues, it seems worthwhile to mention the recommendations of the Tax Reform Commissions, whose final report was published in November of 109 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 2003. Recommendation suggests that the City shift toward land value taxation. According to the commission, land value taxation encourages maximizing land's potential, will encourage private investment in the City, and help reduce blight and abandonment. That's a quote from their report. This would appropriately shift the burden of taxation to the vacant property holders and off of homeowners, maximizing the benefit to the cornerstone of our stable communities -- the families of Philadelphia. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Thank you very much. Certainly we appreciate your testimony. I will talk to Councilman Clarke -- you can as well -- with regard to properties in North Philadelphia. I see that 2512, 14, and 16, we noted those. 110 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 And as a member of Council and the PHA Board, we're happy to -- the PHA Board meets, and you can testify there, or you can do it all through your Councilman, who will certainly let you know whether or not there are plans for that or just what the situation is or given the streets or property names -- property addresses, that is, to try to deal with this issue.
All right. I believe Ms. Gillen, we're back to the issues from this hearing and the last hearing that affect you, Public Property, and OHCD. We have a memo from Councilwoman Maria Quiñones-Sanchez, who's ill today and unable to be here. 111 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 And some of the issues she raises -- I won't read it. We did make a copy for the record, and we were asked that a copy of her memo be put on the record. But I will generally try to summarize a few questions and ask them, and they are as follows: What is the source of the policy to sell City properties at fair market value unless for City-funded affordable housing project? Is this in writing anywhere? She want to know if the fair market value issue is in writing anyplace.
I have to check. I think it is, but I will have to double-check that.
And she wants to know what happens in issues without strong market activity, low-income areas, do they get credit for sweat equity? And what happens to allow that to transfer properties? And who has 112 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 the authority to make those decisions?
And that is a conversation that we've been having with Councilwoman Quiñones-Sanchez. We're certainly aware that she wants to make that City policy. And I think we're -- not only we, but the Office of Housing and the Department of Public Property are talking to her and her staff about how such a policy might be implemented.
Well, certainly it affects us all. We all have low-income areas. Every district has well-to-do and those who are very, very low-income. And so, that affects us all, and we would like you to contact the Chair about that. Also, this is an issue that came up at the last hearing too, about allowing parcels that are in City -- that could belong to PHDC, RDA, Public Property, PHA, not selling off one in a bunch so that development can be 113 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 coordinated. And that is one of her issues. Is this being considered?
And is NTI committed to bringing on more appraisers if we need them?
'Cause that process has been so very, very slow. She asks questions with regard to Vacant Land Task Force, about internal policies from all of the agencies, including disposition procedures by April of 2010, according to the statements made by RDA at the February Vacant Property Task Force meeting. She wants to know the status of this database that was supposed to be produced.
The 114 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 RDA testified that a list of available properties across all agencies would be publicly available online by the end of the year. However, there was already a commitment to not just list properties which should be available in a day or two but to create a compilation of internal policies from all agencies, including disposition procedures by last April, according to the statements made by RDA at the February task force meeting. What is the status of this database?
We do have an internal database. It's not up online, but we -- we have it available. So we have succeeded in getting that together. And I think what we're trying to do is work with Public Property and PHDC to figure out what the next step is, because we do have different procedures, as the Councilwoman notes, and we've got to get those procedures to work together 115 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 before we put a single list up online.
I've heard them talk for years about a land base, but we they ever seem to get any further with this coordination; we never get there.
And I don't understand why we can't. I mean, we're one city, you know.
I mean, we were at meetings all weekend with Africans and Caribbeans and with this Europa tribe at Odunde, where they represent 250 million people. Nigeria alone has 150 million people, and we can't deal with 1.4 to coordinate these activities. We don't understand that. She asks: Will the ultimate product of a working group repropose legislation or administrative policy changes to deal with disposition for specific uses and in neighborhoods if, 116 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 they could be assigned cost structures and a continuum to deal with this use of fair market value? She's asking, will ultimately the product of a working group be proposed legislation or administrative policy changes?
I don't know, we don't know that yet. It's likely to be one or the other, but I just don't know yet. We haven't done enough research.
Yeah. I have no idea. I don't understand any of these, for the most part, non-answers. What is the timeline for the issuance of a new written policy on urban garden agreements? Will this be submitted to Council for comment in advance?
I don't know; that would not be a question for the Redevelopment Authority.
It's okay. We're just going to introduce 117 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 legislation to deal with it. If we can't get it one way, we have a responsibility try to get it another. And that's just some of her concerns, but they're all being made a part of the record. Now, we would like to go back -- we made available to you some of the issues that came out of the transcript from last week's hearing. I already mentioned the 1300 block of North 52nd Street and Rev. Dr. Damon Jones, where you said you'll be happy -- "I'll be happy to look into it and get back to you quickly about it." So since none of these people were contacted, we ask you now, what is the resolve on that issue? And we did make this -- these questions to you available last evening.
Thank you. 118 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379
We would like to pursue the suggestion that Councilman O'Neill made at the hearing; we think it has a lot of merit. And so, we would like to work with you and with Bibleway to try to think about how we might do a long-term lease that would get them the site control that they need so that they can move ahead with their project. And we'd like to move ahead with that.
So I assume immediately means immediately 'cause they haven't heard anything since our last hearing, and you said you'd get back to them.
I believe at our last hearing, we said we'd get back to you; and so, that's what we're doing today. But if you agree, we'll get back to them in the next week.
Okay. Now Partnership CDC. 119 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379
You said you would check on it to see where it is; and if it was ready to go, grant an extension. Can you tell me where we are with the Partnership CDC?
Yes, Councilwoman. We would like to pursue the avenue that we discussed with you. And Mike Koonce and I met with you last March. We'd like to move forward with the default but then to do a request for a proposal that Partnership could apply for. We think that would have two advantages: It would give Partnership the opportunity to engage in another partner, if they need, for capacity; but also, if we do our underwriting and we determine that there's not sufficient financing for the project, we can then go -- the Redevelopment Authority would then go to OHCD and see if we can identify other sources of funding to do this 120 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 project.
This was one of those projects where they had financing. And after they -- they were getting their licenses together. They had PHFA financing and then were told to get a partner. They got Walter Lomax. They did everything they were supposed to do, and then they were still told that -- they were threatened with the properties being taken back. This is another one of those -- it's small; it's not big like Latter-Day Saints or like the Science Center, but it's a small CDC, who was similarly treated poorly for only God knows why.
Well, we would -- we think there may not be sufficient financing, so we'd like to sit down and talk to them about the project.
Now, Ivan Supply Company. You said you weren't familiar with it and you were 121 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 going to look into that?
Yes, Councilwoman. The last contact that we had from them was in 2008, when they had contacted the Redevelopment Authority. We asked them for some information, and they did not supply the information that we asked them for back in 2008. So we're more than happy to go back to them and ask for that again. I'm not sure why they think the ball's in our court; we believe the ball's in their court. But we'd be happy to try to get the process moving.
We can follow up on that. Now, Councilwoman Miller, who just went to a meeting with one of the judges that we were invited to, a community meeting, mentioned a meeting date with regard to Rays of Hope.
Thank 122 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 you. (Deborah McColloch returns to witness table.) MS. McCOLLOCH: Deborah McColloch, Director of Housing. I believe, Councilwoman, that you received my response, the written response that I provided. Just to briefly summarize, there was a question about the City's condominium to this project, and I just -- I stated on the record and I have restated here in writing that the City remains committed to the Belfield Avenue development. Rays of Hope is planning to bring in a new developer to create some partnership or joint venture relationship that they're going to work through a company called Onion Flats to try to move the project forward. Rays of Hopes and Onion Flats need to work out a agreement which would spell out the responsibilities of each 123 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 entity. And then I believe that Onion Flats will be assuming the primary responsibility for acting as a developer. And as such, Onion Flats will have to submit all of the necessary documentation to the Redevelopment Authority to move the project to loan closing. There was also an issue raised at the last meeting about the question about the continuation of the HUD funding that's being provided through the Office of Supportive Housing, OSH. And I spoke with representatives there, and they confirmed that the HUD timeline, as it exists, allows HUD to de-obligate the funds, which means HUD could take the funds back but is not required to. Rays of Hope did not meet the benchmark requirements of the funding being awarded, so that HUD could take the funding back. But OSH is committed to this development and is prepared to make the case, if necessary, to HUD why the 124 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 commitment should stand. The real drop-dead date, which was discussed at the last hearing, is not this fall, but it is September 25, 2012. Statutorily, HUD will recapture the funds, by statute. There is no way to massage that date by September 25, 2012. So that is the drop-dead date that I believe Councilwoman Reed Miller was referring to. It's not September of this year; it's September a year from now. So we have the ability to get the funds under contract. But, as Ms. Gillen committed, we will meet with Miss Ali and her development partners and talk to them about what they need to do to move forward on the Rays of Hope development.
Thank you, Ms. McColloch. The next issue is RDA hiring. As you well know, Ms. Gillen, we mentioned Wayne King, and we talked about 125 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 the issue we have, many of us who've known him some years. We were told he 4 was demoted, taken his title, put in a 5 cubby, salary taken away, all of these 6 things, as one person we happen to hear 7 about, and Donna Miller mentioned him and 8 the larger issue on recruitment 9 process -- how many jobs you have, how 10 many positions have become available, and 11 how many folks have applied, and how 12 diverse that group is. 13
And we -- I did 14 hear Councilwoman's concerns about that. 15 I spoke to the Mayor about it yesterday, 16 and I know she raised it with the Mayor. 17 And we are going to need a few weeks to 18 get that data together because we've got 19 to go back into the HR files to try to 20 pull that information together. But we're committed to do that, so we will get that information to you.
Well, you know how diverse you are now and you know what your current numbers are, 126 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 correct? in terms of the --
I can tell you that. I don't know off the top of my head, but I can certainly get that to you immediately.
With regard to your own staff, your own agency, you have that information, I assume.
I do have it. I don't have it right with me, but I can get it.
Yes. I think you knew that we were going to ask that question today, and I don't think it's a big -- it's a shock. On every hearing, we ask about diversity, we ask about who works, how many people work, how diverse they are. And that is another issue that we don't understand why you didn't want to -- why you choose not to respond. It is another answer that is not -- that we don't accept. It's not acceptable that 127 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 you can't tell us your diversity in your department. It obviously means -- it indicates to us there's some issue there, because we don't know why you couldn't come prepared to answer it at this hearing, given a notice from the 7th to the 16th. Another issue was with regard to the garden agreements. Maybe we talked about that, about Councilwoman Sanchez raising the issue of who would monitor these agreements to make sure that they were maintained. And you said that this would be done by the Office of Sustainability. I don't know what they -- who they are and what they do, no 19 disrespect intended.
Councilwoman, that was the Public Property Commissioner who said that, not me.
So we'll let her respond to that. (Public Property Commissioner Joan Schlotterbeck comes forward.) COMM. SCHLOTTERBECK: The original idea was for --
Identify yourself for the record. COMM. SCHLOTTERBECK: Oh, I'm sorry. Public Property Commissioner Joan Schlotterbeck. Was to assist with making one process shorter by making the urban garden agreements not necessarily have to go through the VPRC process but have a direct license and partner up with Sustainability. It's safe to say that it's a better way of doing business if we coordinate every property issue, acquisition, and disposition into the policy that we've been taking about today. So I'm withdrawing any attempt 129 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 to, you know, do anything outside of the existing practice, which is through VPRC.
Thank you. COMM. SCHLOTTERBECK: You're very welcome.
Are there any questions from members of the committee about things I've left out? We've only kind of scratched the surface. All right. I'll make a statement now. As we plan as to what we're going to do moving forward, I'll make this statement. This goes to Ms. Gillen and my memo to my colleagues on this committee. The first item was a discussion of the redeveloper selection process. I'm sure you're familiar with Section 21 1709 of the Pennsylvania urban redevelopment law, which deals with the powers of the Redevelopment Authority. I will quote part of it, part K, that pertains to the matter in question: 130 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 "To sell, lease, or otherwise transfer any real property located outside a redevelopment area and subject to the approval by the local governing body, any real property located in a redevelopment area." The intent of the state legislature, when it created this section 10 of the law, was that the local governing bodies were to provide actual oversight of the disposition of the properties acquired by RDAs in redevelopment areas. It was not incidental oversight. In Philadelphia, the local legislative body is the City Council. And under the Charter, City Council has two forms of approval: ordinance and resolution. For many years, City Council approved redevelopment agreements by ordinance. Public hearings were held on each agreement. Developers like RDA and the community in which the project was located were invited to testify. Over 131 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 time, a strong working relationship developed between RDA and City Council. And based on a City Solicitor's opinion, City Council moved from ordinance 6 approval to approval by resolution. However, such a working relationship does not now exist, and we are not engaged in the process at the outset, and are projects moved to the RDA approval stage without our input or support. Under the state statute, we have an obligation to perform a certain level of due diligence before we cast a vote to approve a redeveloper's agreement. We can only perform this duty if we have an opportunity to meet the developer, understand what the developer is proposing, understand what impact the project might have on the community, and ask other questions that are pertinent to the project. Until this administration -- this is how we must be engaged with the 132 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 Redevelopment Authority. You have a choice. You can engage us early in the process and move forward, knowing you have our support; or we can go back to approving redevelopment agreements by ordinance, which would compel the Redevelopment Authority and the developer to come before Council and testify on record regarding this project. The former is preferable to the latter, but if approval by ordinance is what it takes for us to allow this body to perform its duty under Pennsylvania redevelopment law, then that is what we are prepared to do. That concludes all that I have to say. Is there anyone else who would like to testify, make a statement, ask a question for the good and welfare of us all? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will recess this hearing subject 133 6/16/10 - HOUSING COMMITTEE - RES. 100379 to the call of the Chair. That's because our time is up in this session. I'd love to come back and have this wonderful engagement with you next week, but since we recess tomorrow, unfortunately, we have to let it go. Thank you all very much. (Proceedings end at 3:20 p.m.) * * * 134 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings of the City of Philadelphia Council Committee Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me on Wednesday, June 16, 2010, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. __________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO Registered Professional Reporter (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.)