The towers were already demolished at the time of the HOPE VI grant application.
Okay, all right. So we don't really have to go back and talk about the initial creation of Schuylkill Falls and how many people lived there because there was never, ever any notion that the same number of people that were originally on the site 40 years ago were going to be on the site today, right? 154 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
Okay, all right, so don't tell me about the history. Where are we now and why can't we do the kinds of things that have been discussed here this morning?
Let me finish and say that whatever the number of public housing units or residents at the site at the time of the HOPE VI grant application -- and it was several hundred -- there will be only 103 public housing units in the redeveloped site. And I think --
I want to make sure I understand your language. What you're saying is 103 public housing-eligible units, correct?
Okay, why don't we do this as an information request. The letter that I received from Mr. Jacobs at Wolf, Block, Shorr talks about one of the documents that I received which 155 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 lays out some of the elements of that 103 units that you've just discussed. Now, if you could send to me subsequent to this hearing -- he's telling me that the regulatory and operating agreement between PHA and the partnership dated December 7, 2000 provides that one-third of the 103 public housing units shall be rented to households with incomes at or below 40 percent of area-median income, provided that at least 50 percent of such households shall be at or below percent of AMI. That's one. One-third 12 shall be above 40 percent, but no higher of AMI. 13 And the remaining one-third shall be above 50 14 percent but not to exceed the tax credit limits, 15 which is 60 percent of AMI of Section 42 of the 16 Internal Revenue Code. 17 Now, what I'd like for you is to do is 18 prepare a chart showing me the breakout of the 103 19 units, the schedule that's in the letter that I 20 received, and tell me what those actual numbers are from an income standpoint. Can you do that?
And then I'd like you to do that for the rest of the units on the site. Is that 197? 156 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
Okay, I'd be interested in seeing that. Now, when we talked about this report that was developed, is it your considered opinion as a developer out in the community that East Falls is an average location? Is that your perspective?
Okay. I'm sure folks from the community appreciate that perspective. What does that mean? What does "average" mean?
Well, it's means that it's not inferior and it's not outstanding.
It is not Rittenhouse Square, to use your example. It is, as they described it themselves, a well-integrated community in terms of income, social status, race and other characteristics. And it is, as a result, a very vital community. It is not, however, an outstanding real estate location. And that's what the appraiser is 157 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 assessing.
What's the range of the prices of homes over in the East Falls community?
Okay, are there many other neighborhoods in the City that have that kind of real estate market?
No. The question was not, Is this an average community within the Philadelphia market? The question is, How does an appraiser assess the quality of this real estate location? And they've concluded that it is average. That's their prerogative. You asked me if I agree with it and I've said I do.
Okay. So it's average kind of living up on a hill, almost literally part of Fairmount Park, you get the river right outside 158 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 of you, easy access to Center City or anywhere else that you want to go, and from your perspective, that's an average neighborhood?
Within the appraiser's world of definitions of rating real estate sites, I would say yes.
Well, I guess in that environment, I mean, do you think that market-rate houses don't work, and what do you think the market is over there?
I believe that there are still remaining impediments to immediate and vigorous marketing and sale of unsubsidized units at that location, but I also firmly believe that --
Do you think that's impacted at all by the fact that you propose to build almost all of the rental and a little bit of the sale first?
Correct. And we are following the prior market analyst urging that the 159 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 developer and the PHA overcome some of the stigma associated with the previous use of the site by building out high-quality rental housing at the site in order to allay --
First. In order to allay the fears and concerns of prospective buyers, particularly --
If you build the low-income first, you attract the high-income buyers; is that the concept here? (Applause.)
I mean, you know, I've never built anything, so I don't really know. So is that what you're telling me?
The site has acquired an enormous stigma. And, in fact, these kind of proceeding and a lot of other public utterances and issuances by the East Falls community regarding the terrible character of the proposed redevelopment and how it's doomed to failure and how it's totally 160 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 subsidized and totally public housing will all serve to negatively impact the prospect for marketing this site for home ownership units. So there's a --
Let me make sure I understand you. You're saying that the public discourse on this, which the essential elements of this difference of opinion is around the mix of the units, the much talked about 50/50, 50/50, is one. The fact that the units would be integrated and dispersed around the site as opposed to congregated. Your statement here is, is that the mere having of that discussion to try to make it the best possible development and site is detrimental to the future marketing of this site?
Okay, I'm sorry. I thought that that's what I heard you say.
They're not the only things, and the record will show, they're not the only things being said in the public forum.
There has been a drumbeat of allegations that what is proposed for development is 161 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 detrimental to the community, to the City, to the neighborhood, to the residents, to the government. I mean, that is not positive. That does not help to boost the image of this rebuilt community, which is so critical in the successful marketing of anything approximating market-rate housing, whether sales or rental. So even without that reinforced criticism, the actual existence of the community in its form over the past several decades, deserved or not, has created a stigma.
And unless that can be overcome -- and keep in mind, this is not, Oh, here's a site and isn't it a wonderful site, maybe above average, and we wish to redevelop it in the best possible way and let's set our minds to do that; this is a revitalization of public housing funded largely from a public housing capital grant program. So that, combined with the prior experience with the community is a -- has created a stigma that must be overcome. So if it is revitalized, is it going to be public housing as we 162 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 have known it? is it going to be ill-managed; is it going to concentrate poor people and social progress? The answer is no. But how do you convey that message except to do it?
Right, I understand that. My only sense of disagreement is what you do first and what you do simultaneous. And I guess where I'm having a little bit of difficulty is if you're trying to get away from something in particular, it seems a little weird to me that you would start with the same thing that you're trying to get away from. I don't understand that.
But it's not -- but it's not the same thing. And to the point that several --
To the point that several people made in testimony, you're not supposed to tell the difference between home ownership and sales, you're not supposed to tell the difference between upper income, middle income, lower income. That's absolutely true and that is the fact. There is no difference between the rental townhouses and the sales townhouses. There is no difference between the subsidized rental and the 163 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 non-subsidized. There is no difference between home ownership for middle income or home ownership for lower income. They are exactly the same --
Well, if there's no 6 difference between them, then tell me what the average person would think if in phase one, close to 100 of the 130 or so units that you build are all rental? I assume within that, there will be some level of a number then that would be the subsidized rental. I mean, while we're having this discussion.
There are actually 163 units in the lower portion of the site.
What's the percentage 164 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 on that?
Think about the remaining rental. I don't have those percentages on the tip of my tongue. Think about the remaining rental. Fifty of the 135, including the for sale, 50 are 7 in the senior building, okay? And the notion that 8 the senior building somehow has been taken off the 9 table is absurd; I have a copy and a resolution by 10 the Board of Directors of the Philadelphia Housing 11 Authority asserting that it will be a senior 12 building. 13 Fifty of the units of the rental units are 14 in the senior building, with 17,000 square fight of 15 commercial space along Ridge Avenue. That's what the community wanted, that's what everyone wanted. That's a separate entity.
Now, is this building that you were just talking about, is that the -- was it originally called the "Empty-Nester Building?"
Now it's a senior 165 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 building.
There's no such thing as an "Empty-Nester Building" in the federal jargon; that's why the nomenclature is no longer being used.
It is a building reserved for senior-only occupancy. It is 40 one-bedroom units and 10 two-bedroom units, as originally designed, and it does contain 17,000 square feet of commercial space for retail use. It is the building that everyone wanted.
Well, from time to time, we actually pay attention to those, so do you 166 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 want to enhance your answer or --
No. Is there an allowance that there is a number below 62?
If in fact there are not adequate seniors who make application to apply, the law and the regulations do permit what they call "near elderly," which is 50.
All right. Let me ask this question, 'cause I know I've made this request. Have you ever put together a proposal that would get to what is, I guess, kind of the number-one item that has been raised by a variety of people here today, which is this 50/50, 50/50 concept and laid out what it would take -- I know I've asked you this before -- what it would take to actually accomplish that? Or do you have do you think that that has any merit whatsoever? I mean, maybe I should ask you that question.
I think we're there. I mean, I was curious and interested and pleased to hear Mr. Lampert testify that this was intended for lower- and middle-income residents, and that is crystal-clear in every document that -- 167 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
If you say that we're there, then what I would like you to provide to us is a schedule that lays that out.
Okay. In doing so, would it be fair to assume that everyone who might have interest in that would agree that median income by definition is middle, because otherwise, there's no 12 technical definition of middle income, there's no 13 federal law or program that defines middle income, but is it fair to assume that --
Median, the middle of the income ranges within the jurisdiction.
So in your mind, the median income is a middle-income person.
Yes. Those clustered around the median would be considered middle income. I mean -- 168 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
Is that a person that's at 100 percent of median or --
Okay. Well, whatever your definition is, you lay out a schedule that you think addresses the kind of the quad 50 concept, and I'd be interested in seeing that.
Okay, all right. Now, before we kind of wrap things up, because I'm going to give you an adjournment date, the gentleman from Universal, do you have anything you wish to share with us?
Well, I know there was a lot of mention about the community support services, and when we were transitioned into the responsibility for providing the supportive services, there's a 169 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 plan that exists, and we were following that plan. Needless to say, when you transfer work from one agency like RHD over to Universal, there is a lag in the transition. And we've been working very hard with the Resident Council staff that is currently located at Universal to overcome these -- the things that happened in the transition. And we have a very good plan for moving forward, and I think that the staff of the Resident Council would agree with that. So we should be on track with delivering these services as we move forward.
Thank you, anything else? I'm going to need to recess this hearing to Monday, December 10, at 2 o'clock p.m. Mr. Totaro, as you well know, I made a couple of information requests. To the extent that you can get that information and any other information that you think is relevant to the discussion that we've had earlier, if you could get that to me as soon as possible, I would greatly 170 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 appreciate it so that we can be prepared to go more in depth in these particular discussions. I will send you a letter, but given the mail problems, as articulated by Director Greene, you are now formally invited and expected at the hearing on Monday, December 10th, at 2 o'clock. I do not know how more direct I could be in sharing that information. I will share you a confirming letter. Thank you. This hearing is recessed until that time. (Proceedings end at 1:56 p.m.) - - - 171 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia's meeting of the Council Committee on Commerce and Economic Development of Monday, 11/19/01, 2001, are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. RE: Resolution No.010218 _______________________________, Josephine Cardillo Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)