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?