COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, 5/29/01 1:25 p.m. - - - BILL 010261 - Authorizing transfers in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002 within the General Fund from certain or all City offices, departments, boards, and commissions to the Department of Licenses and Inspections - Demolitions. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL, Vice Chair COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK J. DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 I N D E X Joyce Wilkerson, Mayor's Chief of Staff . . . Robert Solvibile, L&I Commissioner. . . . . . 62 June Bey, Private Citizen . . . . . . . . . . 138 Judith Robinson, Private Citizen. . . . . . . 146 Gordon Whitman, EPOP. . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 L. Haley, Visitation Parish, Visitation EPOP 156 Hattie Williams, Block Captain. . . . . . . . 156 2600 North 31st Street 3 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good afternoon, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill No. 010261. Would you please read the title of the bill.
Bill No. 010261, an ordinance authorizing transfers in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002 within the General Fund from certain or all City offices, departments, boards, and commissions to the Department of Licenses and Inspections - Demolitions.
Thank you. I would just like to make a statement before we start our hearings. On April 18th of this year, the Mayor transmitted to Council a proposed ordinance to implement his NTI. After receiving the Mayor's proposal, I issued a statement that I was looking forward to working with the Administration to iron out the details of the NTI plan before Council considered the ordinance authorizing the NTI bond issue. As I noted in that statement, however, the Mayor's announcements lacked any detail as to how the NTI Program would be implemented. And as I have 4 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 repeatedly stated, an issue of this magnitude should not be hastily considered. I wrote to the Mayor on April 24th. That letter noted that the NTI proposal raised a number of questions that needed to be answered before Council could consider an NTI ordinance. However, the letter also included the following statement, which I would like to read: "None of us would like to see the implementation of the NTI delayed by our review of these issues. To ensure that no delay will occur, I intend to have a bill introduced at the next session of Council to transfer $8 million in appropriations to the Department of Licenses and Inspections for demolitions. The intent of the bill is to provide funding for demolition of imminently dangerous buildings from July 1, 2001 through the end of 2001. A hearing will be scheduled on the bill and I would ask that you send a representative to that hearing who can advise City Council as to any changes the Administration believes are necessary in the source and amount of such funding so as not to delay implementation of the NTI while it proceeds through legislative process." 5 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 As promised, a bill was introduced to transfer appropriations to L&I for demolitions during FY 2002. That bill, Bill No. 010261, is the bill before this committee for hearing today. Bill 6 No. 010261 will authorize the transfer of $8 million in the FY 2002 operating budget to the Department of Licenses and Inspections for demolition. The FY 2002 operating budget already includes $2 million for demolition. The appropriation transfer under consideration for today would, therefore, bring L&I's total demolition for the FY 2002 budget to $10 million. As explained in my letter to the Mayor, the purpose of this bill is to provide funding for the demolition of imminently dangerous buildings through the end of this calendar year. Let me be clear about the purpose of today's hearing. It is not to consider the merits of the Mayor's NTI proposal, nor is it the purpose of today's hearings to consider whether Council has acted appropriately in asking that the Administration submit a complete plan with appropriate detail before an ordinance approving the plan is introduced. Rather, the sole purpose of today's hearing is to consider whether there is 6 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 sufficient funding in the FY 2002 operating budget to meet the City's needs to demolish imminently dangerous buildings until such time as the Administration submits and Council approves a final NTI plan. Our first witness will be the Mayor's Chief of Staff Joyce Wilkerson. Miss Wilkerson, please approach the witness table. (Witness comes forward.)
I know that you have submitted written testimony, and a copy of that testimony has been distributed to all members of Council and will be made a part of the record for today's hearing. There is no need for you to read the testimony. However, I would like to go into questioning. In my letter to the Mayor, I asked that he send a representative to the hearing to, and I quote, "advise City Council as to any changes the Administration believes are necessary in the source and amount of such funding so as to not delay implementation of the NTI, specifically demolition, while it proceeds through legislative process." Am I correct to conclude, based upon 7 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 your written testimony, that the Administration does not suggest any change in the source and amount of the funding proposed in Bill No. 010261?
The Administration, as I noted in my testimony, has no objection to the legislation if the amount of funding is generally enough to enable the Administration to undertake demolition at the same rate that we have historically. What I attempted to do in my testimony is to note some of the ancillary impacts that might occur as a result of the timing on other initiatives that would be supported out of NTI. And those really don't, you know, and a lot of those extend beyond simply the source and the amount of the proposed transfer.
But, Miss Wilkerson, prior to this year, it's my understanding that $10 million was appropriated to L&I for demolition, and then I guess in the last several months of that period, there was a $3 million transfer ordinance. This year, I believe we appropriated over $15 million, and as of this date, 996 properties have been demolished. There are still $2,700,000 that remains in this year's budget 8 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 for demolition. I'm informed that approximately 225 to 250 properties could be demolished and that would include the stuccoing of the adjacent properties.
Actually, this year we project that there will be approximately 1250 properties demolished at a total cost of about $17 million. Some of these properties are commercial properties; not all of them are residential properties. Since 1995, the City has been spending in excess of $10 million for demolition.
Well, if you feel that the $10 million is not ample, how much would you suggest that we put into the budget to address the issue between July 1 and the end of December?
I think that $10 million for a six-month period enables the City to pursue the same kind of strategy. I think that there is interest on the part of the Administration in expanding the scope of the demolition activities of the City. Historically, the City has taken an approach to demolition taking down properties on a case-by-case basis frequently in response to calls 9 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 that have been made. The Administration is attempting to be more systemic in how it undertakes demolition, trying to increase the scale of demolition in order --
Well, what plan is presently in place to do that?
The Administration has acknowledged that the traditional approach to demolition has not worked. As you know, the Administration has issued an RFP soliciting bids from project managers who would assist the City and increase in the scale of demolition. It is our hope to begin demolishing roughly triple the number of properties that we've taken down historically in order to try to reclaim some of the property inventory to begin turning around the land that currently simply houses or accommodates abandoned properties in order to begin putting them back into circulation. We've issued an RFP for a project manager. Those initial responses have been evaluated. Last week interviews were conducted to enable the City to put together a strategy that would allow us to take down properties on a larger 10 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 scale. We were hoping to do 2500 properties in the coming year.
But that being said, how would you be able to move forward without the bond issue ever having been --
So you could never do that at this point in time anyway, could you?
No. At this point in time, if there are no additional resources on the table, we would probably pursue the same kind of strategy we have historically.
And how long would it take you to go out for a bond issue?
Our expectation was if we were under the schedule initially proposed by the Administration to be issuing bonds over the course of the summer, most likely in July. If we don't do that, the opportunity would probably arise in January, sometime after the holidays.
Your testimony raises a concern that PHA employees who have been 11 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 performing encapsulation work over the past two years may have to be laid off if there is not a sufficient commitment of resources to fund encapsulation.
Does the transfer proposed in Bill No. 010261 provide a sufficient commitment of resources to ensure that PHA encapsulation staff will not be laid off? And if not, what level of commitment would be necessary?
The legislation, as drafted, I believe, limits the transfer to transfers for demolition activity. So none of the encapsulation work would be fundable. We had proposed, and I state in my testimony, the exact level of encapsulation activity. I thought it was important to note that one of the challenges that the City has is trying to put together implementation strategies. The Housing Authority over the last several years has been particularly successful in assembling teams that go out and address scattered-site properties, address construction problems associated with scattered-site 12 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 properties. It was fortuitous, but I think it would inure to the City's benefit if we can keep that delivery system in place in order to tackle what people view as a real problem. Throughout the City we have, you know, individual properties that if we could only get them back into circulation in a timely way, we could probably avoid much larger costs associated with bringing the properties back into constructive use. And that's why --
During the last few years during the Rendell and then the first of the Clinton administration, we got several big, huge grants from the federal government towards PHA. PHA is a federally funded agency; it's not funded by us. So I don't -- are we going to be giving monies to PHA to encapsulate buildings, or are those buildings going to be encapsulate by the federal funds that they get? And what did they do with all of that 13 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 money that we got during the Clinton administration? I don't see how in any way, shape, or form they could have spent all of those -- I think at one point it was over $400 million to rehab and rebuild some of the infrastructure of PHA. What happened to the money?
To address your first question about what funding would be used, the Administration proposes using some of the NTI bond proceeds in order to fund the encapsulation activity. Although most people don't know it, the Housing Authority currently performs work on behalf of the City pursuant to an intergovernmental cooperation agreement. Demolitions that happen in the City are undertaken by the Housing Authority on a case-by-case basis. The Housing Authority currently performs work at the behest of the City simply because PHA has the construction capacity.
No. The City funds the demolition activity or the rehabilitation activity, whatever it is that the City directs, that is not associated with PHA properties. The City will fund 14 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 that kind of activity. Over the years, the Housing Authority has received hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government. Some of that money was used to demolish properties. For example, the Raymond Rosen high-rises have been demolished, the King Plaza high-rises have been demolished, Richard Allen has undergone transformation. The Housing Authority also constructed units and so there has been onsite housing constructed at the Raymond Rosen development. Work is currently underway on the replacement housing at Raymond Rosen. Southwark has been demolished and rebuilt. Across the City, there are any number of developments that have happened pursuant to the funding that was made available to the Housing Authority by the federal government. The Housing Authority has also been successful in tackling a lot of the scattered-site problems that, as you know, have plagued the City for very well over a decade. Some of the money that was secured from the federal government has gone on to accomplish that work. But what we're talking about is a cooperative relationship that would enable the City 15 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 to use that part, you know, that part of the whole governmental structure that actually has the capacity to go in and undertake scattered-site work on behalf of the City and residents in the neighborhood.
I still don't understand and I still don't see how the money goes from one side to the other. And I'd like really a further explanation as to -- because PHA's supposed to be federally sustainable and funded, and I don't know whether City funds are going to be directed over to PHA and whether that is a good use of the money that we're getting, when PHA's supposed to already have that money.
The Housing Authority receives money from the federal government to maintain its own inventory, and actually, the legislation has been expanded substantially in recent years, and so you'll see the Housing Authority involved in tax credit transactions. So it's not the same kind of institution; its powers are much broader than they had been. What we're talking about in connection with NTI is using some of the construction capacity 16 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 that the Housing Authority has in order to cause the rehabilitation of properties that are not within the Housing Authority's inventory, and so it would be using bond proceeds in order to do rehabilitation work at the behest of the City on properties that are targeted for encapsulation.
And to the best of my recollection, there is no budget in the ordinance as presented to us, so we wouldn't know how much was for encapsulation, how much was for demolition. We have -- it's not in the ordinance. Let me just ask you, what other transfers of appropriations would you propose in specific sources and amounts to enable the Administration to provide funding for PHA encapsulation activities during the remainder of this calendar year? I ask this question because there is still time for an additional transfer 17 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 ordinance to be enacted prior to Council's summer recess.
The Administration would propose funding encapsulation in the amounts identified both in the program. If you look at the program transmitted as an attachment to the agreement, the service agreement, with the Redevelopment Authority and the City, there is actually a budget that proposes doing, I believe, uh. . .
While you're looking for that, heretofore has PHA employees encapsulated just PHA properties?
I know that the Housing Authority on a limited basis has done non-PHA properties. The Housing Authority has been more actively involved in doing demolition activity at the behest of the City. As you know, the City has on a very limited basis undertaken encapsulation in the past, and I don't believe the Housing Authority was used in any large scale in doing that, although I know they have done some and I can get additional information that would chronicle the extent of their involvement historically. 18 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261
Again, if you could tell us about the transfer appropriations and the sources and amounts from July 1 to the end of December, we would certainly be more than happy to have an ordinance prepared and considered before Council recesses.
The President's comments motivated me to think about another issue that's developing: the sinking homes that we're identifying throughout City. What kind of -- what monies do we have --
Point of information. Which president, President Bush or 19 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 President Verna?
Well, today the President of City Council's the one that I'm referring to, the President. (Laughter.)
Thank you for pointing out that, Councilman Kenney. The sinking home issue, are we prepared in the event that we would have to start demolition to any of these properties that are being identified imminently dangerous that might need to be demolished? Where do we stand in the event that that would surface and we'd have to take some action? Would you have enough money to deal with ha?
The City would have $10 million to spend between -- you know, if this is enacted, $10 million to spend between now and July 1st. And that would enable the City to do, you know, some percentage of the demolition of the dangerous properties that we know about. We would begin making those kinds of triage decisions that the City makes all the time, you know, in picking and choosing exactly which of the dangerous 20 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 properties that we take down. You know, we, of course, wouldn't be able to, you know, do anything comprehensive, but there would be resources to tackle those properties that were the most dangerous of the dangerous properties.
You're welcome. Miss Wilkerson, I think I had asked you a question and I thought that you were going to be responding until I recognized Councilman Rizzo. This is on the encapsulation and the PHA employees. How much and from what source would you suggest that we have this ordinance prepared?
The plan proposed demolishing 500 properties a year at an approximate cost of $6 million. A half a year would be approximately --
You don't mean demolishing; you mean encapsulating?
I'm sorry, encapsulating at an approximate cost of $6 million. I would have 21 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 to confer with Mr. Dubow and get back to you on the proposed source.
Fine. Thank you. And would you let us know, please, before the end of the day so that we could have the necessary ordinance prepared?
I'm not quite sure who I should ask these questions because this is not an Administration bill, but I do need to ask some questions with respects to the potential $8 million transfer. I guess more than a year ago, I probably gained more knowledge about demolition and building 22 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 collapses than I would have liked to have known. It seemed like every other day, I was running around to a new location where buildings were falling down initially in my Councilmatic District, and it was not fun, it was not the way that I had wished to be shown on television. But as a result of that, the City aggressively embarked on a demolition strategy and they took down buildings somewhat at a record pace, and I can only speak for my district in particular. And the early response, the people were pretty satisfied with the City's, you know, willingness to come out and get rid of these dangerous buildings. But not too long afterwards, the questions about what's going to happen now continue to come about. And this year, I'm actually running around, trying to figure out how to get those vacant lots that were created as a result of the demolition clean. And my concern is that I really don't have an answer. To be honest with you, people want to know, are we going to have fencing, are we going to have some kind of lot treatment? And I guess if we're going to continue at a pace, I'm assuming that a substantial part of that will happen in my 23 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 district since, for some reason, I seem to have the majority of vacant buildings. If we adopted this 8, $10 million strategy, essentially a status quo strategy, what am I know going to be able to tell residents in the 5th Councilmatic District, actually some of whom are actually here in the audience today, because I'm looking to be very aggressive in getting out in the neighborhoods this summer, and I really would like to have an answer to talk about the continuous flow of vacant lots that happened as a result of this demolition. Can you tell me if this $10 million, or whatever my share of the $10 million would be to talk about those issues or to give people some hope that something's going to happen, particularly in the short-term basis?
I don't think that $10 million represents an opportunity to change in a fundamental way how it is that we do business. The Administration is working to try to identify additional resources that will enable -- that will enable the City to go into neighborhoods and do more than simply demolish properties. 24 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 And that is one of the things that I tried to point out in my testimony, that there are a number of opportunities available across the City -- that are available across the City if the City can position itself to take advantage of them. In a lot ways, the demolition money, the land acquisition money represent pre-development dollars that position the City to qualify for additional resources. I think that will remain the strategy of the City. I think that what becomes more challenging is leveraging the resources that may become available, because we're not able to move as aggressively in securing the dollars.
But it's my understanding that the question is about the cleaning of the lots once there is demolition. Is that what your question was, Councilman?
Well, it's twofold. One is, and unfortunately continues to be, the cleaning of the lots. In some of the parts of my district that I represent, people are frankly tired of that just being the City's strategy. At some point, you have to reuse the lot for a productive 25 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 reuse. And, you know, people, although they're happy to see L&I come out and cut the weeds, but it's an ongoing process. And at some point, it would seem to me from the City's standpoint, the cost associated with sending municipal workers out and cleaning off a vacant lot at some point doesn't make sense on a yearly and sometimes three or four times during the course of the year. I would have liked to have seen that strategy talk about an interim reuse and a long-term reuse. You know, clearly if we're going to talk about doing what we need to do in these communities, I'm just concerned that this $10 million is just a continued status quo approach and I'll be answering the same questions next summer.
Well, I think that's an issue that we're all concerned about and that's the answers that we're trying to seek and don't get answers to.
The Administration. You're talking about the vacant lots in your district? I have --
I have them in mine as I'm sure everybody else does.
How do we -- what is the plan? I keep asking, what is the plan?
Well, Madam Chair, I've asked the questions and gotten to some degree a framework for a plan but I'm not in a position to talk publicly about that because I don't want to build people's expectations up in the communities that we already have.
I think I ought to come down and talk to you then, Darrell.
I welcome an opportunity to talk to you at any point in time. I guess I'm basically just saying that, you know, having experience as both as a Councilperson and as a staff person, I just get tired of getting beat up about vacant lots and not being able to intelligently answer people in these 27 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 communities about what we're going to do about these vacant lots. And at some point, you know, we got to be able to give people an answer, and I thought, you know, maybe this was an opportunity to be in a position to do that, but I'm not hearing that today. I'm hearing that it's going to be another year of the same, and that just really concerns me. Miss Wilkerson, I understand you --
In terms of vacant lots, the Administration provided in this year's fiscal budget, or the coming year's fiscal budget, additional resources to enable it to undertake a comprehensive vacant lot cleaning strategy that will be announced in the coming month. The proposal is to clean every vacant lot in the City, removing those things that have become impediments to communities participating in maintaining their neighborhoods, and so we'll be moving throughout the course of the year through every neighborhood, taking the refrigerators, the huge weed trees, the mattresses off of lots, and we'll be committing to 28 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 maintaining those vacant parcels in a manageable condition moving forward. Later on, the Administration proposes undertaking vacant lot enhancement on a more selected basis to pursue the kinds of strategies that communities have used in New Kensington, for example, that would actually transform some vacant lots and turn them into community resources.
And the money for the cleaning of the lots has been budgeted?
I had one follow-up question and I know other people want to ask a question and I'll come back on the follow-up round. And I don't know who to ask this question of; it's about the $8 million figure, and I was just trying to get a sense of how did we come to an $8 million figure, what analysis was done to determine if that was an appropriate amount or if anybody took into account the area -- 29 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261
Well, I don't know if you heard me earlier, but I did say that prior to this present year, we had only appropriated $10 million for the entire year for demolitions, and I believe during the last three months of the year, an additional $3 million was transferred because the million was not ample. 9 This year, we appropriated $15,846,000 10 and 996 properties have been demolished as of this date, and there still remains in the budget for this year $2,700,000. And it is my understanding that approximately 225 to 250 properties could be demolished, and that would also include the stuccoing. So the 800 was -- or the $8 million plus the 2 million that has already been budgeted would give us $10 million to address imminently dangerous properties between July 1 until December or November, whenever Council decides that we're going to address the NTI issue.
So, in other words this $10 million would be utilized in the same manner in which it was used basically --
This year, 30 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 this year.
With a property collapsed, as it was last year, it was essentially a response mode and not a proactive mode to intelligently demolishing properties, 'cause that's pretty much what I saw was, you know, it was situations where you --
I believe in my district, for instance, and I think Miss Wilkerson's very familiar with this, L&I went out to demolish one property, and as a result of that, I think, what, 10 other properties had to be demolished. So there are monies in there that would address such an issue.
And it's only for -- as I said, it's just for the period of time in which we decide that what we're going to do is address the NTI issue.
Okay, no? Okay, I 31 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 would like to ask a question of the Department of Licenses and Inspections, but they're not here.
You're welcome, you're welcome. Are you finished with Miss Wilkerson?
Thank you, Madam President. Miss Wilkerson, since we're at a stalemate here for the NTI and I guess we could, say, if we close the stopgap measure, this 10 32 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 million, is that what we have here, $10 million?
I said that since we seem to be at a stalemate with the NTI Program, this seems to be a stopgap measure and I can safely assume this $8 million you got in here will be added to the 2 that's left over and it makes million 10 for --
No, it's not left over. That was budgeted for the year 2002.
We haven't gotten to 2002 yet. So July 1 would commence the $2 million so that would give us 10 million for FY 2002.
Thank you, thank you. But my question here is, these CDBGs, it seems to me since we've been at this logjam for however long we've been, I'm getting a lot of reports from the community development corporations in my district that money seems to be frozen out, or 33 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 maybe it's their perception that nothing's going on. And I see the next part here, and let me just say, I'm in favor of this NTI Program, let's make no 5 mistake. I'm in favor of moving it, I'm in favor of having hearings, and I'm in favor of hashing it out here in public at this forum. But my question is, if these community development block grant people, the community development corporations, if they feel for whatever reason that they're being blocked out --
I'm sorry. You're going to have to speak into the mic because I don't think the stenographer can hear you and neither can we.
I'll give her a text of it later, but I'm feeling that these community development people are getting blocked out, and then they start harassing us. I mean --
There's a perception out there that none of the programs are being followed through. I have programs like the Women's Community Revitalization Center in Norris 34 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 Square that have been on the books for three to five years, that they thought they were getting this money this fiscal year coming up. Now all of a sudden, it's not happening, and we're getting (indiscernible) from different community development corporations in my office, and maybe the other District Councilpeople -- I don't know, I think I talked to Councilman Clarke a little bit about it. And there's a feeling, and I don't know if it's true, and I need to know from Miss Wilkerson, are they freezing everything until this happens? Is there anything like that going on?
No, we're not freezing programs. I think some of what's happening is our history is catching up with us, that there -- you know, we did the 108 loan as a strategy for funding activity. The 108 loan is eating up more and more of the CDBG grant every year. There have been a lot of acquisitions that have been authorized that we really didn't have the capacity to fund. And I think it's a lot of the past spending that has eaten into the amount of money that would normally be available, you know. And so what you hear from the groups is 35 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 that there's not the acquisition money, and that's normally the first step in the development process, and it's simply because dollars are limited and there are just not enough dollars to cover all of those activities. And I think what you hear a lot from people is that there's not acquisition activity being funded, and that would be accurate. The pipeline of projects is not really increasing. There's still -- you know, there's the need to work down the backlog that's been created over the years.
Councilman, a point of clarification about the 108 loans. Could you give us a more fuller explanation as to how the 108 loans are eating up -- that's the interest payments on the 108 loans?
And where did we make these 108 loans, and which 108 loans are those that are eating up the CDBG funding?
A lot of them are grant 36 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 dollars given to housing projects. I can get you an accounting of how all of the 108 money has been spent. The grant dollars that go into the housing development aren't repaid. You know, there are also 108 loans in connection with economic development; those get repaid.
Can we get that? Because we'd like to find out how that is eating into the projects that Councilman Mariano is talking about and is leaving us short of funding for those projects that were approved five, six years ago.
Well, isn't this an issue that would come up under the OHCD budget?
Yes. It will be a part of the CDBG hearing. If you look at the --
-- the Year 27 application, there is probably in excess of $13 million out of the CDBG budget that's spent 37 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 toward Section 108 repayment. You know, it's money that went to support projects, you know, folk agreed on, but it's dollars that are no longer available currently to fund the kinds of activities people want to see moving forward. It's catching up with us.
And that's precisely my question, Madam President, is exactly what Councilman Ortiz was alluding to. There is -- when there's this perception that this happens, and believe it or not, it's hard for anyone to sit here. I mean, I'm not an expert on this. You know, I have to rely on my staff, I have to rely on your staff, I have to rely on staffs. So when things start catching up on us, it's much like the statement that was in here about the PHA. Are we taking encapsulizing properties that aren't PHA with PHA money? And if so, if we're doing that, you know, once you start taking out of one pocket on the other, you know, then the checkbook's all messed up. That's how works in my house, and that's why I don't do that.
But I think your question has to be addressed at the OHCD budget 38 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 hearings next week.
That's where that belongs. It's not with the NTI. So Mr. Kromer will be in here next week for his budget.
And he'll come here and do the same dog-and-pony show he always does and we don't get any answers and nothing happens and he looks here with his two different color eyes and nothing happens. I mean, come on. I mean, how long we been here? I've been here six years and nothing changes. And then the groups keep coming to us and nothing happens. We have a chance here because I have the Mayor's Chief of Staff to get something on the record, 'cause I want to push this NTI thing along. And if that helps the community development block grants things, so be it, because they're questions that we deal with.
It's hard to go back to Norris Square and explain the (indiscernible) to Carlo --
I understand what you're saying, but one has nothing to do with 39 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 the other. And if it's something that you want to address under OHCD --
And if you feel that the Chief of Staff can help you, then I think you ought to send her a letter.
And I would suggest you do that before next week's hearings.
I most certainly will do that. Thank you. Madam President.
I just -- I mean, there is some connection to the extent that additional funds are put on the table to fund the activity, to fund the demolition, to fund the land acquisition. It creates -- it relieves some of the pressure on the CDBG pipeline.
Okay. Councilman Kenney. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilman Krajewski, did you want to --
I believe the question is, what are the Administration's plans to do with the houses that are encapsulated?
The proposal is to try to get those back into circulation as soon as possible. Some of the money that was proposed under NTI would have provided mortgage money that we don't currently have that has flexibility that's not tied to being a first-time home buyer that's not necessarily linked to income as tightly as the current program.
Well, would this have to do with section properties, turn them over for Section 8 or what?
I'm not really clear on that either. I'll have to wait for another time. I'm sorry. Councilman Kenney?
Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Krajewski. I guess the overriding question -- I recognize the issue that we're talking about today is this $8 million plus the 2 that will be on hand as a result of the 2002 budget starting in July, trying to maintain a level of safety within the community so that L&I could continue, albeit in an old-style way, continuing to try to get out there and take properties before they fall on people and trying to make neighborhoods a little safer. I guess the overall question I have is that considering that this is the Administration's -- one of the keystones of the administration, something that was talked about during the campaign, and to the Mayor's credit, he's moving forward with it and trying to show some vision for the future of the City, in considering the priority that it is for 42 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 the Administration, what's the big secret? Why are we having difficulty getting all these questions answered about not only the framework of the detail but the details: which neighborhood, when, how expansive, relocation, development afterwards, the disposition of properties, fencing, lot cleaning; all of the questions that the Council President's office has asked. Why, considering that this is such a priority for the Administration and for the City, why the hesitancy in giving us the answers we need so we could have moved forward and had this thing passed by June 14th?
Well, the Administration has not been trying to withhold information. Some of what you're --
I'm sorry, let me be clear. I didn't say that the Administration was withholding information. What I asked was, why not -- since specific questions were asked, why was not the information provided? I'm not suggesting that you have all of these answers and you have them in a lock box somewhere and you won't tell anybody. All I'm saying is that considering the 43 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 need for us to pass this and the priority that this administration has for this project, why not the cooperative effort between the time it was sent over here and today to try to find out what these answers are so we can understand it before we commit $250 million in taxpayers' money to this important project?
The Administration has tried to respond to the questions that were asked. What there is not is a property-by-property plan for either demolishing or rehabilitating properties. And I think that the demolish perhaps provides a good example of that. The Administration was asked, what's the plan for demolition? What we provided to City Council was access to the list of all of the demolished properties in the City. We've provided access to a list of all of the vacant properties in the City, and we've tried to provide to City Council what the framework is for making decisions about how that demolition activity will be undertaken, where it is that it will start and the rate at which it will proceed and how it is that we plan on engaging neighborhoods. 44 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 We've shared with City Council that we envision using a project manager to help us fine-tune the kinds of decision-making that needs to happen. For example, does it make sense to go out with four large demolish packages simultaneously or does it perhaps make sense to stagger the large-scale demolition differently? Those are the kind of decisions that aren't made on Day One, they're the kinds of decisions that unfold over time. What we've tried to provide City Council is a framework for how those decisions will be made. The same kind of thing is true to some extents for the rehabilitation. It is virtually impossible on Day One to fold out a multi-year strategy for how it is that you intend to build out neighborhoods in detail, because you never know what kind of opportunities are going to be available. For example, HUD has recently announced the availability of Hope Six money for the Housing Authority. I think in my testimony I talk about something on the order of 50, $60 million that's available. Those are the kinds of opportunities that you don't know about necessarily on Day One. 45 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 They're the kinds of opportunities that the City has to begin to position itself to take advantage of. Right now, down in Washington, we hear talk about tax credits for home ownership programs. Those are the kinds of things nobody was even talking about six months ago. Those are the kinds of opportunities that may be real. It's not possible to lock down with specificity exactly what's going to happen. Some of it turns on the City's ability to take advantage of opportunities and be flexible when opportunities come down the pipeline. What we've tried to do is present a framework for how decisions will get made as opposed to approaching the challenges in neighborhoods by committing on a dollar-by-dollar, block-by-block basis.
Well, just as an aside relative to your example on federal funding. I remember George W. saying he'd leave no child behind, and he just cut $385 billion out of the education budget, losing a Republican senator to the Democratic side. So I don't know if I would be too dependent on Washington at this particular time for 46 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 education or housing money. The two issues you gave as examples to what is in the, quote/unquote, framework of this particular proposal, does any of this information exist memorialized in the body of the ordinance?
If you look at the attachment, there's a service agreement that's proposed between the City and the Redevelopment Authority. And in the binder that transmitted the rest of the package, there's also a program that talks about the various strategies, it talks about policies, underpinning relocation, for example. It includes a financing budget, you know, breaking out hot Administration would propose spending the money. I mean, there is a fair amount of detail in that document in addition to the Power Point presentation that articulates what the framework is for making decisions moving forward.
Does the attachments to the ordinance represent a mandate by the ordinance, or is it what they call in Harrisburg a "may provision," where we "may" do this, but are required, once we pass this particular ordinance 25 with attachments, does that require you to follow 47 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 those attachments?
The Administration has proposed incorporating that as an exhibit if that's the level of comfort that is desired.
Well, I guess we all have the institutional memory and knowledge. You've sat on both sides of this table as a high-ranking person in the Council President's office under Council President Street and now as Chief of Staff to Mayor Street. And I guess from a matter of style in many ways, could you imagine Council President Street simply accepting a framework of information from the administration of Ed Rendell on a project of this size and this scope and of this intensity for the City's future and this importance? And if the Council President at the time, now the Mayor, had requested specific amounts of information from then-Mayor Rendell, do you think that he would have moved this legislation without the prerequisite information that he was demanding?
I think that there's 48 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 actually a lot of detail. Over $150 million out of the $250 million that the Administration would propose to raise through the issuance of bonds goes to fund demolition activity. There is approximately -- I believe it's $30 million that funds encapsulation activities. And while we haven't supplied specific addresses, we have detailed a fairly specific strategy for how it is we're going to target the properties that will be encapsulated. I think that there -- you know, when you start matching the -- you know, the list of properties with the strategy, you end up with a fair amount of predictability in terms of how it is that the money would be spent. Unlike a lot of issues, I think that this really is one of those issues where you can't lock down everything on Day One. And I think that, you know, the flow of development dollars into the City is a good example of that.
Could you give me an example of what those development dollars that flow would be?
For example, you have the Hope Six money coming into the City. You have the Jefferson Square money that is available. 49 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 And then you have the LISC money. LISC is a foundation-funded organization that works all over the country dealing with housing challenges. LISC came to the City. It had managed to secure grant funding from the Nationwide Insurance Company and was looking to do something with homeowner rehab. That is not the kind of opportunity that was created by the City; it's the kind of opportunity that the City has to react to. It's the kind of opportunity that is not traditionally funded out of the CDBG budget because those funds so narrowly crafted.
What would be the City's required contribution to a project like that?
On the LISC Nationwide project, the City's contribution would be $450,000 to raise the fund in excess of 2.5 million -- I think it's $2.5 million.
The challenge is finding the dollars that create the kind of flexibility. One of the things that the Administration is 50 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 committed to is not just doing work in traditional CDBG kinds of neighborhoods. It is always a challenge for the City to come up with dollars that provide flexibility, and I think that is one of the things that the Administration has tried to incorporate into the NTI Program. Not all of the funds are demolition dollars, not all of the funds are essential purpose bonds. Some of the funds are, in fact, taxable funds that create the flexibility to go into neighborhoods that have not traditionally received any kind of City support and undertake those kinds of programs that a lot of people think are essential if we're going to begin tackling the challenges and stabilizing the neighborhoods.
Well, the only suggestion that I would make is, again, as an at-large Councilmember, I'm approaching it from a little bit of a different situation. And that concern about the City as a whole overall, our fiscal situation, the money that we borrow, us being fiduciarily responsible individuals as the board of directors of this company. But the District Councilpeople, they really have a challenge there, and that challenge 51 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 cannot be met, in my opinion, unless all of the information that's available is freely shared and freely understood so that when we finally vote on this, we have a level of comfort that we are taking a real risk with basically ten years' worth of demolition money collapsed into two years. I mean, if don't do it right, there's going to be a lot of hopelessness out of there and a lot of upset.
Well, I mean, on the demolition, perhaps two to three, I guess.
Five-year? Well, we're collapsing ten into five. And the other thing that I think the Administration does understand and what I would like to reiterate today is that once we authorize that $250 million borrowing, we're basically out of it, we're basically out of it. I mean, you can -- we're basically out of it from an institutional standpoint. You can make commitments that we're 52 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 going to, you know, we're going deal with the District Councilpeople and deal with the community people, but once we've given the okay on the money, for all intents and purposes, it's your ball to run with. And I want to make sure before I cast my vote that all those t's are crossed and i's dotted and plan is fleshed out much more than it is today.
Mm-hmm. Just on that last matter, I think that probably has been one of the issues that -- it's one of those issues that merits additional conversation, and I think trying to come up with a forum that will allow, you know, a free-flowing share of information would aid the process. As a matter of fact, I think that a lot of -- this will not be Council's last run at the kinds of decisions that get made. As many of District Councilpeople know, it is virtually impossible to undertake any kind of activity in most districts without coming back to City Council, whether it's property that's come into the City inventory as a result of sheriff's sale, whether it's a condemnation and a disposition that's happening as a result of the urban renewal process. 53 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 The decisions end up coming back to City Council for approval either through resolution or through ordinance. A lot of these projects that happen will happen with the support of CDBG dollars, for example. The CDBG dollars are approved by Council on an annual basis. It's not a onetime kind of program; it's the kind of -- it is an initiative that lays the groundwork for decisions and funding commitments that will be made well into the future. And it's those kinds of decisions and funding commitments that come back to City Council as a matter of course. And there's nothing about NTI that would change that.
Well, finally, you know, I just think it's obvious that, with the exception of a few members of Council, that there's not enough information for us at this point to deal with this. We have the summer with which to work on this with Council President's staff and with our own staffs. And I guess as Sister Mary Amadeus used to say, "A word to the wise is sufficient." And I would hope that we would have enough information to 54 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 come back here in September to move forward together with this. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Oh, Madam President I'm fine. I think my question was answered. But while I have the opportunity, Councilman Kenney was referring to George W. Was he referring to the President or the former president?
I was referring to the President, 'cause the former president would not have been so coldhearted; he was a much nicer guy. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to go back, Miss Wilkerson, to a question that was asked by Councilwoman Krajewski in relationship to encapsulated properties and Section 8. I actually had a conversation with the Mayor on Thursday, and part of what I'm about to ask I was going to do in the form of a letter and he 55 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 understood that would be coming to his office. And I think Councilman Kenney touched on it as well. For me to be able to deal with the issue of relocation, which basically says that if we take -- and I think this is in the plan. And, again, because there really is no blueprint yet, a finished, final blueprint, I have to assume that in neighborhoods that have some deteriorated, blighted properties that may be boarded up or may be eventually encapsulated, that those would probably become primary places for people to be relocated to. And I don't have a problem with that 'cause I've dealt with, in the six and a half years here, there are two public housing projects that have been imploded in my projects, which required probably a thousand or so relocated families. And more recently with Jefferson Square, as you're well aware of -- and I appreciate support on Jefferson Square -- we have a plan that we worked with for about four years on how we move people from one side of the street to the other side or within a two-block area, and there's a basic relocation plan. Whether that would fall under the same definition as how we would handle Section 8 or not, I don't know, but I 56 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 would have to think it would be something similar to that. So I guess the question is, is there anything that we can put our arms around now and say that when we will be dealing with -- and we know we will be dealing with relocation. I mean, that's obvious, there's just no question about that. How do we deal with that? And I say "we" with all due respect to the at-large Councilpeople. As District Councilpeople, we need to be able to deal with the CDCs, and I'm willing to take on that job because I've done it and it's painstaking and it's a difficult task, but you have to do it. Do we have anything in the plan, in the NTI plan, that would be specific to the Section 8 and/or relocation phase of the NTI Program?
What the plan talks about is providing people with the opportunity to relocate in their neighborhoods to the extent they want to. We have the OHCD people and the RDA people actually pulling together the relocation experience that the City has confronted. Most people, in fact, choose to relocate within their own neighborhoods. When there are housing alternatives available, 57 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 people will frequently will want to stay in their neighborhoods because they have family, they have supports, the kids are in school. What we say --
Which is basically what -- when I say "we," my CDC attempted to do a Jefferson Square. I mean, in the beginning, people thought we were trying to gentrify the and neighborhood I understood that they were sensitive to that and we understood that there were families who have lived there for 50 to 100 years, and every attempt was made to offer them the opportunity, if they chose, to stay within the community. And I think that's good but I don't know if it's been explained enough or has been explained at all.
It's attached as a part of the program that was transmitted to City Council. That is probably the overriding policy that carries across the board. Section 8 has become, I think, a red herring to a large extent. We talked about using Section 8 resources because Section 8 resources enable the City to stretch the dollars that we're 58 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 going to have to put behind relocation. In order to move a tenant family, provide the relocation benefits that are required by federal law probably costs in the neighborhood of $27,000 a household. We can get out from under having to cut a check for $27,000 to a renter family by providing a Section 8 certificate. What Section 8 enables the City to do is leverage the dollars, that, you know currently look enormous down the road are going to be looking very, very limited. I think this administration understands that Section 8 presents challenging issues. We have ongoing dialogues with the federal government about getting a handle on Section 8. We have been -- Carl Green and the people at the Housing Authority have become much more aggressive in going after property owners that abuse the program, going after renters that abuse the Section 8 program. I was in a meeting with Carl Green the other day. He was saying for every family that they're moving into the Section 8 program, they're terminating a family. This is the kind of reaction that you didn't get in the Section 8 program even five or six years ago. You know, so it's a much 59 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 better run program than it was before. There are discussions going on with the federal government about trying to increase the number of Section 8 site-based certificates as a way of getting a handle on some of the Section 8 issues. I think, though, that to characterize relocation as being something that, you know, raises all of these Section 8 problems ignores both the history of how, you know, relocation programs have been handled in the past and also, I think, mischaracterizes how we intend to use the Section 8 program in connection with relocation moving forward.
And with all due respect, I think that gets to the heart of it. It's the problems in the past in how the program has been initiated that raises all of those concerns.
Thank you. Councilman Clarke is next. I believe I did see Mr. Solvibile here from L&I. Do you mind approaching the witness table. 60 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 (Witness comes forward.)
I believe Councilman Clarke would like to ask you a question.
I do have some follow-up questions to the last statements of Miss Wilkerson.
And I guess I just want to make these general statements as I listen to the testimony, Madam Chair. I've been a Councilperson a little more than a year and a half, but I've been here actually longer than a lot of people who are sitting in this room. And the one thing that perplexes me as we continue to talk about the lack of a specific plan as it relates to particular Council District people. During my tenure here, it's always been the concern of Councilmembers and Council staff people that too often, the finished product delivered to us and we were being told that this is what's going to go in this particular neighborhood, this is the plan, this is developer. And over the years, as a result of the increase in Council staff -- I can actually remember when there were only 61 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 like -- each Councilperson had, like two --
One staff person? I came a little later than you so they actually had three staff people by the time I got here. And as the technical staff continue to grow, the level of involvement as it related to Councilpeople in the development process increased, and it actually got to a point where recent administrations, before they determined that development was going to take in the neighborhood, they actually told the developer to go talk to the Councilperson. So it's to a point now where nobody in the does anything in the district without talking to that Councilperson. But as I sit here today and I hear criticism associated with the NTI and the Administration on the Administration not submitting a final plan to these same Councilmembers, I -- frankly speaking, I don't understand that, 'cause I would be somewhat dismayed if I received a final plan without having my involvement and representatives from the 5th Councilmatic District's involvement. And I just don't understand where that's coming from. 62 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 And as it relates to the demolition issue, Bob Solvibile and myself probably talked, what, two three times a week, Bob? If not more.
Maybe more. I think more, Councilman. I think maybe every day. I'm not sure.
And I'm kind of amazed to think that somehow that there's this thought that somehow demolition would take place in these various Council districts without the involvement of the Councilperson. In the 5th Councilmatic District, we have probably had more relocation than any other Council district in the City of Philadelphia, and I could sit here today and tell you that the difficulties we've had associated with the relocation had to do with the people not being able to come back into their communities, right? And they were basically saying, we're getting new housing and now we have to leave. So we'd have to come up with strategy that ensured that they stayed in the neighborhood. So, you know, while I understand the need to ask these questions, I'm just a little 63 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 perplexed that, you know, we have to answer these questions, having been here for some time, and I'm just not understanding that. But let me ask Miss Wilkerson this question, 'cause I know -- Miss Wilkerson, on the Hope Six, Ludlow, Cambridge, can you talk to me about the demolition, NTI involvement as it relates to that specific development.
One of the things that Hope Six requires is that there be some kind of local commitment. The Hope Six applications are rated in part based upon the application's ability to leverage dollars and what we had hoped to do was be able to use demolition dollars and other resources that might come as a result of NTI to support the Hope Six application.
So let me understand it. Is there a specific commitment that will be in the application or a general commitment or what exactly would happen?
When the Hope Six applications go into the federal government, there are local commitments. I mean, it's what happened with Schuylkill Falls, it's what happened with King 64 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 Plaza. You know, there has to be a local commitment to both close gaps but also to generate points that are used in the selection process. And it's the kind of thing that to the extent they're NTI-supportable activities in connection with what's going on in Cambridge, with what's going on in -- on the north side of Girard, these activities would qualify as local commitment.
The Administration is going, you know, is going to be working to try to figure out how it is we can stay in the running. These are enormous dollars that would be coming into the City that -- you know, I mean, for example, with Cambridge, we're tearing down housing and at Mill Creek, we're tearing down housing. Our preference is to not get into a lot of relocation but to be able to create opportunities on site. The kinds of dollars, you know, that we'd be able to get out of the federal government are, you know, the kinds of 65 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 funds that come along once a decade, and so we're going to try to identify enough local match, even without NTI, so that we might qualify or at least be able to submit credible applications. But it's the kind of program that the City would want to take advantage of. It's the kind of marriage between NTI and outside funding that would enable everybody to go into neighborhoods and talk not just about demolition but about what can happen after demolition, how it is that we can prepare neighborhoods for moving forward. It sends a much different kind of message.
So there's a potential blank space in the application that would have talked about reuse strategies associated with the application, and that would -- and I'm assuming that if we were able to fill in that blank space, that would enhance our opportunities of receiving the (inaudible).
Thank you. I have a question of Mr. Solvibile. Bob, we have on occasion talked about demolition strategies and, you know, the need to have the 66 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 resources and the wherewithal to demolish properties strategically. Can you talk to me about what position you would be in if you had really enough funding to do what you needed to do and to do it strategically and in a method that made some sense as opposed to what we do. We get a call, I call you, Bobby, I need it down right away, you go out and you take care of that property, but there could potentially be three or four properties on the same block and maybe even a string that, you know, you may at some point come back a year or two later and have to demolish because there was no reuse strategy or no encapsulation strategy to save the buildings so we can ultimately get them on line in terms of affordable housing. Can you talk to me about that?
The department is really looking forward to the NTI Program coming on board. And one of the concerns -- one of the problems, as you know and every Councilperson in this room knows, is that our inspectors do not stay with the job; they're expected to be in other locations. The Administration has allowed us to hire -- right now, we have six on board through the 67 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 Managing Director's Office building inspectors, and we have two more as soon as we can establish a new list for the inspectors where, when we do have a project using strategic demolition, the inspector will be able to stay with the job. This way the problems that we now have with contractors leaving and situations like that that you and I talk about, at least half the time we talk, will not occur any longer because our inspector will see it, stop it and the contractors will soon pick that up. So that, I believe, is responsive to the question. We're looking forward to it. It would really help us systematically tear down dangerous buildings, but it will not stop the occasion where a building may collapse somewhere else that we're not even aware of today, but where we would have to respond, and the system would have to be responsive to that type of situation also.
So correct me if I'm wrong, if we had a broader plan and a more comprehensive approach, one of the things as it relates to the phone call that you always receive from me as it relates to the community interaction, we have one inspector in particular who's a veteran 68 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 of a demolition wars who seems like he's running all over the place and his ability to do that is just not there. If we had somebody onsite in an area where we were going to do some extensive demolition and encapsulation strategy, you know, would that be more productive?
It would be -- it's more protective of the citizens we serve, the citizens. We'll have an inspector to handle any problem that arises right then and there on the spot, with full authority to deal with the contractor. And that in itself will satisfy the people who are complaining to us, to your offices and our offices and the Mayor. They'll call, as you know, wherever they can get an answer, and rightfully so. And this way, the inspector's going to be there and deal with "Mr. and Mrs. Citizen" right there on the spot and solve the problem. That is going to be the most successful -- I believe, the most successful thing about the Neighborhood Transition Program. Other than the fact that we'll get rid of a lot of bad buildings.
Right. Earlier, there was a reference to the prior year demolition strategy and that's essentially where we got this 69 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 8/10 million figure and essentially duplicating what we did last year. My understanding is that on a number of occasions, we actually were in a position to do curbside bids initially maybe for one property and then ultimately a string of properties and kind of upon inspection, we found out -- can you talk to me from a cost perspective, how the advantages and the disadvantages associated with the prior-year strategy as opposed to what we can ultimately do if had the necessary resource, 'cause I saw some curbside bids that, frankly speaking, kind of went off the roof, but they basically had us, and we had to do what we had to do.
The price, when we put together a package of demolitions in a strategic area, is considerably lower than when you do it individually a house by house on a block, one at a time. As an example, in your district, right near the 3200 block of Berks, and I forget the street, we took a tour with you and Gary, and we did three-quarters of the block and we got a fairly decent price per home, versus just a house here and a house there. The average cost is really high. I believe in a bid we did with a 70 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 hundred-some properties that was not a curbside type of situation but advertised, the average price was $6700 a building versus on the street right now, probably about 8,000 a building. So it's a considerable savings. We're not sure of what the optimum number where the savings would cease to occur, though, if it's a hundred or if it's a thousand. But you do, when you have a volume, create a savings.
Thank you. Miss Wilkerson, you talked about a -- this project director who had developed the comprehensive approach to demolition. We have a L&I department that has been doing this forever, and I've worked with them constantly and -- well, certainly in the Logan sinking home area, where they were very, very helpful in helping us to demolish those houses in that area in a strategic way.
And could you tell 71 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 me what these consultants would be doing that are Department of L&I could not do.
I think first I want to acknowledge, you know, the work that L&I does. They're called upon to undertake demolition without the kinds of resources that they know are necessary. You know, it's Bob Solvibile and people like him that get called out when a house is collapsed and they think that there might be somebody buried underneath it, so I don't want to denigrate the kind of, you know, the kind of work that they do in neighborhoods and have been doing historically. But what we're talking about is increasing substantially the level of demolition that's going on in neighborhoods in Philadelphia. Some of these communities are going to look completely different at the end of the day. We're talking about taking down hundreds of properties in a fairly constrained areas in some instances, and we're also talking about doing it with a different kind of funding. The funding requires that we track the type of dollars spent by the property on which it was spent because it has an impact on the use of the properties later on, so we have a different kind 72 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 of tracking responsibility than we ever have. We're trying to do demolition in a way that coordinates with other parts of the City in a way that we've never been able to. The City still has a problem tearing down a house that is planned for, at the same time, the same property is planned for reuse by another part of the City.
Well, let me ask you a question. Does that have to do with the fact that someone else knows how to do that better? If we know that is the issue, why can't the L&I department develop a plan for the demolition?
Some of it is because of the scale. We plan on doing demolition at a much higher scale. Some of it is that the City doesn't have the systems; we don't have the systems to enable to track property by property in a way that we need to in order for the funding or the way that we need to in order to fold properties into a reuse program. We don't have the --
Well, explain to me, though, what will the consultants do, what equipment will they use? how will they do it? what do they do -- how do they do it differently from the 73 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 City? What information will they have since they are new to the City, don't know the City, are from out of town possibly, and have a learning curve, and we have the L&I department, which has been doing this forever and because they haven't been able to do it in a coordinated fashion, has to do it with a lack of resources.
Part of what they bring is a project management expertise that enables them to assist the City in putting together a system to follow it from, you know, the point of identifying a property with the input of the Planning Commission. And the housing, OHCD coordinate with neighborhoods and actually help us figure out what kind of bid packages we need to do. It's the kinds of issues that they have been able to identify or what's the City's capacity to deal with the salvage. If you talk to Councilwoman Miller right now, she's got a problem in her district as a result of some of the increased demolition activity that's been going on. She has a pile of debris that's probably 30 feet high that comes about as a result of demolition activity.
But, Miss 74 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 Wilkerson, isn't that the responsibility of the company that's doing the demolition to get rid of the debris? I don't think we need to pay $7 million to people to tell us to move trash.
No, part of the problem is that it's the City's responsibility to oversee it and make sure that it happens, and it's the Administration's judgment that in order to put together a system, in order to ride herd on the system, we need additional resources and that we don't have the capacity in-house to put together the kind of system -- the systems that we need in order to undertake this. When --
Will the systems be institutionalized, or do they go away with the consultants?
Our hope is that the City will be able to institutionalize some of the systems. The City currently doesn't have the kind of software that enables it to go into neighborhoods, get good information, track that information. That would be the kind of system that we would hope to have at the end of the day.
Wouldn't that be a 75 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 better project to install the system that we need that would institutionalize the process so that once this five-year program is over, we will be able to follow the whole system down the track forever instead of going back to what happens after the five-year period and we don't have the systems in place and we're back to square one?
One of the things that we hope to do throughout NTI is to develop systems so that we don't end up back in the same place. And so when we took abandoned cars off the street, we doubled back and tried to create some of the institutional problems that led to the buildup of abandoned properties. The same thing is happening with demolition. We're trying to fix some of the problems so that we don't get back into the same position. We've been working on the demolition specification for example, trying to get -- trying to eliminate the problems that have festered over the years so that when we take down properties, we don't allow the lead paint just to sit around leaching into the ground so that at the end of the day, we end up with environmental problems. 76 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 We've been working on trying to improve the system so that moving forward, you know, we won't just have taken down properties, but we will have tried to address some of the problems with how it is that government does business.
Yes, excuse me, Councilwoman. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Councilwoman Tasco. I have to leave, unfortunately, and cannot be here, and I wanted to leave my vote in support of the bill before this committee. My vote should be recorded as aye.
I know Councilman Clarke raised the issue of our wanting -- the Councilmembers, particularly District Council members, wanting to know what does this program mean for each district. I notice that in the testimony that Miss Wilkerson gives, she talks about money for a list for ORAC, which is a part of my district. Aside from that and given the expectation of people in my district who want to 77 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 come to me and bring me a plan for blight in their district, and I tell them I don't know what the plan is yet but they should put plan together and we don't have any real details in this plan and we give a $250 million blank check, and then you'll say, Well, we gave you $450,000 for ORAC, so we don't have any more money for the 9th Councilmatic District. So these people in Olney those people in Olney can't get anything for their blight and those people in Logan, they just have to wait till we can get some money from them. So I am concerned that the -- not that I begrudge giving the money to ORAC, because it is needed in that district. But, however, in terms of the overall planning for the 9th District, I want to know what will the district look like from today. If it looks like A today, what will B look like when we finish with the $250 million? That is the question I'm asking 'cause I voted for alley lights, and I use this story. Everyone told me we needed alley lights. I voted for alley lights, and when they got to the 9th District, we got no alley lights 'cause the money ran out. So before I go and vote for something, I 78 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 want to know what specifically is going to be there for the 9th Councilmatic District in terms of the resources for those people who live in the 9th 'cause if I vote for something, they say, Well, what you did you get us? and I say nothing or I don't know, it's coming and I keep saying I don't know and I don't know, so they're going to say, Well, you know, we didn't vote for you to go down there and not know what you're doing. So it's very important to me that I know that beyond the $450,000 that we talk about that may be going to ORAC, I specifically want to know that. And I also have some concerns because I do believe we have City departments that have been involved with our communities for years. They have worked with us, and all of a sudden now, we have to deal with a bunch of new people who have no notion probably of where the 9th Councilmatic District is in terms of trying to help us decide what's the best strategy for my area. So those are my concerns. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. I guess in my opening statement, I said that this was not an NTI public hearing but a hearing on the 79 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 transfer of $8 million. And, Miss Wilkerson, I think that it is quite apparent that just about every member certainly has questions about the NTI Program, and I am strongly, strongly urging that during the summer months that we get together and really work on this, because I know that it's something we would all love to see happen, but it's the way that it happens. And, you know, ironically, somebody sent me a copy of a newspaper article from the Inquirer, and I don't know whether you're familiar with the HOP Program.
And this article says that in 1986, the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority sold $350 million in bonds to pay for an ambitious program to fix up rundown and abandoned apartment buildings for the City's poor and moderate-income families. The Redevelopment Authority called its program HOP, the Housing Opportunities Program, and said it envisioned using those millions of dollars to rehabilitate thousands of units in hundreds of apartment buildings. Three years later, HOP looks 80 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 like a flop. And I think that's what we're all concerned about. The quarter of a billion dollars that we're being asked with the bond issue and it's, as I said, very apparent that just about all of the Councilpeople have very serious concerns, and it's something that we're going to really have to work together on. There are a number of Councilmembers that still want to be recognized. Again, I would reiterate, this is not a hearing on NTI; it's the transfer of $8 million for imminently dangerous properties that would be addressed from July 1 till the end of December. The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano.
Thank you, Madam President. This question is on the $8 million transfer ordinance. If we take this 8 million and we approve this transfer, exactly how does it work, Miss Wilkerson? I mean, maybe Mr. Solvibile could help me. We have $8 million. Who gets to say -- 'cause it's a Council ordinance, it's not an 81 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 Administration ordinance. Do I get a million dollar for my district, do we split that around, is there a plan? How does that work?
One of the things that the Administration is trying to do is make more informed decisions moving forward, and so we would hope that some of the strategies we want to employ with NTI would be employed moving forward, so that to the extent that we can do a string demolition, as opposed to simply taking down one property and achieve the economy of scale, we would go on and do that. But at the end of the day, we've got an obligation to take down dangerous properties. And some of the money will be spent, you know, doing business, you know, in a business-as-usual kind of way. It's not really possible to rachet up to scale because you don't know what's going to happen. You know, you don't know whether or not there are going to be additional resources coming available midway during the year, you know, and so we're not going to be burning through the money.
But back to my question, though. Who make the decision? 82 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 Obviously, it goes to the imminently dangerous. I mean, Mr. Solvibile might be able to answer this. How many imminently dangerous properties are there today in the City of Philadelphia?
Now, how do we decide what ones to remove tomorrow? Who lobbies you best, or --
Actually, the people with the most power to decide that are the building inspectors that work in contractual services. I call them the most political muscle in the City. If they want it down, we don't argue with them because the consequences are severe. And then we have communities requests and requests from various Councilpeople, and we try to do what we can do. But first and foremost is the building inspectors that are assigned to the projects. We might have a call today on a building. I know I was out in West Philadelphia and I called the inspector to look at a building on 42nd Street. I believe it was 42md Street or 44th Street, that I didn't like the way it looked. And 83 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 now if that inspector says it needs a curbside bid today, that's what we do. So to answer your question, it's the worst of the worst that come down first.
And how much did you say it costs if you do it this way?
It varies, but the more -- and we don't know the optimum number yet for buildings in a string that you could afford to --
Not a string. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Obviously, this isn't going to work and we're not supposed to put the NTI but we're going to keep doing the imminently dangerous. If we have a bunch of rain -- if it 84 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 rains all during June, Joe Martz will be flying around in a helicopter again spotting houses that will look like they're falling down and there goes the $8 million.
So we don't have a plan for $8 million. I mean, is there a plan, Council President?
I would assume L&I certainly would be able to address this. And let me just point out to you that according to the testimony, the goal of demolishing more than 14,000 abandoned structures would take place in five years, in five years. So you're just looking at the area from July to December.
But I'm looking at imminently dangerous properties. I mean, we had that happen -- was it last summer? It could happen again. This is only $8 million transfer ordinance. This is a legitimate question.
I am sure that if L&I needed more money, and I think this was asked of Mrs. Wilkerson, if this is not enough, she should 85 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 tell us now, and we will certainly amend the bill so that there would be ample money to address the concerns.
Thank you, Council President. But my question was to Mr. Solvibile because he's the one out there that Councilwoman Tasco made it clear are obviously the experts. And what I'm looking at is a city full of 8,000 imminently dangerous properties. And we can debate this all now, in the summer, when we come back in September, a year before we run, what everybody wants to do, but those properties aren't going away, and there's more and more and we can --
And if we passed NTI yesterday, they still would not -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
There would still be 8,000 imminently dangerous structures that 86 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 would be demolished at the discretion of L&I.
But that's not my question. My question to him is, how do we decide? And he said how that is. Now I want to go back with him a little bit. He said his curbside inspectors, or whatever he called them does, how have we always done this in Philadelphia? Is this something new to this administration, or did the previous administrations do it that way?
The answer I just gave about the building inspectors, it's always been that way, as long as I've been involved in contractual services.
My concern, again, is, eventually, these guys are going to run out of money no matter -- even if do $250 million.
It's just not going to happen because one bad summer of rain -- and again, Joe Martz is in helicopters looking at houses 87 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 that gotta come down 'cause some falls on somebody, and it never ends. This is a problem, you know, no 4 matter how we look at it, $8 million, $10 million, $250 million, $350 million on this transfer ordinance, I think I might have to vote against it 'cause I don't see why this million's going to do 8 anything. I mean, if it was 250 million or 500 million or a million, you know. . .
I guess the answer --- I don't know how else to put it. We weight -- our building inspector is first and foremost. It's like if -- I would be crazy to go against a building inspector who has all of the experience that I have and says this needs to come down now. And then we weigh letters and complaints that we get. And in the perfect world, it's not even really the political, although most people know to call their Councilperson, but people that just call L&I on the regular -- we advertise for people to call us at 686-2463. If we go out and their building is that bad, it gets treated just like if 88 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 it was the Mayor of Philadelphia calling.
Six in training -- not fifteen, I'm sorry, thirteen. Six in training that we're breaking in on how to do it and seven that are there full-time that have been there.
And how many I.D.'s do you think we do in the City of Philadelphia? Does it vary week to week?
And is the spring, 18 summer, or rainy season, per se, is it, or is it 19 worse in the winter? 20
Like it seems to me a 7/24 for the rest of my life. I mean, it's been bad since last August 22nd, it's been not a day has gone by where we haven't been out-and-out just straight-out busy. And August 22nd's when the houses started collapsing 'cause of the rain. 89 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261
How much does one of them inspectors make a year, straight time, without any overtime?
I'm guessing about 35 to 40,000. I'm not quite sure of the exact amount.
Well, most people in this room are making better than me, that's (inaudible).
They're probably making about 15,000 averaging in overtime.
If you were the king of world -- this is, you know, one of them kind of questions that you're not going to want to answer -- how many inspectors would we need?
And, obviously, Councilman Clarke needs somebody with him all the time and so do I.
Well, we give Councilman Clarke -- we gave him Walt Weaver, and that's why 90 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 Walt's all worn out, because Darrell wore him out completely. How you approach the demolitions, like I said earlier, if you put bid packages together and have a contractor assigned to that area or to a group of homes, like say from a hundred to a thousand, and I'm not sure what that good number is, and that inspector works with that contractor, then you need an inspector for every bid package for every demolition going on. And that would buy you that. So let's say eight is the magic number, and then seven to handle the other problems that may be occurring elsewhere that are not going to be -- that were not planned for. There is buildings right now that we know are occupied that -- well, there's buildings that we -- I don't want to say occupied, they're not actually occupied. Buildings now that we think are fine but that something will happen -- a fire, a car run into 'em -- that we won't know about and we'll have to respond to in an emergency in the future.
My final question for Mr. Solvibile, if I may. If for some reason we 91 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 come to our senses and pass -- or at least introduce this NTI thing, this NTI Program and it happens, would the imminently dangerous properties -- I mean, they would be taken care of 'cause probably, am I correct in saying the areas that we would be working has most of the imminently dangerous properties in it. If this plan did happen in five years or whatever it is, would we see -- there will always be imminently dangerous 'cause of fires and construction accidents, but those ones that are just old and from weather that are torn down and bricks are falling and there's no supports, would that eventually do away with that? Is thee a light at the end of the tunnel, or does this go on and on and on?
That would be -- I would hope that when the NTI starts that -- I know we'll be working closely with the program manager, and we would insist that that be the first look at as to what we're going to demolish. I think that everyone in this room would agree that that's the way that we have to approach it.
Thanks, Mr. Solvibile. Thank you. 92 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. Since we've been having an hour and a half discussion on NTI, I feel the need to address some things that have been said here. In Councilman Kenney's comments, he talked about how Miss Wilkerson sat on both sides of the table. Actually, I did, too. I find it kind of disingenuous at best to suggest that the last administration submitted more detail on development projects to Council than this administration. For the record, I can say that the last administration, the Rendell Administration, actually submitted to Council a multi-billion-dollar economic stimulus program with no specific detail whatsoever. Members of this Council authorized the sale of City assets, including tax liens on poor people's homes to raise tens of millions of dollars that then went to sweetheart deals like we read about in the Daily News and the Inquirer. One more recently regarding a former chair of the City Planning Commission. 93 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 I know for a fact that those tens of millions of dollars require the signature of only four people: the President of PIDC, the Commerce Director, the Chief of Staff, and I believe the City Solicitor. I know that for a fact because when I was actually in your district a few years ago, when I was on the other side of the Commerce Department, the governor came in town for a $6 million for the Point Breeze Performing Arts Center. The Mayor drove up on the scene, Mayor Rendell, and said, I need a million dollars. He said, Where are we going to get it from? I said, We'll take 750 in economic stimulus funds and do 250 in CDBG. He said, Can you approve the CDBG? I said, We control the committee, we can do it in-house. He said, What about the economic stimulus money. I said, It requires four signatures, I'll walk it around next week. It is very disingenuous to suggest that a multi-billion-dollar program was submitted to Council with full detail and that for a quarter of a billion, we're going to go through exercise, actually acting like people even know what they want for neighborhood transformation. Not only that, but this Council also 94 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 approved probably a half a billion dollars in TIFs, and I was here, having voted against every TIF that came before this Council while I was here for 4 or 5 TIFs, approved 20 or 25 TIFs, almost a half a billion dollars. When I was here, we received one-page summary sheets of the project -- no 8 financial performance, nothing. Now, I'm not suggesting that this Council should continue business as usual in terms of not asking for information, but to suggest that this administration is providing less detail on development and what development will take place than the previous administration or previous administrations, it's simply not true. We should get into the business of what happens in terms of development, but beyond this $8 million, which I'm assuming is going to be approved, we have to decide what we're going to do with the 250 and what we're going to do with further development dollars. And while this was not meant to be an NTI hearing, I hear a lot of questions posed toward the Administration regarding NTI, but I think that Council should come with more than questions. And if we're going to take the summer to 95 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 do it, Council should also come with answers. But as we're discussing NTI, I do have a quick question. It can be related to imminently dangerous buildings or blight or abandonment in general, but I want to ask the Administration for the record, what is the cause of blight in their estimation, from their perspective? Is it economic disinvestment or is it just physical deterioration?
I think it's both. I think that -- I think that the enormous loss of jobs that the City's sustained plays an integral part in the current conditions in our neighborhoods, and I think that has something to do with people moving out. I think it has a lot to do with why there's not kind of demand in our housing market that would support more reinvestment than we currently have going on.
And it is probably very true that the condition of these neighborhoods where this problem is most acute is a result of bank redlining.
But members of this 96 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 Council approved a multi-billion-dollar economic stimulus program that was supposed to jump-start the economy, that many people believe did not invest in neighborhoods the way it was supposed to, and we still have a level of disinvestment that is not necessarily changed by this. We look at blight as a physical condition but it is an economic condition. What exactly -- from my standpoint, I believe that it takes public dollars to leverage private dollars, and I think a quarter of a billion-dollar is needed to leverage the billion dollars or couple billion dollars that we actually need to make some sort of critical-mass redevelopment of our neighborhoods. But essentially, this bill before us is a transfer ordinance. The way I view the NTI bill 18 is actually as a community development financing bill. It is what the public has decided it should invest to leverage private investment. Does it make a difference whether we do this now or don't do this now in your viewpoint in terms of the economic conditions of the City, having, in my viewpoint, wasted years, particularly in the Rendell Administration, when we could have 97 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 been doing more in terms of neighborhoods? Does it make a difference if we take months regarding the economic conditions of the City and economic conditions of its neighborhood in particular?
I think there are opportunities that we jeopardize, and I've tried to highlight some of that in my testimony, you know, that the sooner that we can position our neighborhoods to go out and aggressively pursue opportunities, whether they're emanating from dollars made available in Washington or new initiatives that the State is launching, the better off we'll be. I think that Philadelphia probably has a unique opportunity to begin turning the corner. You know, it in part has to do with what's going on in the suburban area, in part has to do with the general sense that Philadelphia is a city, you know, coming back. It presents us with opportunities.
And these dollars aren't considered from the documents I've read to be, quote/unquote, pre-development dollars. These are not development dollars; these are dollars basically to repair for the redevelopment of our 98 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 neighborhoods. So there is not necessarily supposed to be a full redevelopment plan particularly because what we want to do is market-driven redevelopment; is that correct?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I need to be excused at this time and would like to leave my vote of yes for this bill.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke. Or Councilman Ortiz. I'm sorry, Councilman Ortiz.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree. I think Councilman Goode and I agree, but that is the type of discussion that really is going to be needed in terms of what it is that we mean by "economic development" and what we 99 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 mean by "neighborhood transition" and how we leverage public money in order to bring in private money and begin the market-driven development of places like North Philadelphia and Southwest Philly and other areas. I just want a question for Miss Wilkerson that I don't think there's anything that the federal government requires from us before we submit any proposals. I don't think they require that we have all of the money in place, all of the details in place. I think the federal proposals come up and cities apply, and then they say to us, We have $250 million here and you're going to have to match with 10, million, then we discuss that. 16
I think that is how 17 we've done business up until this point. I think 18 that there are any number of projects where we've 19 been quick to write the letter of commitment, that 20 when, you know, the day finally arrives when we have to put dollars on the table and there's not been appropriate planning for where those dollars are going to come from, we end up looking frantically for --
Well, there are two 100 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 things here. I mean, one is the application, the other is planning. I don't think nothing prevents us from having plans in place. And since I've been here and you have, we have had the North Philadelphia plan. I mean, we're not reinventing the wheel in terms of what we're talking about and if what we're talking about is to develop, real development, in terms of jobs and economic development in areas such as North Philly and Fifth Street and the Frankford area and so on, places that have been neglected before, not just the building of low-income housing, but housing that is driven and built because there's economic practices and economic development taking place and people going to those areas to work. I don't think that prevents us from planning. So I believe we can apply for any of these grants. The planning has to be ongoing in a city such as ours.
Well, it's just that I think you gave -- the understanding of your 101 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 statement was that there were proposals that the federal government and monies that the federal government was making available, and unless we did this now, we will not be able to write proposals and apply for those monies unless we have that in place. And that is not the case. We can apply for those monies, we have plans ongoing. We can apply for those monies and make an argument as to how we are the best in order to be able to invest those monies. I don't think the federal government insists at the point of application that you have every i dotted and every t crossed and all of the funding secured for your part of the monies.
They look for a commitment of funds. I think maybe this will come up in the CDBG hearings. One of the challenges that the City faces is that, you know, we will, as a matter of course, write these commitment letters. You know, the City supports "X, Y, and Z projects," and then it comes time to fund the commitment. We've run into it on Schuylkill Falls, we've run into it on Martin Luther King.
But I don't believe 102 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 that if you make a commitment and you have a project such as Schuylkill Falls and you say you give us the money and the grants to develop Schuylkill Falls along these lines, we, the City, are going to be able to bring forward the matching funds for this. I don't think that that would be problematical in getting the money from this Council at that point.
Okay, well, we'll see. You're talking, you know, 8, 9, $10 million, you know, and I think that, you know, the CDBG funds are already programmed for other kinds of activities. The capital program, which used to be a source of funding that was frequently used by the City to provide local commitment, a lot of those resources aren't available.
I don't want any administration should be afraid to commit for a grant of great magnitude just because at that point in time, we don't have the money in place or the legislation in place. I think you can commit to getting that money because if the money from the federal government is coming, obviously, it's going to be foolish for us not to appropriate that. So, you know, it's the chicken or the 103 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 egg, but I don't think you can say that we cannot write these proposals.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Solvibile, two quick questions. Last year, you did a substantial amount of demolition in my district, correct?
Was there a reuse strategy associated with those vacant lots that were created as a result of the demolition?
Would you say that more often than not, those vacant lots that were created have either received some treatment from the Department of Licenses and Inspections subsequent to that demolition or will in the very near future --
Workers, under the new initiative to have all of the lots cleaned being, managed by the Managing Director and/or L&I's personnel clean the lot, yes.
Under the current proposal, there will probably be an equal number or maybe a lesser number of properties demolished in my district, this fiscal year.
Excuse me, could I expand on that a little bit. Only because your district has the highest number of vacants in it.
To your knowledge, is there a reuse strategy associated with the newly created vacant lots under this proposal?
And can we assume that next year at this time, if not later on this year, we will be addressing the vacant lots again 105 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 with whatever this new City workforce is to clean up the weeds that will invariably grow on those vacant lots?
Until there's a new use, there's always trash or dumping and other problems associated with vacant lots, yes.
So we will continue the cycle -- some say the vicious cycle -- of knocking down a building, having to come back out at a later date, treat the lot again and treat the lot again and treat the lot again?
I would hope that before the third treat-the-lot-again, there would be something new being put on the lot.
Yeah, I think also that the City is looking at strategies -- you know, we understand that on the long-term basis, there will be some vacant lots in the City, you know, a large number of vacant lots, and we are looking at putting together strategies: One, the lands bank; another is systems that would, as a routine matter, service vacant lots in the City. So that while we may not 106 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 have houses or well-cultivated or highly-cultivated parcels, we at least won't have lots where the weeds grow taller than the houses and where the short-dumping is a problem.
And the revenue stream to address that program is from. . . ?
We propose funding that on an ongoing basis out of the General Fund.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you. Just a few more questions relative to what we're not supposed to talking about today, and that's NTI. We're going to hire a lot of people, I assume, to clean these lots and put up these fences and cart away this debris and all of those things that are necessary on a nut and bolts hands-on 107 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 day-to-day job of NTI. How are those people being hired? How are they proposed to be hired?
I think it's between 60 and 100, I believe, who are going to be seasonal employees. The City -- it's going to be the same kind of program that the City uses for graffiti?
For graffiti removal. It's the same model that's going to be employed.
So there's only 60 to 100 people who are going to be doing all of this work over a five-year period?
The City plans on, at least for the first year, undertaking using the same kind of workforce strategy that the City uses for graffiti removal. The long-term plan is to identify resources outside the City, where the City would contract with CDCs. There are some CDCs in the City that have the capacity and are interested in doing vacant lot maintenance. And so we would be looking 108 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 to develop programs that would utilize that, or else some other private resources so that it wouldn't all be done in-house. But we're looking at several different models. We're working with organizations like the Horticultural Society, trying to come up with exactly the model, but we see this as a real opportunity for trying to create some of the economic development in neighborhoods. This is the kind of work that could be performed in communities across the City.
What would be the hiring process? How would an individual, theoretically, if we passed the NTI tomorrow and we started in the fall, how would a person from the neighborhood access the application or wherever he or she had to go to be hired by the City in this program?
I don't know the exact methodology. I know that we've had some contact -- I know we've had some contact with some of the City 109 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 Council offices asking are there employees -- you know, are there names of people. We plan on hiring people out of the neighborhoods. This is an initiative that will, you know, that it's important to have it staffed out of the neighborhoods.
Just one final comment. This is, I guess, what is concerning me about rushing this through or voting for it without information. Despite what my colleague Councilmember Goode has said about voting things in the past without information, I voted on many TIFs and many economic development issues and felt very comfortable when I voted that I was doing the right thing. Some of those projects worked -- most of those projects worked, some of them didn't. But when I cast my vote, I cast it with full knowledge that, at least at that particular time, I thought 110 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 that what I was doing was the right thing.
Well, Councilman, this is actually an activity that's not funded out of the NTI bond program.
Additionally, you know, we talk about committee money, federal matching grants and other types of things, I mean -- and not to start a fight, but this administration has committed money on our behalf before for local initiatives like teachers' contracts, a $45 million number that was committed without our consultation, and there's been other dollars that are being committed by the Administration without discussion unilaterally on the second floor. So, I mean, as far as, you know, worrying about making commitments to the federal government, Councilmember Ortiz said you can apply anytime you need and if you need that matching money, that's fine, but you guys have committed 111 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 money on our behalf in the past without consultation. I don't see why you would be hesitant to commit money in the future without our consultation. Thirdly, if the kind of money we leverage from Washington is representative of the money that we've gotten in the Empowerment Zone Program, for example, of that $90 million or so of money that I don't know how it helped anyone, where it helped anyone, or what job was created, what person in the neighborhood obtained a position. The only thing I know -- the largest project I know was we dug a hole and then we filled it back up again. And the people who filled it up weren't even from Philadelphia. So, you know, all these things sound terrific and all of these things are great about leveraging money and all of this stuff. But you know what, when we sign off on this and this big, heavy train starts rolling down the tracks, it's going to be impossible to stop it. And I don't want to have to go back in 2003, 2004 and explain to people in this city why this stuff didn't get done. If I can have the information that's necessary to 112 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 vote on this thing with a clear conscience, making a rational decision, then I'll be able to support any problems or complaints about this program. But to ask us to do this without the prerequisite information, with just a framework, with a conceptional agreement with an outline, to me doesn't work. I wouldn't buy a house looking at the plans that were simply a framework of plans. I want to see all of the rooms, what's going on in the rooms, where the wiring is, where the plumbing's going, and I wouldn't pay for a house or go get a mortgage on preliminary plans submitted to me by an architect. So that's where I stand on this thing right now. Madam President, I would be -- if there are no other questions, I would be willing to move this transfer ordinance out.
Thank you. However, we do have a couple of witnesses -- I believe they may still be here -- that would like to testify.
Yes, 113 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 Councilman Clarke.
And I don't know if this should be of the individuals testifying. With respects to the process, if we move ahead, I'm not clear about what that process would be, and I don't know if you want to talk about it at a later date.
The NTI -- the process that we should not have been talking about for the last two hours but find ourselves --
Well, I think I indicated to Miss Wilkerson that everybody apparently has a number of questions, and I think we have all summer for the Administration to work with Councilmembers, to work with our technical staff so that hopefully, when we come back in fall, everybody's questions will have been answered.
And is that a formal process or is that simply a matter of a Councilperson contacting the Administration? If 114 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 that's case, I need to get a sense as to whether or not the Administration understands that they will be contacted. I mean, I'm just -- I'm not clear about what process -- and I keep hearing about people wanting to know information, and I'm not sure as a District Councilperson if there's continual information flow between the tech staff and the --
Miss Wilkerson, how would you suggest that this process go forward?
I think we need to develop a process that perhaps is something like the forum that we had last November, where, you know, the Administration presents information, Councilmembers have the opportunity to ask questions. I think there is a -- one of the advantages of a hearing process like this is it's an opportunity for a conversation that involves a lot of people. And I think that's very constructive to get the issues on the table and have them discussed and nailed down or not nailed down. I think it is difficult when it ends up being a lot of one-on-one conversations because then you end up with a very even understanding what of 115 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 what it is that's proposed. So I would look forward to having some kind of process that engages substantially, you know, all or a lot of the Councilmembers so that we can try to generate a shared understanding or a consensus about what it is that the City's going to be doing.
So does that process happen prior to introduction of legislation, or does it happen over the summer? does it happen in the next two weeks? I'm just increasingly not clear as to what type of process will take place between now and September, if any. And, you know, I keep -- I'm asking the question because my concern is that we'll walk out of this room today and there won't be any other discussion until September. And in September, we will all be sitting here, talking about a process. And I'm not sure who should answer that question even.
So if -- so I understand that the Administration should call for a hearing to discuss the possibility of introducing a 116 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 bill? I mean, I just don't understand how --
I think that -- Councilmembers apparently have any number of questions. The way there have been briefings in the past on other issues, there can be a group of Councilmembers getting together with the Administration and just spelling out what their concerns are so that the Administration could answer them.
So the Administration initiates the clusters of meetings and circumvents the press, I'm assuming to have that -- I don't want to, you know -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Who in City Council's 117 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 technical staff has expertise in community development?
Who in City Council technical staff has expertise in community development?
Well, were saying we're going to take months, we're going to pass this bill out of committee, which I will vote for, and we're going to take months supposedly to consider Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. I'm assuming that most people are going to do it from the beach.
I'm assuming that most people are going to do it from the beach. But essentially, what is City Council's capacity? Where do we have the technical capacity 118 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 to review this? Or are we going to actually construct a plan based upon desires of the members of this body, or are we simply going to take time to pick away at one? I want to know, what is City Council's technical capacity? What capacity do we have on technical staff to consider this initiative?
We have recently hired a consultant who certainly has great expertise.
Well, I will be sending a memo out very shortly to let you know who the consultant is, and anybody can feel free --
And unlike the stadium deal, are we going to have input on what this consultant considers?
Well, we did not on the stadium deal. We had a consultant come in here to testify or administration bills that said that they were representing City Council. 119 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261
Well, I'll tell you, with the stadium issue, I think we all agree that that was an 11th hour issue, and I don't know that you or I or a consultant really had ample time in which to consider just about anything.
I -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Just a minute. This would have been another 11th hour issue.
But before we vote this out of committee, I want to know what we're going to commit to doing, beyond whatever consultant you have in mind, to give Council the technical capacity to do what needs to be done to transform neighborhoods. If we supposedly don't like or don't understand or have enough information about what the Mayor submitted, let us decide now before we vote this out of committee that when we come back, we will be actually ready. Or at least tell me the name of the consultant.
And in addition to which, Council President, I really need to get a 120 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 sense of what this process will be 'cause I've been around for a while and I understand the difficulties associated with getting members to focus during the summer months 'cause they're out doing things in their districts and in their areas. And I have not heard -- we are approaching that recess point of any process that will have members either in small groups or as a whole meet with Council, meet with the Administration over the summer, and I'm increasingly becoming concerned that we will leave here on the 14th and we will never discuss this until September. And, I mean, I really -- I'm feeling you were comfortable with that possibility.
Let me just say that we have asked the Administration a number of questions and they have not responded to them. So I am saying to you, it is now up to all of us. I think there is not a member of this Council who does not want to see NTI being a success, and we're all very eager to work toward the goal of making it a successful project. I know that you say that some people will be at the beach and are they going to work at 121 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 the beach?
The beach is only 60 miles or 90 miles away, and people don't sit on the beach all summer; they do come into the office. So I'm sure that Councilmembers would make themselves available to deal with this issue at any time. Councilwoman Tasco, you wanted to be recognized?
Point of order, point of order. I had a question on the floor. My question is about the process that will be set up as it relates to the Council and the Administration. You have indicated that there were a number of questions asked of the Administration by this Council. Is that questions asked by the technical staff or by numbers of members of Council?
The tech staff. 122 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261
I think Councilman Goode put forward a framework before this last intervention that he made. If we're going to be able to put forward $250 million as a start, we have done this before in this Council. We have spent $300 million one time in North Philadelphia, and after the expenditures of the money, North Philadelphia still looked as bad. We had $100 million in economic --
Point of order, point of order. Well, can you reference that $300 million? 'Cause I'm looking for it.
It was spent. In 1986, we put out some bonds -- I'll give you the --
It was not spent, Councilman. It was not spent, Councilman. 123 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261
You implied that $300 million was spent in North Philadelphia and it looks the same. That is not factual.
I'm saying we had a plan and it did not work because the things -- and we appropriated and we passed --
That was not for North Philadelphia; it was a citywide plan.
For the City of Philadelphia, not for North Philadelphia.
But it didn't work. And this 250 it is for the City. So the issue is, are we going to be able to leverage a plan? And I think this discussion is both Administration and City Council. I think it is us as a body deciding as to how it is best to leverage and really not just 124 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 build a few low-income housing projects of one-family housing across the City that speckle different neighborhoods but that really begins to develop jobs in those areas in North Philadelphia that can attract, maintain people living in those areas and give those individuals the wherewithal to sustain a house, to sustain a family, and not move out of the district. And I think we don't have that yet, and we haven't had that discussion. I think what we were talking -- what Wilson alleged at one point is that that discussion needs to take place, and it's not just the Administration, but it is us. If we're going to have a consultant, we're going to have to sit down with the consultant and say, This is what we're looking, this is what you're looking for or me or whatever it is and put it into a discussion and say to the Mayor, say to the Administration, You propose that we have some changes along the same lines. And have a real give-and-take as to what economic development really means in the neighborhoods. Not 108 loans that we just gave to renovate law firms in Center City and now we're 125 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 going to have to be paying some of the interest on that. But what economic development and neighborhood revitalization really means. And I think -- I think if we have that discussion, we may come out with a plan in which $250 million can be leveraged to really begin a kickoff point across the City in terms of different neighborhoods.
I feel real good about what my friend and my colleague said, but all I'm asking for is a process and understanding that you may not be able to answer that today in this forum. But I've been around and --
And I think it should be addressed in this forum.
I'm telling you, people get out of here June 14th, and I'm really concerned that there will be no discussion in any formalized way during the course of the summer about this issue. And that's my biggest concern.
Councilwoman Tasco. 126 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261
I think that the issue for us as District Councilmembers, and I know at-large Councilmembers should have concern for the City as a total. I think the process has to go back to what is the plan. And we have said over and over again we don't -- we have a framework, but we do not have a plan. And if I look at the City today on a map and we give $250 million, what will the City look like when we spend the $250 million? That's what I'd like to see. My concern is that the framework was put together. We all know the problems that exist. We need -- all districts are different. My district may not require as much demolition as maybe another district. What will be spent in the 9th District or the 4th District or any other district is going to show that there's a difference in the expenditure of funds to make a difference. What am I going to get for the 9th Councilmatic District in terms of rehab money, of stabilization money? I lose my people to Montgomery County every week. What does this $250 million mean? It is unlike doing a TIF, because it's for a specific project. We know a building's going to be 127 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 done and so many things are going to go into this building. We're asking for money for the entire city where there are ten districts, and everyone in each district is seriously anticipating to see what's going to happen in their community. Either tell us something's going to happen in that community or nothing's going to happen in that community. I had no input in terms of the development of this framework except to discuss what the problems are. I don't know what input I will have in terms of determining what the solutions will be in terms of what it means for the 9th Councilmatic District. And my concern is what this $250 million means, and I want that process, however we set it up, whether it's the Administration going back to the table saying to each District Councilperson, This is what you're going to have and this is what your district's going to look like when we spend $250 million. I think that is very clear. I have said it over and over and over again. I don't think I have miscommunicated what my concerns are. And all 128 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 I want is those concerns addressed. I do not want one group getting $450,000 and I'm told that's all the 9th Councilmatic is getting, and I have 155,000 people, wards, and other people in Olney and Logan 6 especially looking for some activity in their community. I want to know what that means. I do not know what it means based on the bill that we have before us. It has nothing to do with anything else except that I want to be able to say to the 9th Councilmatic District, This is what we're going to do, bottom line. How we get to that. . . Since we didn't introduce the plan, I think it rests with the City to do it.
Miss Wilkerson, I think that you heard Councilwoman Tasco. Is there a possibility that each District Councilperson can be told precisely what activities would go on in his or her district?
I couldn't put it any more clearer than Councilwoman Tasco. I'm interested in what the 6th District, as well as the other District Councilpeople.
And I think 129 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 the expectations of this in the community is just so high. As a matter of fact, there was one group that I met with a couple of month ago months ago, and I think they truly believe that at one end of the street, they're going to see a new recreation center, and at the other end, there's going to be a new library. I think that the expectations are just so high. They really are. Do you think there's a possibility that the Administration can break it down by each Councilmatic District as to what activities would go on in their respective districts?
I think what we've attempted to do is show the kinds of activities people can look forward to. I think that would be misleading. For example, a lot of -- you know, 150 million out of the 250 million simply supports demolition. A lot of the kinds of dollars that we look to leverage are not dollars that are a part of the plan, and so I think that when you start talking about, you know, what's it going to look like at the end of the day, you know, after you spend 250 million, what is it going to look like? I don't think it is going to begin to tell a complete story. 130 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 I think that I can spend, you know, money in the, you know, the 1st District, doing demolition. You know, it will reflect what is going to be spent out of the 250 million, but it won't reflect the kind of dollars that we hope to leverage. You know, if I spend acquisition dollars in the 1st District, it's not going to begin to tell the story of what that might mean in terms of leveraging private activity. So we can probably, you know, say out of the this 250 million, you know, the 7th District will get, you know, $15 [sic] In demolition money. You know, another district will get, you know, X-number of encapsulation dollars. But I think at the end of the day, you won't begin to have a complete story about what it is that we expect to have happen as a result of the investment that the City's making. I think that these really are pre-development dollars in a lot of respects and they're dollars that the City would be committing in order to leverage additional resources. And I don't know that if we simply whacked up the 250, we're going to end up with anything that is useful, but we 131 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 can -- you know, we work on doing that.
May I ask. The other question I have is, how does the pie get -- how does the decision get made as to where you leverage the dollars?
I this that in part turns on the kind of challenges in the neighborhood. For example, I can commit -- you know, if you commit $450,000 to leverage over $2 million in the 9th District and you put it out at $5,000 a property, I don't know what the math is, I don't know how many properties you treat, but you may be dealing with a problem in the Ogontz area. To deal with that same kind of problem in the 5th District, it might take a lot more money simply because of the nature of the problem. So I don't -- I don't know that if you ever get to the point of simply, you know, saying, Well, this district got 10 million and that district, you know, got 15 million. You know, I don't know where that gets you. But I think that we can -- you know, I think that we can -- you know, we can take a look at trying to talk about exactly where the 250 might go. 132 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 I don't think that that begins to paint an adequate picture of what's likely to happen or what the Administration's expectation is.
And just to follow up, when you presented to us the plan and you showed us the blight early on and the blight as it exists now, given the proposal that you have and the framework, even with planning on leveraging the dollars, there has to be some idea where you would leverage those dollars, and if you got 'em, what you would do with it. And in the end, if you've targeted specific areas that you want that are -- and I agree, there are some areas that certainly need it much more than others, but there are other areas that if we don't -- and we've talked about this before -- stem the tide of flight, you're going to have a blighted area. So in the end for me, what does it mean in five years? Even if you say, okay, well, we're going to leverage a billion dollars, okay? When we spend it, suppose we get it all? Let's suppose we get it; then what will the City look like then? 'Cause you got to have some idea. Are you all going to decide it or are these consultants going to 133 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 decide it? Who's going to decide, how do they decide? And I'm over there fighting with some consultant to try to get something for the 9th District, people I don't know, who don't know me. And, you know, the politics get all in the way and I end up not having anything in the 9th District. I mean, we have to deal with all of that. But in the end, when you leverage and got your billion and you got your -- finish your plan and you say this is the ideal of what the City should look like, there ought to be some way to look at the map to say this is what it should look like in the end, just for your own plan.
Miss Wilkerson, before you forget, I would like you to get together with Mr. Dubow and Mr. Erekson so that we can deal with the encapsulation issue. Also, if you would give me a call tomorrow, I'd like to set up a mutually convenient time and date so that we could talk about the possibility of a process by which we're going to be working.
Thank you. 134 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 I would like to move on. We have a couple witnesses that have been waiting.
Would it be appropriate, as done in other circumstances before, to suggest that we temporarily recess the public hearing, move into the public meeting, vote on this particular initiative, and then come back to the public hearing to allow people to excess their views. I mean, I don't know if anyone's voting against this particular transfer ordinance. I don't think it's going to be the majority of people the Council Committee of the Whole Committee, but perhaps we could approve --
I would like to make that suggestion, and we've done it. I mean, it's been a routine in Council, especially when we have 135 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 people waiting as long as they've been waiting to kind of really get the business out of the way and allow people to come and testify.
Having not been a part of the process that District Councilmembers were a part of, my understanding of the process is that the Administration took District Councilpeople on a trolley ride through districts. Can you tell me about that process and how that might impact our voting on this bill in terms of where you move on imminently dangerous properties or how do you construct a neighborhood transformation plan. How have District Councilmembers been involved so far by the Administration? I wasn't on the trolley.
I mean, there's ongoing dialogue with a lot of District Councilpeople, and depending on the kind of issues in a district, you know, it impacts on who it is that the Councilmember might communicate with. As a way for the Administration as a 136 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 whole to get some understanding of conditions in neighborhoods, last year, the Mayor, you know, probably visited nine of the ten Council Districts on a trolley tour, and it was an opportunity to have the District Councilperson explain to the Mayor, you know, the City Planner, the Managing Director, and others what they saw as the challenges in the district, and we've tried to incorporate that and have that inform a lot of decisions that the Administration made. The kind of information that we got was as varied as, you know, the significance of charter schools to, you know, the need for comprehensive demolition. You know, different districts see the problem and see the challenges differently. And we've tried to fold that into the kind of thinking and planning. I think you saw it in the budget that was proposed this year. We proposed in the five-year plan over $50 million in General Fund support, you know, to tackle the kind of problems that Councilmembers talked to us about when we were out in the neighborhoods.
So, not having been on that tour, as a at-large member, I'm sort of at a 137 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 disadvantage. I represent the people in ten districts but don't necessarily represent any district, particularly according to certain District Councilpeople, but essentially not having been on that tour, the District Councilpeople told you what they wanted to happen in terms of neighborhood transformation or not?
No, I think that's overstating. I think it was an opportunity for District Councilmembers to share their perspective on the issues in neighborhood. I remember, you know, up in the 10th Council District, the Councilman had very specific issues he was concerned about. Some of them are the kinds of things that I think, you know, sitting in City Hall, you don't really understand in the same kind of way. So I don't think it was specifically advising the Administration about what, you know, the Councilmembers wanted to see come out of NTI; it was more of a conversation about what the issues were in the districts.
I'm not suggesting that each Council -- District Councilmember submitted you with a plan. I'm saying, as you were 138 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 riding on the trolley, I'm assuming that the District Councilpeople talked about the neighborhoods, talked about what they thought the problems were, talked about their vision for their districts.
Thank you. I think we've had a couple witnesses that have really been waiting quite some time. So I would ask that our first witness be called.
June Bey. I'm not quite sure how to pronounce it. (Witness comes forward.)
It's been interesting to say the least. I have to honestly say I've never been to one of these type of meetings, but I'm glad I was in attendance today. After hearing everyone speak, I kind of don't know where to start, but I'm here because of the way the City looks. And after hearing how much money has been sunk into the City and it still looks 139 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 like -- I mean, most areas that I go to, the Southwest Philly area and North Philly, it still looks like a war zone. And I hear about all of this money being put to a different project here, there, and everywhere, and still there's no result of any uplifting of the neighborhoods. And I guess my -- what drew me here was the fact that I've had several people come to my -- bring to my attention that they had properties knocked down bought the building next door was demolished, because it was a unsafe building and it was targeted to come down, but in the event of that one coming down, it made the building next door to unstable, so they had to bring both buildings down. And then they had the nerve to send the homeowner a bill for the demolishment of the building. And these people, I've encouraged them to fight the City or fight the construction company that decided to bring down the building. And I'm not understanding how L&I can send people out and just look at a building and look at it from the curbside and never go in and inspect the building to see if it can be salvaged. Or is there a cost analysis done to say, okay, if we 140 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 demolish it, it's going to cost this amount, but if we salvage it, it will cost this amount. At least if you have those two parameters in place, you could say, Well, maybe we salvage it and we can at least encourage someone to come back in and pick up where we can't finish. I also was made aware, I mean, through the incident where the buildings were torn down that there's an encapsulation program, which I heard mentioned several times here, but most of, I would say, Philadelphia doesn't -- they don't know about the program. And to me, if you have a program in place that actually would salvage some of these problems, when a person calls and says, I have a nuisance property, that someone did a property next door that's vacant, I need to have it remedied because I don't want a vacant building 'cause I don't want it drawing undesirable people or whatever next door to it, that they would be given the option of having someone to come out to look to see if it qualified for this encapsulation program. And it seems like this city is only offering people the option of destroying or tearing down properties. And when you tear down these 141 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 properties, you're also tearing down the properties of the -- I mean, you're tearing down the value of the properties remaining, because if you take a property from the middle of the block and leave all of these properties standing up, it defaces the properties that are remaining. And what do you say to the people who are still left in the neighborhood, who, for whatever reason, don't want to move out or can't move out? You offer them nothing. It becomes a hopeless situation. And I think that to continue on this path is to me, it's just saying that we've given up on the people who don't have the knowledge that everyone in this room has to do something different within neighborhoods to bring life back to the neighborhoods. And when someone else mentioned something about jobs, I think it was a perfect point because of the simple fact the construction company that knocked down this particular building was from Upper Darby. So here now you've taken money out of the City, and not only are you tearing down the properties in the City, but you're also contracting people out of the City to knock them down.
So now 142 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 we don't have jobs in the City, because now you've given them to contractors who come in with these low bids and for whatever reason, you decide to give it to them. But yet. Everybody's talking about uplifting the community, but you're doing nothing to do that. Also, someone had mentioned something about hiring, I think, a consultant committee or a consultant. I think that's a excellent option because I think you should hire a consultant committee -- I mean, have a consultant committee that maybe have dealt with this type of disparity in other cities, because I have never heard of any other city that knocks down as many houses as Philadelphia has. And these houses are only being knocked down in the neighborhoods -- predominantly they're knocked down in the neighborhoods that are predominantly where people of color live. And like me and some other people, I would never want to move next door -- I mean, move into a neighborhood where they have holes in the neighborhood. What do they call it, a gap-toothed neighborhoods? So now we've also taken away the values of these neighborhoods, and we can't 143 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 encourage people to move back into the neighborhoods. So I would think the City, before actually taking it upon themselves to even vote for a bill like this to hire some consultants to come in and take a look and give the City another option because I feel like tearing down all of these properties is horrible. And when I came here today, I was so surprised not to see this room filled with people. But because you have not placed any value on their properties, now they have not placed any values on their properties. Because I know that you may knock down a property next door to me, I'm here, because I know that when I go to resell that property or if I go to refinance my property so I can get some money to fix up the property, there's not going to be a value there. And because people are not in here, it's because they have no knowledge, and it's because of the lack of education in the areas of where people of color live, they're not filled with this room, filling this room. Because if you start demolishing properties in the Fairmount section, in Society 144 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 Hill, in the Queen Village section, this room would be packed with people. And it's only because they know the value of their property and because the value of their properties well exceeds the value of the properties in the area that you're demolishing these properties.
Thank you. I just want to let you know that this hearing is to appropriate monies for imminently dangerous properties. We certainly don't want properties to be falling on passersby. God forbid if there would be children passing and this house would suddenly fall on them.
I understand that but I know of a property that was taken down for that same reason, because the back porch that could have been easily detached from the house came down, was falling in.
So for you to tell me that you're just targeting only properties that are --
Dangerously and you want them 145 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 to come down, do you have the expertise to say that this property is actually going to do that? Yes, there have been incidents where properties have fallen, but those properties don't outweigh the properties you plan to destroy. You're talking about a couple hundred versus thousands. And this property's one particular property. And two properties I know of, those properties should not have been torn down, and there could have been some rehabilitation to the property. So I understand why you're here, I mean, why this bill is in front of us, but I'm saying that to me, you spend all of this money tearing down properties and still the City looks the way it looks. And it's only in our neighborhoods that it looks that way. So -- and like I asked somebody about the encapsulation program, that should be known to everybody as soon as they call and say, I have a nuisance property and that property may cause my property further damage. They should be told about the encapsulation program. And that $8 million should be spent on educating people and getting people jobs back in the 146 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 City and also spent on building up the gap-toothed neighborhoods you've created.
Thank you very much. We appreciate your patience and your coming in to testify. Thank you so much.
Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on Bill 15 010261. I do understand that I'm here today to testify about funds being reallocated in fact for demolition without a plan, again, just for that $8 million. I contend there should be a plan. Although development projects may have been done in a willy-nilly way in the past, that doesn't mean that we should continue down that road. So as I talk to members of my community, and I am in the 5th District, but I talk to people all over the City because I do sell real estate all 147 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 over the whole city, they wonder why it is that you all are moving forward even with $8 million or any amount of money in demolition without a plan. I understand that this money is to go towards imminently dangerous properties being demolished. And just as the last person who testified, I am concerned that properties that are not imminently dangerous are being demolished. When we in our community have a plan to stabilize, we are not even able to reach our goal because some of the properties are being considered nuisance and are being torn down. We are very much concerned about this. We think there should be at least a plan for every area. I am a member of the board of Advocate Community Defendant Corp. We have a Diamond Street corridor plan, which I want to be a part of this record. If we have a plan with our small resources, how come the Administration does not have a plan? I have some other things too, so you all are going to put them together. I have pictures of the many vacant lots, like a small policy program -- a small lot program, I should say. This is evidence, I should say, of what lots have already 148 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 been demolished and how they are handled in our communities. We have thousands of vacant lots in our community at this time. Without a plan, we will have more vacant lots in all of our community that are not managed while you all give $8 million more without a plan for them to come in and further demolish properties. Especially we're concerned of properties that are demolished on mostly intact blocks. We as a community are requesting that those properties be stabilized when there are five or less in a block that's mostly intact. We don't want inspectors from Licenses and Inspections determining that those properties should be demolished when we are in our community planning, saying we want them stabilized. In addition, there are no reuse plans. And I'm still focusing on this $8 million because a lot could be done over the summer with $8 million to erect the plans that we are trying to do in our communities. I understand there's land banking going on. Where is the plan? I keep going back to the plan because we don't have any, we have not seen 149 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 any. We have been through meetings throughout our communities and we have tried to be patient as we participated in those meetings, but out of them has come no plan, no comprehensive plan that we can put our hands around. We are also concerned about job creation as it relates to demolition. And cleaning lots, etc. And we don't see a plan as it relates to that either. If you're so concerned about how imminently dangerous problems or imminently dangerous conditions has affected our community, there were five people killed, from what I understand, from encroaching trees. How come we're not splitting up some of that money to deal with some of those encroaching trees problems and we're sucking a lot of it into demolition? And as I contend on a substantial number of properties that are nuisance but not imminently dangerous.
I would like to see a plan set up so we can determine in each of the districts what properties are, in fact, truly imminently dangerous or which ones are nuisance and can possibly be encapsulated or in some other way partially 150 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 demolished in that we might be able to use those properties in the future. Although we keep hearing statistics about how people are leaving our community, I contend that in every single organization that does rehabilitation or provides housing for this community, they have a long waiting list. So where are these people going? I know there are a substantial number of people moving out of or community, but there are a substantial number of people that want to stay in our community, evidenced by those long lists of people that want to move into properties. When a building fell in Center City and killed the doctor, I did not see you all saying we must go now and tear down all of Mr. Rappaport's properties. Why is it that our community is being ravaged in the middle of blocks, leaving us unsafe, leaving us with structural problems after a property is torn down, leaving us with water in the basement. Everybody that lives on the opposite side of a property that's torn down in a middle of a block has water in their basement. And these are things that you all need 151 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 to think about before you go and just give $8 million to Licenses and Inspections without a plan, without any kind of backup for all of these kinds of problems. There are some properties that have been torn down years ago, and if you look at 7 the records, three or four times, the City had to 8 come back, dig up the earth, and then put another 9 sealant around because it wasn't done properly. 10 So these things are going on in our 11 community where we live. I mean, each community has 12 different issues, but I want you all to really be 13 clear on the issues that are confronting us as it 14 relate to demolition. 15 I would like to ask, are the inspectors that are determining from a curbside view that our properties should be torn down, are they engineers?
Point of order. I have a business to attend. Could I be recorded as voting aye on this bill.
I may be back 152 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 before that.
I'm sorry. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
I think we ought to set the record straight. The statement that they eyeball these from the curb without any physical inspection, I think that's exaggerated. There are -- inspections do include, in some cases, a physical inspection of the building before they're condemned or whatever. So that may occur in some cases. Maybe for tax assessments, they eyeball it from the curb, but I don't think in most cases that L&I just does a curbside inspection.
But I am really concerned that there is not enough community participation in these decisions that are made. We are posed to hire engineers to tell us which properties can be salvaged. So we want to make sure that we have this information beforehand. Another thing, as I sum up, that we're quite concerned about is environmental issues. Buildings are torn down in our community, we do not 153 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 get any notice. We have people with respiratory problems in our community. We would like to see where there's documentation that lead has been taken out of these properties beforehand and that asbestos has been taken out beforehand, because I understand that's why the cost of demolition is so high. Yet we cannot get from our request so far evidence that lead is being taken out of these properties or asbestos is being taken out of these properties that are being torn down. Dust is flying and we have a high increase of asthma in our community. So, you know, we don't want lawsuits later coming to the City because all the precautions have not been taken. I think it would be really very --
Miss Robinson, I don't mean to cut you short, but I think that if you worked with the District Councilman, he would be able to let you know beforehand exactly what properties would be demolished. And certainly if you have any concerns, they should be addressed to him.
Well, I understand that, madam, but since you all are dealing with this 154 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 issue, when we contact our Councilperson to get information, if it's not forthcoming in a timely manner, the properties are then demolished and all we're left with is a vacant lot. So I want you all to understand that as you vote, we have issues in our district that maybe are not addressed as effectively as you might address them in your district. So since we have a substantial number of those properties, I want to make sure you all understand, as you vote, that we have issues in our district that you don't have in yours. So, you know, I understand what you're saying about dealing with the Councilperson.
Now, I am sure that I have the same problems in my district, I am sure that I do. And as I said, I think if you were to work with the District Councilman, he would be certainly very happy to cooperate with your request.
Right, I understand that, ma'am, but let me say this: How is our plan going to connect to this plan that the Mayor has when they're going ahead without giving information to the Councilperson as to which properties will be 155 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 demolished? And the last thing in closing. You said you got a consultant?
Okay. Well, how was that done? Because we in the community are consultants, we have expertise. And since a substantial portion of it is going to be spent in communities like ours, I would like to get in on that consultant contract because then I will know --
I think you should work with your District Councilperson.
Is Gordon Whitman here? (Witnesses come forward.) 156 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. My name is Gordon Whitman, and I'm with Temple University and the Eastern Pennsylvania Organizing Project. And we'll be brief and we're testifying in favor of the bill.
My name is Linda Haley. I'm a member of Visitation Parish and a member of Visitation EPOP.
I'm Hattie Williams. I'm the block captain of the 2600 North 31st Street. I am also a member of EPOP. And my grievance is there's nothing been done in Strawberry Mansion, and everybody keeps talking about all of this money, but every time something's done, it's on the west side. We don't have stores, we don't have nothing up there, and anybody gives a darn about us. And I can't tell people on my block nothing because we get notices from the tax department that your house only worth $3500 and all of this crap. And we have some beautiful houses in my 157 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 area and we do have some good stable blocks up there, but it's getting to be a nuisance when I keep hearing this mess about all this money and nothing being done up where I live. Up where I live look like a God-darned war zone. And some of the houses are empty, the windows is out. There was one across the street from me. I've been calling L&I for about ten years about that house. The windows are out and it's a mess. And I know a lot of you don't live in the areas where we live, but we have a right to have L&I come in and do something, 'cause we have called them for ten years about a building which was there at 30th and Huntington Street. They didn't come out, the water was running through the building, going in other people's houses. So last year, the building fell down, then here they come running. Well, why didn't somebody call us? How can you call 'em, when you call and they don't even call you back, they don't answer you, they don't do nothing. And I'm sick and tired of calling L&I, trying to get things done in my neighborhood. Right there at (indiscernible) and Huntington, PHA has a house there. There's no fence 158 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 on the side of the house. That yard is always full of trash, it smells like urine, broken bottles and everything. Now, I have called them ten times about that. They still haven't come out and did nothing about it. And then they say, Well, call L&I. You call them and they don't come. So what are you supposed to do? And it's really getting sickening. And we have a guy that's down on the corner. He sell clothes on that corner. He pile up all his trash over on the northeast -- on the north side of Huntington Street, by the parking lot on the street, and that's that stuff is there until trash day.
Council President, we as much as anyone want to see action taken on vacant property in Philadelphia. We appreciated the opportunity in March to be able to brief City Council on some of the research and perspective that we have. We also believe that there are important decisions that have to be made about how to spend the blight funds, decisions between demolition and rehabilitation, between new construction and 159 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 rehabilitating existing property, decisions about where money gets spent, the fiscal impact of spending money in different ways. And we want to make sure that there's an opportunity for those decisions to be made well, for the Administration and Council to make some good decisions that will shape the City for years and years to come. So we support the bill as a stopgap so that the City has an opportunity to develop a plan and to do it in public and to do it with good information and in a good way. So that's why we're here supporting the bill, but we hope that there will be a plan and there will be a plan that's a good plan and it happens rapidly and it meets the needs of the City's neighborhoods.
Madam President, I just want to say that we do support this bill, and it's very interesting to be here today to kind of see how City Council works. And from listening to the different things that were said here today, I think that all of the Councilmembers not only have the right but have the duty to expect a plan from the 160 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 administration of this City, not that we should just give them all this money without a plan. The City Council is kind of like the CFO of the City, and in the business world, you wouldn't just give somebody money without a plan. So I think that you have every right to expect a plan from the Administration, some type of plan stating what they're going to do with this money before we give it to them.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
There's one question I want to ask. Who do I get in touch with, because we're not in compliance with the water codes of the City. We have no fire hydrants on 31st Street. They took up 15 hydrants in that area. Now, if we have a fire up there, it's going to be a mess.
Councilman 161 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 Clarke?
I will be talking to you. 'Cause I'm actually afraid 'cause I had two fires in my house. Now if we have a fire up there, there's no water on our block.
Just a quick question. A point of clarification. My understanding of the testimony I just heard was that particularly the block captain had a serious problem with L&I, said that L&I was non-responsive, was concerned about what L&I was not 162 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 doing in the neighborhood but testifying on behalf of the bill to give $8 million to L&I?
I don't know that she said that, I don't know that she said that.
Well, that's what I heard, and I just want to clarify that.
Councilman Goode, what I said is, we had two buildings in my area and one of them fell down. We have been calling them for the last ten years about these two buildings. The one at 30th and Huntington Street, it fell down. We didn't say L&I till that building fell down. And then they want to know why you didn't -- one of the people in town (indiscernible) said what are you talking about, we've calling you for ten years.
With all due respect, ma'am, so you're asking that $8 million more be given to L&I?
We need the program to get things done, but I don't think they should get the $8 million and don't have a plan as to what they going to do with it.
Mr. Whitman, 163 5/29/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010261 do you want to respond to that?
Well, I think as the last person who testified said, clearly, there's a concern with how business has been done in the past, and we'd like to see it done differently. So, sure, there ought to be a plan for the $8 million as well and I think we all agree on that, and that if at any time the City spends money but certainly as the City expands spends the bond money, that it's even more important for there to be a plan that's publicly available that people can chew on and think about and contribute to.
Let's just keep it honest. There's enough politicians in the room.
Thank you for your patience. Thank you for coming in to testify. Do we have any other witnesses to testify? (No response.)
Seeing none, this will conclude the public hearing.
With respects to particularly the two constituents of mine in the 5th District, I just want to say that I agree with everything you've said, and I also suffer with the same levels of frustration. And I hate to belabor the point; that's why I think it's important to put the appropriate resources in place and have a better coordination of service delivery so we can in fact deal with those problems so you don't have to come down here and threaten me and City Council, as my friend over here has earlier, and I'm going to take care of your problem today. So although, you know, I will be supporting the transfer ordinance, I just have to go on the record to say that I don't think this is the answer, and I really would like to see us deal with a broader, more comprehensive issue. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or statements or comments by members of the committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, this concludes our public hearing. We will now go 165 5/29/01 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING into our public meeting. - - -
Thank you. I move that Bill No. 010261 be voted out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit consideration at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 010261 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. Also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the record will also reflect that Councilmembers Miller, Cohen, and Krajewski --
Madam Chair, before we leave, I just got a phone message from Milwaukee from Alderman Sanchez --
Can we just finish this, please. That the three Councilmembers that I just mentioned also voted in favor of it, so the motion carries, and Bill No. 010261 will be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. Councilman Ortiz.
Madam Chair, I just got a call from Milwaukee from Alderman Sanchez. Challenging me to a bet between the Bucks and the Sixers. He's sending some German products, but we're sending him some product from Philadelphia. If we lose, and we're not going to. (Adjourned 4:25 p.m.) 167 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of TUESDAY, May 29, 2001, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE BILL NO. 010261 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter