Folks in the back here are saying that I was in day care at the 137 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 time. (Laughter.)
Councilwoman, this actually was probably 15, years ago, so this 8 has been a while, it's been around a while. 9 The idea that the City of Philadelphia 10 would license somebody to go into the real estate 11 of another person and improve that property was 12 really a novel concept at the time. 13
And maybe even more 16 than just novel. And there were enough skeptics about the impact of all of it so that those of us who had districts, and probably this was Councilwoman Blackwell at the time, those of us who had districts that were riddled with these vacant properties were the ones, you know, who really kind of pushed this thing. And we didn't think it was necessary to ask Councilmembers who may not have had the problem as much at the time to support something 138 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 that could be applicable to their districts when they didn't view themselves as having had the problem. So we tried to tailor the areas to meet the vacant property needs at the time. Now, there are probably more now. And when you start talking about vacant lots, the discussion is a little different. But nevertheless, when we decided to do this, in conjunction with the Department of Housing, with the Housing Department and Mr. Bonham and them, we know how sensitive an issue this can be, and we decided that we would allow members of City Council who represent districts to make recommendations to the full Council on areas to be included. What we are primarily concerned about is that we now have a new tool in our arsenal that allows fundamentally more self-help with vacant lots than has ever been permitted under City ordinance at any time. And that's really why we -- because I would not, for example, want District Councilpeople to say, Well, I don't understand all of this, and I don't know, and this has never been applicable to this area, you know 139 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 what I mean? We never know. This is a legislative presents.
Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to know if in the old legislation, it addresses the issue of making some type of priority list over who can acquire the lot. For instance, is it restricted to neighbors only or community groups in the area that would prevent a speculator from outside the area coming in and acquiring that lot?
As a practical matter, the people who implement this program have always sought to give a priority to people who live in proximity to the lots and to the houses. And it gets to be -- with vacant properties as opposed to vacant lots, there are a little different considerations. But I can tell you that -- and there 140 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 may very well have to be some separate regulations developed with the implementation of this program. I looked at the bill to see if it called for that. If there are, then there will be. The regulations typically don't go into the bill. But I can tell you that if there's a vacant lot that's sandwiched between two occupied properties, and one of the occupants of those properties wants to develop the lot, and somebody around the corner around the corner wants to develop the lot, the people with the closer proximity will be the ones who will be given primary consideration. It's almost inconceivable to me that a speculator from outside of the community will be able to come in, under this program, and get a right to develop a lot that's inconsistent with the needs. One other thing -- and I've -- and I have so many years of experience. One other thing that's good about this is that it puts the community in a position where it has to sign a contract, it has to sign an agreement. And that's different from just going on the lot. 141 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 Because when you sign a contract, when you make an agreement, when you sit down with the representatives of the City, whether or not it's L&I or somebody in the Redevelopment Authority, when you make a great agreement to do certain things on behalf of either yourself as a family or your block or your community, there's a much greater probability that that commitment will be kept than if it's just kind of, you know, a person or maybe an informal group of people who are going on a lot and doing something that really isn't authorized by the City in this way.
We just go around and clean up lots and we've never gotten permission, I don't think, from anybody. Sometimes we've worked along with L&I, and they'll bring out equipment or the Streets Department. But I think this will be a good program because there's just so much blight.
I think I can mention to Councilwoman Miller that even though she admits to having engaged in potentially 142 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 illegal activity, I believe the general rule is that members are immune from arrest in the chambers of City Council.
As long as you stay in the room, you are safe. On the regulation issue, Mr. President, and the Councilwoman raises a question. I think if there are none on the who-gets-the-lot issue, there may be a need. I've had a couple experiences where the next-door neighbor has maintained the area, legally or illegally, they just took it upon themselves, they didn't want the nasty lot next to their house. And then they found themselves in conflict with the block organization because they wanted to do one thing with the lot, and the person that's been maintaining it for a couple years on their own, with no help from anybody, can almost all of a sudden have something pulled out from under them because now the block group has a brilliant idea for what they want to do at a time when they 143 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 weren't doing anything with the lot before this new opportunity came along. So, I mean, some of the who-gets-it-first situations do occur.
This bill will force a consideration of those sometimes conflicting interests and priorities up front as opposed to downstream, where they can actually be -- and I will tell you, I mean I can tell you of a seasoned group of community people here. These are not easy decisions. I mean, I remember when I was a novice at all of this, and people came to me and said, We want a basketball court. And I said, It sounds like a good idea to me, and then I almost got killed. (Laughter.)
'Cause the community said, Don't want you understand, we need to sleep?
You cannot put a basketball court there. I see the seniors saying yes, that's right. So that it does require a certain 144 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 amount of group cooperation in order to do this. But, I'm telling you, in the end you get much, much, much longer-term results 'cause you really do have a better community process. I've seen situations where one person has kept lots immaculate for ten years, a long time, and gets sick, then that's the end of it. Everything gets washed away 'cause a one person got sick 'cause it was only a commitment, it was a one-person commitment as opposed to a group commitment. Councilwoman Blackwell?
Thank you, Mr. President. I know that I've been in and out, but I have several questions. One is on municipal liens. Do all of these have to have municipal liens in order to be conveyed? I mean, according to this, it does.
No, I don't think it does. No, it does not have to have municipal liens.
It's a nuisance 145 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 abatement process. As a practical matter, virtually all of them have some kind of municipal lien, but I don't think it has to have a municipal lien.
All right. For example, I have a lot that was vacated, and an adjoining day care put playground equipment there, fixed it up, and when I offered to try to bring them before VPRC, they said no, they don't want to take the chance on an owner coming from out of town and surfacing and trying to -- they'll take their chances. So they have a whole beautiful place. They fenced it put, bark down and all kinds of playground equipment.
Yes. Under the law, if you occupy another's property openly and in a hostile way for 21 years, for 21 years, you gain a property interest in the program, and some people just would rather not do that. But they do that at their own risk, 146 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 they really do, 'cause the property owner might come back and assert some right. But I mean, I don't know that there's anything you can do about that.
Well, what does this do compared to that kind of situation?
This is not designed to address that kind of situation. This is designed to address a situation where a family or a block has a vacant property in it, they want to improve it, they want to go on and put, you know, maybe a sitting park there or some other kind of facility, and they don't want to take the chance on just kind of just going onto somebody else's property. They want to be able to own it, put a fence up, have a key to it, control it, and do what they need. Now, they could do that because they can enter into an agreement with the City to go on and abate what is referred to as "a public nuisance," and then that property will automatically go into sheriff's sale, and they can own the property.
Well, can't 147 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 that person do that once this is a law?
The City will have -- once this is passed, the City will have a right to enter into nuisance abatements or license agreements with individuals and/or groups to abate the public nuisance of vacancy in vacant lots in the neighborhood covered by the area, right, without legal liability 'cause they're authorized to do it. And in the event that they lose the lot, they can get reimbursed for the costs that they have spent in fixing up the lot.
So if an individual has already done it, as in this case, this bill -- then they should go to a --
Yes, they should go and try to get protection under this bill.
All right. We've been talking with Mr. Marx about a lot of this. Let me ask another question. And I know he's been real concerned about this as you are of course as well. Now, cannot we do the same for -- let me back up. 148 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 How do they do that? How does a group acquire it? Does this ultimately go through VPRC or how do you do it?
They will enter into an agreement with the City, probably through the Department of Licenses and Inspections, I mean, and that's a detail here. But they'll get an agreement and then the property will go through a sheriff's sale. In the meantime, they're on the property, they're doing what they need to do, they're not waiting for the two, three, four, five years, however long it takes for the property to get through the sheriff's sale. They end up getting a right of entry and a right to improve the property and do what they need to do the moment they enter into that agreement.
So at this point, we should take names and then go call L&I.
Well, what we should do is, we should end up finishing this public hearing, doing this bill. I'll end up checking with the Law Department to determine the extent to which there may need to be some supplemental 149 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 regulations that get approved, that get implemented to actually -- to get drafted and get implemented to do all of this. And at the appropriate time -- I don't -- I think it's impossible to say precisely how long it takes. But when it's all said and done, then all of the other groups around the City, whether or not it's a block group or a community group or an individual, they will then be able to make application for these agreements to go on and abate the vacancy by doing stuff on the lots.
Another question. Since this is the Emergency Nuisance Abatement Program that we're amending, can't we do properties under it?
Properties are already covered. Vacant properties are already covered.
I'm saying, this says that they can get it in a year. This calls for a turnaround in a year. So cannot we do the same thing with vacant properties in a year then?
Vacant properties 150 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 are already covered by this bill. We are amending the bill that allows vacant properties to be given to people through a license agreement so that it can now be done with vacant lots.
So in other words, where there are vacant and dilapidated properties, people can apply for them.
Not under this bill, under the City ordinance that this bill amends and get a right to go into those properties.
So they can, so in other words, we have a turnaround not of three where they have to be delinquent in taxes to go through VPRC or sheriff's sale, then we can do the same with this for only one year for vacant properties. They're covered under this Nuisance Abatement Program.
I don't know that it has to take a year, but they can go in. Now, one of the reasons why this program isn't used as much as it used to be used is 'cause there are fewer and fewer properties 151 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 that are in such condition that people can kind of go into them and just start fixing them up without serious rehabs. So that over the last 15, years, we 6 have seen the number of people and the number of 7 properties that might be suitable for this kind of 8 program dwindle to the point where it's not used 9 as much as it used to be used. 10
But does the 11 property owner have to be delinquent? 12
She's saying 15 that under the other program, you had to be 16 delinquent in taxes for three years or more. 17
The properties that 18 we're talking about here, vacant properties we're 19 talking about here are always delinquent, they're 20 always delinquent, you know. And if they're not delinquent, then you know what, it's a pure, outright speculator that has gotten the properties, that has -- then what happens is, the Department has a right to say, You have to do something with the property, you got to clean it 152 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 and seal it, you have to fix it up, you have to do whatever you want to do. Now, we can't make 'em put it in a habitable condition, right? And, in the case of vacant lots, we can't try to make them do something by taxing the vacant lots. That's Council Anderson's old vacant property tax. Councilwoman Verna, you know, you were here, we voted on that got, and it got all tied up in the courts. This bill isn't designed to solve all the problems 'cause if a person comes in and pays his taxes, cleans and sells the property, right, or if a private owner pays the taxes, fences the lot, right, and keeps the weeds cut, there's probably nothing we can do about it. But that's not what happens in most cases. In most cases, what happens is, they do not pay the taxes, they do not fence the lots, they do not cut the weeds, they do not remove the trash, they don't do any of that. They leave it there as a blight on the community. And what this bill is designed to do is put people in a position to do something in those 153 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 cases.
Mr. President, according to this, this says -- it says here, "If a lot is unsafe, if it presents a hazard to the community because of existing violations. . . " Now the owner can technically seal it, but you might have a building without a roof, as you know, and a building without -- --
Councilwoman, this is applicable to vacant lots, so there are no 12 buildings on this lot. This is a vacant lot sitting there. Maybe L&I already tore down the building a year ago or five years or fifteen years ago, and nothing has happened and it's just sitting there, collecting trash, serving as a hangout, people putting old cars on them, and we come through and get 'em towed off.
I accept that, but I'm saying, can't we use it to also help us with properties?
Where you don't have to have -- maybe, as Councilwoman Verna 154 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 says, they're not behind in taxes, some owners are paying up the taxes on a raggedy property, and we can get it in a year without it having to be behind on taxes due to the conditions that are listed.
No, Councilwoman, you cannot -- under no circumstance can we take people's property, right, under this ordinance in less than the time that it would take to either condemn it or take it under the sheriff's sale. All this bill does for vacant properties now or for vacant lots now or for occupied properties under the law that this bill 15 amends is authorizing people to go in and spend money and do some things. And this protect them against the property owner booting them out and not reimbursing them for their costs.
I hear what you're saying, and we're very, very glad to have this bill for lots. But it seems to me that if it applies to lots, it ought to apply to properties. I mean, I don't know, maybe the --
It already -- the underlying bill already applies to houses, it's 155 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 been applying to houses. That's where it -- many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many years ago, when I originally did this bill, it was for vacant properties. It's still there, it's still applicable to vacant properties. All we're doing today is amending it to make ti applicable to vacant lots.
Why are we being told then that a property has to go up for sheriff's sale before somebody can acquire it?
Because you can't terminate a property interest without going through sheriff's sale, condemning it or buying it. There's only three ways you can terminate a property interests.
All this bill does is allow people to go in and occupy and spend money while you do those other things. This bill 21 doesn't terminate the property interests, it cannot terminate the property interests.
So if -- I'm thoroughly confused, I'm thoroughly confused.
Slow down. Let me 156 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 just --
Let's just talk about -- we all understand about the lots. I think we ought to talk about the vacant buildings, the vacant homes because it's news to me that I could just simply go into a house that is not occupied.
And do the necessary repairs until such time as the property owner catches up with me and says --
No. If there is a vacant property in one of these areas that are covered by the bill, that the Department of Licenses and Inspections determines to be a public nuisance, L&I has to first determine it to be a public nuisance. You just can't go into any vacant piece of real estate. It has to be a piece of real estate that L&I has deemed to be a public nuisance. And there are criteria that the Department uses to determine if it's a public 157 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 nuisance. Once that determination is made, then under the Nuisance Abatement Program, the Department is authorized to say to a family, You can go into this property under a license agreement, and you can improve it. Meantime, we'll try to get you the property through the sheriff's sale process. And if you don't get the property, either the property owner or whoever gets it out of that sheriff's sale, has to reimburse you for your costs.
Is that a citywide policy or is that policy just for the people who are --
It's only for the properties that are deemed to be a public nuisance that are in these areas that are covered by the original bill that I sponsored many years ago.
Well, that's why I probably don't understand it because my district is not included.
Well, Councilwoman, when we did this many, many years ago, not all Councilmembers wanted to be included. So now we 158 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 want to take the same principle that we had used then and apply it to vacant lots. But we didn't want to say citywide because that would be making it applicable to your district a program that was never in your district. And if you want it to be in your district, it's very simple. I mean, it can be done in two weeks. Just get a bill, right, to amend the boundaries to include whatever areas in your district you want to include. And if we pass this bill, then the program will be applicable in those areas in your district to both vacant properties and vacant lots.
But I don't want people to think that this is a way the terminate property interests 'cause it isn't; it's only a way to abate vacancy. 'Cause you still have to go through a sheriff's sale.
On this one, you go through sheriff's sale, and in the other 159 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 condition, you --
But it authorizes these folks the go right on and do what they have to do, and the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society and anyone else working with them can approve the lot, so we don't have to have it sitting around.
Do they then own them? If it goes to sheriff's sale, then they have a right to own them.
Yeah. The idea is that they will ultimately end up opening them, and we think will for the most part.
So, which is back to Ann Verna's concern, then it should be the same for properties. If you can own --
All right. So then that means that we do have what we're talking about, the right not to have to wait a year if --
If it's three years behind in taxes and -- 160 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794
You're going to have to make sure that your district is also on that map.
Oh, I love it all, I really do. But I would venture to say, especially with regard to another bill that we will hear, if I might take one of the President's presidential minutes, a Councilmatic minute, that it's very interesting that we mention what's in and out of districts, especially given all the controversy surrounding the 3rd District being off of the quality-of-life bill. Now, as God so willed it, we have this discussion and we find that other legislation districts can be in or out, so it doesn't mean that the whole City falls apart if we have our districts in and out of bills. It happens sometimes.
It's been like that since time immemorial. 161 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794
Yes. I'd just like to follow up on a comment that you made, which was that you thought that now, because of the condition of a lot of the house, that this ordinance is not being used as much as it might have been in past. But I really think that if it extends to City lots or vacant lots, that there's going to be a great increase in business.
And I think you got to carefully figure staffing for that, or we'll run into the same bottle neck, and people will be frustrated again.
Thank you very much. Is there anyone that has any other questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
President Street, I 162 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 just wanted to enter into testimony OHCD's support of the bill.
Okay, thank you very much, that would be great. Can we make sure we get OHCD's testimony?
Now, I understand there are a number of people here who are in support of the bill. Can I have all of the people in the room stand who are here specifically to support this bill? (Those in support of vacant property bill stand.)
We're talking about the vacant property bill. I think the record will reflect that I see 40 people. Do all of you wish to testify? Is there anybody who really feels they need to testify? It is pretty clear to me that there are a number of people here. We have a very, very busy schedule. Those people who want to testify, who really think it's necessary, I don't think 163 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 that there's any significant opposition to the bill. But if you feel like you just want to testify, then you should come and sit at the witness table. If you don't think it's necessary on the basis of the discussion, we appreciate that. But the people who want to testify, please come up. (More witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. I'm Phyllis Martino, Director of Economic Development, IMPACT, which services in the West Kensington area of the City. We would like to very briefly testify on behalf of Bill No. 980794, because we do believe it will be an instrument in the City's arsenal for blight in the neighborhood. We testify only at this time to reiterate the points that were made by Mr. Bonham in his testimony, saying that this is a wonderful first step. It is not an sufficient answer to dealing with the vacant land problem in the City where we have hundreds and thousands of lots, and we would like to see a more comprehensive 164 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 approach. This would be the first step in a more comprehensive approach.
My name is Lucy Ramos. I am a community leader also in the Empowerment Zone. I am afraid we going to have some trouble in North Philly because everybody talk and talk and they forgot other people who live in North Philly. Nobody go around there. The people who represent my district 180, they go there and sit over there in the seat and they don't go to the neighborhood to check how we live. They come down to get the space for the garden. They close that space and put cars over there and they hide their junk and the drugs in those cars. They come here to get a lot for garage, they make the garage, they leave the space. And besides that, the garage, later we have the drugs in the block, and I don't like that. I live in my neighborhood for 20 years. You know me since I came here. 165 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794
And I fight all my life for everybody. Nobody care. When I talk, people have to listen to me because I am right. Those people who go out of business in North Philly -- I know everybody in North Philly because I am there every day. I go there, they say they close the building. Why they close the building? They're afraid they get killed. Those people who got killed is those ones who are around selling drugs in every corner. And those garage, they keep the drug in those cars. The police go by car. I say, Don't go by car. Send somebody walking around and you see because I walk around and I see. The police is in the corner over there, and they're in the other corner, in the lot, selling drugs, and they have the drugs and the dope. I see how they work. I am in the city every day, every moment. Nobody know how we really live. We live like animal. We have trash all over, we have trash. I live in North Philly and (unintelligible), people have a garage to (unintelligible), they throw the can over there on 166 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 (unintelligible), and we have trash all over, all over. In North Third and Diamond, we have trash, like they need two trailers to take that trash. Why? They clean but people come out to mess it up, and those people in the corner, they are selling drugs in those garages. (Unintelligible) to have the garage to build the business in block. They have (unintelligible). The police officer (unintelligible) they threw trash (unintelligible) on the car in the same place they have the police (unintelligible) for a week. And the police and (unintelligible). They are right there and they are selling in the corner. Why the police don't do nothing about it? We are in trash, we are living between trash. It's a shame. You can't even walk from here to where I live. You can even walk, you know that. We are in the Center City but we are surrounding with trash and it's a shame.
Well, that's the reason why we want to do this bill because what we want to be able to do is clean up those lots and develop them and let people live in a whole lot 167 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 better conditions. And some of the things you complain about, the drugs and all of that, are the direct result of the fact that these lots are there, they're vacant and they represent hangouts, and we have to do something about them, we really have to do something about them because it makes life miserable. And we thank you very much for coming.
I fight with them every day because they see that and they don't do nothing about it.
I'm Miss Bodie, from the 28th Ward, 6th Division. I'm here to ask a question for the lots. If you have torn down a half a block and it may be five or six houses remaining on that one block, does everything that's been demolished, does that become a lot?
It's a lot. 168 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794
I understand that but can one person -- I mean, what are you doing to do with that half a block that's been torn down? Say there was 30 houses on a block, now there's only 5 left?
It's not an issue of what I will do; it's an issue of what the community wants to do. So that in an event where you have a large parcel of property that could have resulted from a series of demolition activities, it will be the will of the community, for the most part, that will prevail in determining what happens. I mean, your Councilperson wouldn't be one to say, Oh, you have to have this. The process envisioned -- and we've done this before -- is you will have to have some community meetings and some people would have to reach a consensus about what they want to happen in large lots. If it's a small lot, you know, maybe next door to a house or something, then, you know, most of the time, people will say, Look, it's next door to your house, you want to fix it up, you 169 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 want to have a little side yard or something, that's one thing. But where there are large tracts of vacant property -- it is entirely possibly, it is entirely possible that the community could decide that it wants to have on an interim basis some kind of activity that might have a park or a sitting park type activity, but eventually wants housing or something else on the lot. What this does is gives the community the flexibility to really go in and do something and not sit around while you go through this long, laborious sheriff's sale process in order to be able to deal with the vacancy.
One more question. The people that get these lots, would they be paying taxes on these properties?
Once they acquire title. 170 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794
Yeah, once they acquire title, and we don't know how long that will take. They won't pay taxes when they first go on 'cause they won't own the property.
And we'll be using the taxes to -- the failure of the property owner to pay the taxes as the excuse to boot 'em off of their property will take away his property rights. The rights we're talking about, for the most part, people are -- they're abandoned property, people don't want 'em. But, you know, there are all those other cases. (Linda Wallace comes forward.)
Good morning. My name is Linda Wallace. I'm the block captain for the --
I'm the block captain for the 1700 block of Marshall Street, and just want to say something. Our block has been coming up and there has been a lot of drugs around there, but from 171 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 neighbors and screaming ad hollering at them and acting like they don't care about 'em and they ain't scared about 'em, so they have moved off the block. But now that they using our block like Make Philadelphia More Beautiful, okay, the houses where the people do have vacant lot property, which I have one beside my house that I have since '92. Now, I'm trying to say that if it's money out there to build up or help these neighbors build up these vacant lots, right, what process would I have to go through to get a fence that would not come out of my pocket? Since I've been taking care of the care of the lot for such a long time.
Well, you would contact your District Councilperson about the possibility of getting a fence, and then your District Councilperson would make a recommendation to --
'Cause I put up some broken faces and made some fences, and the kids, it's so many kids on that block that it's coming down, you know, and it's like. I really do need a 172 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 real fence.
It used to be Shirley Kitchen. I used to have meetings with her once a week.
You're aware of that, but I'm not really aware of who it is.
Yeah, you're probably talking to your District Councilperson. But I don't know. I mean, if Shirley Kitchen, her Senatorial district overlaps significantly my Council district, then it might be that your block is in our district, but we can figure that out for you.
Oh, okay. Thank you. (C. Charles Carmichael comes forward.) 173 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794
My name is C. Charles Carmichael, and I am a part of the Horticultural Society, and I am living in North Philadelphia area. And I am telling you, I am very, very happy, I was very, very happy to see the old dilapidated buildings torn down right next door to me, very happy to see that done. But now, after the buildings are down, the people are beginning to dump on the lots.
And this come to my attention many, many times. And I'm wondering what we could do about stopping people from dumping on the lots after you clear 'em up and try to make 'em look good.
What we can do is pass this bill and give you a right, as a community or as an individual, to go on that lot, fence it, do whatever it is. We might be able to 174 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 get you some help, that's why the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society is involved here. And see, it is our position that you can't abate the public nuisance of vacancy unless you do something on the lot.
And we can talk about it all night and all day. If it's a vacant lot there and nobody's doing anything with it, somebody's going to come and dump trash on it, some kids are going to hang out on it, somebody's going to sell drugs on it, they're going to put up cars on it. This is what happens. So what we can do, and the reason why this legislation is important is 'cause you don't want to have people go on it illegally. You want people to have a right to be there, doing what they have to do, you know what I mean? And this gives them the right. And then, and even further, you have a reasonable expectation that you will end up in ownership of the lot so that you can make permanent plans for the use of the lot without having to worry if somebody's going to come out of 175 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 no place and kick us off the lot. But I can tell you, that unless you're doing something on vacant land, particularly in low-income neighborhoods, there's nothing you can do to stop people from throwing trash and doing that stuff 'cause the faster you catch 'em and you clean it up, there will be somebody who will come right through there and do it again and dirty it up again. So that's what this is all about.
Well, I'm hoping that we can get fencing. That will help a bit. It's a little more difficult to dump over the fence than like it is now.
Absolutely. And it's a whole lot different if you got a fence and if there are flowers, it's a garden, and then are benches, and people are using the lot. Then people are just -- it's just against human nature to throw a bag of trash on a lot that's improved. But if there's nothing there, right, people, they'll just do what they -- whatever they do.
So that's what the 176 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 whole purpose of this.
Good afternoon. My name is Rosa Lacend, and I'm with the Mt. Airy Civic Association. We have several lots on our block, but some of them are owned by the City and also by HUD. Another one is tied up in a (unintelligible) where their attorney is not doing anything about it for over two years. Will those properties also have to go through sheriff's sale?
If a property is in government, in the City inventory, it shouldn't have to go through sheriff sale.
Well, it depends on who owns it. If the Redevelopment Authority opens it and if it's in a neighborhood, and the neighborhood has a plan for it, you should contact the Redevelopment Authority. At the same time you contact, you know, your Councilperson and then you 177 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 sit down with the Redevelopment Authority. And you always want to know, What are your plans, why are you holding this property, right? And if there's no good reason why the Redevelopment Authority or OHCD or one of the other City agencies is holding a property, you know, they should just give it to you. But if they have clear title, then they just give it to you. But there are a lot of, a lot of confusion about people who think vacant property or property is in the City inventory and it might not be.
So if you know it is, then that's simply a matter of your negotiating with the Redevelopment Authority to do something on the lots that you want to do to be done.
Okay. There's also one in the Donor-Taker Program that's been there for over two years, and the attorney for the estate is just not doing anything. The person at the 178 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 Redevelopment Authority has tiredly tried to contact him to do something. He doesn't do anything, so what do we do about it?
Well, I think that's a property that could be eligible for this program.
My name is (unintelligible) Brown, and I am a resident of the West Kensington area, and I'm also a mother and a grandmother, and I work at (unintelligible) Project, an environmental center. We have worked with the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society for many, many years, transforming very ugly lots into beautiful prize-winning gardens. There is a sense of hope and pride among the gardeners that is very contagious. Everybody in the community benefits from these efforts. Fresh, organically-grown vegetables to share, and also the beauty that is there for everyone to enjoy. We have a mission. 179 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 We believe that by transforming these lots into oases, other people will be attracted to invest in this area. We, the residents, can't move to any other place in the City. Personally, I don't want to move to any other place of the City. I want to be able to continue to create gardens, to work with children and their families. And I want to be able to read in The city papers that the so-called bad lands is called "clean, green, beautiful land." Please help us achieve this. Thank you.
My name is Helen Green. I'm block captain for Southwest Germantown Reger Street. And I'm also on the board of Southwest Germantown Neighborhood Partnership. My block has four empty lots on it. On each one of these lots, we would like to build -- have a vegetable garden, either a play area or a city park or play area for our children. Now, when I went to try to obtain one 180 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 of these lots, I was told that GDHDC owned this property. And it's three or four years since they said owned property and they're not doing anything with it on these lots. I went to them and asked them to clean lot up. They told me they did not own this land, that I would have to do it myself. So now they still say they're trying to build houses on this land, and we do not want them to build all these houses on the land. We would like to have a vegetable garden, and also a park or play area for our children because there's none in our area. Since they said they own this building, these lots, there's a model block program going through. Now, my block was not included in this program because they said it's too many empty lots on the block. So I'd like to know what's going on or what can I do about this?
That's a very complicated problem. You really are going to have to talk to your District Councilperson. We can't 181 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 possibly, you know, resolve any of that here today I'm sorry.
You know, it all depends. I mean, what you have given us is a very complicated kind of a problem, and I wouldn't want to begin to start trying to address the details of it here. You should contract your contact your District Councilperson, work with her or him and the various agencies of the City that can help you resolve some of this.
Okay, because they told me, when I went to them and told them to clean it up, they said they didn't own it.
Yeah, I know, and it's just really tough. I wish I could be helpful. But in this public hearing, I couldn't begin to start trying to address all of that.
You have to go to your District Councilperson. It sounds like it 182 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794 might be Councilwoman Miller. Okay?
My name is Maryanne Patterson. I'm the block captain of the 1500 block of Wade Street, that is in Donna Miller's district. And my question is, I have a vacant lot, I'm the second house next to it. It's vacant because of me because it was formerly a drug house, and I've had it torn down since then and a new street put on my block. Now, my question is, I have a lunch program for the children that I been running for 13 years, and I would like to acquire the lot and put tables on it and have it fenced in for the children to have someplace to eat their lunches.
This is an activity that could be supported under this bill.
No problem. 183 12/18/98 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 980794
Good afternoon. My name is Maureen O'Hara. I represent the Penn State Urban Gardening Program, and we're here just to support the addition to this bill. We help people garden on empty lots.
I have pictures to share with you if you'd like to see what the children did this summer. And we support this bill.
Thank you very much. Appreciate it. (Janet Bernstein comes forward.)