COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 401, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, June 15, 1998 10:00 a.m. - - - BILLS 960696, 980048, 980846, 990311, 990327, 990328, 990329 990331, and 990358 - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA VERNA COUNCILMAN FRANK DI CICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 I N D E X BILL 980846 (No witness) ................................ 16 BILL 990048 MARK BENCIVENGO, Dept. of Health ............. MICHAEL NORDONE, Deputy Managing Director ..... 18 5 BILL 990327 NOEL EISENSTAT, Redevelopment Authority ...... 20 GLORIA GUARD, People's Emergency Center ...... 23 BILL 990328 NOEL EISENSTAT, Redevelopment Authority ...... 27 LINDA SINGLETON, McCleary Project Home ....... 34 JOHN MORLEY, JR. ............................. 35 BILL 990331 JEREMY NEWBERG ............................... 60 MARY BLACK ................................... 92 GINA CARUSO .................................. 93 JOE ROSS ..................................... 98 KATHY FURBER ................................ 100 DOROTHY KING ................................ 102 JEANINE VOLLBRECHT .......................... 107 EDWARD VOLLBRECHT ........................... 111 KARL FRITCHETTE ............................. 113 SUZANNE HANEY ............................... 115 KIRK BROWN .................................. 119 JOE ROSS .................................... 123 JOHN JOHNSON ................................ 125 JOHN MORLEY, JR. ............................ 131 FRED DRUDING ................................ 134 3
Good morning everyone. This is a public hearing of the Rules Committee. I would ask the clerk to please read the title of number 990358.
An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps, by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Hartranft Street, Broad Street, Pattison Avenue, and 20th Street.
This bill is being recessed until tomorrow, July 16, 1999 at 1:00 p.m.
An Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps, by changing the designation of the following area of the City from Class C-5 Commercial to Class C-4 Commercial: Area bounded by Arch Street, 22nd Street, Cuthbert Street, and 23rd Street.
This bill is being continued until the call of the Chair. Will the Clerk please read the title of Bill No. 990311. 4 BILL NO. 990048
An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps, by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by 52nd Street, Paxton Street, Leidy Avenue, Parkside Avenue, Belmont Avenue, Girard Avenue and Merion Avenue.
This bill 9 being recessed until tomorrow June 16, 1999 at 1:00 p.m. The Clerk will please read the title of Bill No. 980048.
An Ordinance amending Chapter 9-1600 of the Philadelphia Code relating to the prohibition against unlawful eviction practices by excepting from the definition of "landlord" a non-profit landlord operating a boarding house or lodging house.
Do we have someone here from the Administration who is going to be testifying on this bill? Please approach the table. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My a name is Mark R. 5 BILL NO. 990048 Bencivengo, Assistant Health Commissioner, Philadelphia Department of Public Health. Good morning, Members of City Council. I'm here this morning representing Health Commissioner Estelle B. Richman. The focus of my testimony is on providing information about the non-profit organizations with which the Health Department contracts for residential services, the individuals who typically live in these residences and the services which are provided under contract to the Health Department. The Health Department contracts with a wide variety of non-profit organizations that provide housing and our residential services. These organizations range from relatively large corporations with multi-million dollars annual operating budgets to small community-based grass roots organizations that may operation one house with only a few residents. What all of these organizations have in common is that as a result of the contractual obligation that they have with the Health Department, they are held to a set of standards with which they must comply in order to continue operating with departmental funding. These 6 BILL NO. 990048 standards vary depending upon the component of the Health Department, which is the purchaser of the services. But there are general areas that covered in all of these arrangements. These standards include items such as staffing coverage, guidelines for resident behavior and life safety issues related to the physical facility. All facilities must be in compliance with licensing requirements of the Department of Licences and Inspection. The Health Department component that is the purchaser of services takes responsibility for maintaining oversight of the residential program and monitors the program on an ongoing basis. Individuals living in facilities under contract to the Health Department may fall into one or more of several groups. Significant numbers of individuals in residential programs include persons with mental illness, persons with mental retardation. Persons in recovery from substance abuse and persons with AIDS. Within these groups are subsets of people with additional concerns, such as pregnant women, women with children, and individuals who are homeless. What most of these people share is a extreme degree of vulnerability at 7 BILL NO. 990048 this point in their lives and the need for a supportive environment. Some may be stabilized and living in a long-term arrangement that will not change for years. Many others require treatment services that must be provided intensively for weeks or months at a time. With the different needs of these individuals comes a broad array of services. In some instances, people live in the facility full time in which they receive their treatment. In other types of arrangements, individuals live in a residential facility while receiving treatment services at a different location. Residential staffing can vary from periodic checking in for people who are able for the most part live independently to 24-hour, 7-day-a-week coverage for the most vulnerable individuals. In addition, a substantial number of individuals work with case managers who may help them negotiate the more difficult aspects of their daily lives and support them as they seek the array of services they require. My intent this morning, as you contemplate the bill before you, has been to give 8 BILL NO. 990048 you a quick picture of the non-profit landlords with which the Health Department contracts, along with the people served and the range of services provided. There is a certain balance that is required since in many cases these are unique arrangements. The vulnerability of the individuals residing in these facilities suggest that special rules should be in place to protect them.
On the other hand, in circumstances where residents act abusively or beyond the rules of the operating structure of a resident, the non-profit landlord should not be put a position of having to jeopardize the well-being of the rest of the residents by being forced to retain a non-compliant resident. In circumstances such as this last example, it is often the case that the Health Department intercedes to attempt to resolve a conflict. How your ordinance 19 may be structured to address situations such as these is the real challenge. I'd be pleased to answer any questions that you have. Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.
Thank you. Can you tell us, if you know, how many individuals 9 BILL NO. 990048 or entities that are currently considered landlords that would be affected by this bill?
Within the Coordinating Office for Drug and Alcohol Abuse Programs, we have roughly have roughly 42 providers that may be affected by this bill. As I said, providers ranging from multi-million dollar corporations -- I can give you an example like the Cadensia (ph) Corporation which runs therapeutic communities for us down to smaller grass roots organizations that run recovery houses under contract to the Department. I would also say that the Health Department, although other components of the Health Department also have facilities like this under contract, for example, the Office of Mental Health and Mental Retardation and the AIDS Activities Coordinating Office, and also other departments such as the Department of Human Services would have facilities like these under contract.
How about boarding homes, would they fall under this?
Well, some of them have boarding home licenses, and I presume those with boarding home licenses would fall under this. We 10 BILL NO. 990048 would be concerned within the Department that virtually all of the residential facilities that we contract with are non-profit and we would be concerned about setting up a separate class of these non-profit-run agencies under an ordinance like this especially as it pertains to the protection of the populations that we have receiving services.
For the record, can you tell us why we need this bill?
Well, what I'm suggesting is that we should be cautious about enacting a bill such as this because of the possibility that it does set up a separate class of people who reside in non-profit-run boarding homes. So that how this is defined for the purposes of this bill, I think, needs to be looked at very, very carefully. So I'm not suggesting that we need this bill, I'm suggesting that we further define and perhaps further look at and consider the implications across the various operating departments that utilize these services.
I'm wondering how will a non-profit status be certified to ensure that only those landlords who meet these criteria 11 BILL NO. 990048 are exempted and that others don't try to ride the gravy train?
I think that the input of the Law Department around how these kinds of facilities are defined is critical, and perhaps a work group could be convened that would look at these facilities and the broad array of facilities that are under contract to the City to offer these kinds of services. I mean, within the Coordinating Office for Drug and Alcohol Abuse Programs there are probably upwards of 800 individuals that live in non-profit residential-type facilities. They may not all be classified as boarding homes, but I'd be concerned about definitions changes in order to accommodate perhaps a desire to remove certain persons.
Thank you, Madam Chair. How would, in your opinion, the operation of a residential drug treatment facility encompassing perhaps five or six individuals in a residential row house come under this -- be affected by this bill if in fact the organization that's running it is set up 12 BILL NO. 990048 as a non-profit?
If it has a boarding home license, I imagine it would come under this bill, but I'm not clear --
I believe so, but I'm not totally clear on that, and that's why I'm here this morning because of the possibility that there be kind of a broad brush definition of facilities that might be included in this.
When we had a very extensive discussion a couple years about the licensing of residential drug treatment facilities and we came up with a bill at that time which we thought was acceptable and workable but apparently was not, there seems to still be this limbo non-designated status of these properties. What you're saying in your testimony now and my question is, this would only effect licensed boarding homes?
As I understand it, 13 BILL NO. 990048 this would effect licensed boarding homes.
So those residential facilities is still in this kind of --
The Health Department, as I remember the bill, the issue came up around a number of recovery houses that are operating within Philadelphia. And since that time and maybe just prior to the time that that bill was discussed, the Health Department began an initiative to what we call the CODAP housing initiative where CODAP working with recovery house operators developed a set of standards that recovery house operators seeking to contract with the Department would have to sign off on, and they were quite strict. The Health Department, per se, doesn't license these kinds of programs. But if he we contract with these programs, and currently we have contracts with 15 of them, they must abide by our regulations and the Coordinating Offices has people in these programs quite frequently.
But if an individual runs a not-for-profit residential recovery house with five or six individuals not related living in one property, sharing rooms, sharing a kitchen, what 14 BILL NO. 990048 is the difference between that and a boarding house.
I think there may not be, but I'm not clear on that. That's my point. For anyone that's under contract with the Department, we want to be able to maintain the oversight. And, in fact, what the Department does is we gate-keep entry into those programs. And by the regulations that we have and the rules that we have within the Department, providers cannot ask someone to leave without contacting the component of the Health Department which contracts with them so we can make arrangements for that person's removal to some other type of facility. In other words, we don't want anybody streeted.
Madam Chair, could we have some history as to why this bill is before us? I mean, is a problem that the bill -- I kind of think the first testimony ought to be what is the problem that we're dealing with. I was trying to figure this out because we were treating the witness as if it were their bill, and I couldn't understand why he was so defensive about it and unsure of what the bill meant.
Councilman DiCicco, would you like to address this?
Thank you, Madam President. This bill was brought to my attention -- this issue was brought to my attention about 2 years ago by a young lady who is the manager of a boarding house in my district. She was from time to time having difficulty in removing people from her facility and there seemed to be some sort of glitch in the law that we thought we were able to address by way of this legislation. I can do one of two things. My chief of staff, Robin Schatz, spoke with Mark earlier. We can hold this bill for further discussion over the summer months. I had asked if 16 BILL NO. 990048 Ms. Lewis would be willing to testify, but she has a concern she may say something that may prejudice her position at the facility. And in the absence of her attorney representing her today, I think she would choose not to speak, and I can understand that. So I would be willing to make a motion we hold this bill until sometime when we come back after summer recess and over the summer months work with the Health Department and the agency that brought this to my attention to see if we can find some resolution to this situation.
Councilman, I know that will several years ago I had in my district a boarding home and there was a dreadful, dreadful experience that we witnessed. I would like to discuss that with you so that -- I think the state laws that exist are absolutely atrocious regarding boarding homes, and I'd like to discuss that with you so it can be an all-inclusive type of bill. Are there any other questions on this matter? Does anybody else want to testify on this bill?
My name is Mike Nardone, 17 BILL NO. 980846 Deputy Managing Director for Special Needs Housing, and I share many of the concerns that Mr. Bencivengo mentioned and would support the notion of holding the bill and meeting over the summer to try to resolve some of these issues.
Thank you very much. The Clerk will please read the title of Bill NO. 980846.
An Ordinance amending section 9-623 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Adult Bookstores," by specifying that the operating hours of adult bookstores shall be restricted in certain areas, all under certain terms and conditions.
At this time I'd like to offer an amendment to this bill. And the amendment will be in Section 1 under definitions (2)(3) adult bookstores located in the following areas shall not be open between the hours of 3 a.m. 18 BILL NO. 980846 and 8 a.m. 12 midnight will be changed to a.m. 3
Is there any first amendment concerns that we need to consider before we pass the bill?
No. To the best of my knowledge, no. And there have been considerable discussions I've had over the last six or seven months both with the Police Department, with the Department of L and I, and the owner/operators of the adult bookstores. Primarily what this bill was intended to do was to address some of the problems with 24-hour type of businesses in the Center City area. I believe, if you read into the bill further, you will see that in other sections of the City it may not apply. It really applies to those stores which are a thousand feet of a residential community, historical parks, hotels, convention centers, et cetera.
Thank you. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? 19 BILL NO. 990327
Are there any witnesses to testify on this bill? Are there any questions? Seeing none, I would ask the Clerk to please read the title of Bill No. 990327.
An Ordinance amending an ordinance approved December 15, 1969, as amended, which approved the redevelopment proposal, the urban renewal plan and the relocation plan of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of Mantua Urban Renewal Area, by approving the 9th amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the 6th amendment of the urban renewal plan by providing, inter alia, for certain additional land acquisition of five properties.
I thought I saw Mr. Noel Eisenstat in the audience. Will he please take the witness table? Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Noel Eisenstat. I'm the Executive Director of 20 BILL NO. 990327 the City's Redevelopment Authority. I'm here to provide testimony before the Rules Committee on Bill 4 990327. With me today I have representatives of People's Emergency Shelter, Gloria Guard, their executive director, as well as Melissa Long, the project manager for West Philadelphia. The purpose of this bill is to acquire one commercial property for rehabilitation and into offices and four vacant lots for a new construction of a job and training and day care center. There is a land use map before you and these activities are being undertaken after previous attempts were directed by PEC to negotiate the acquisition of these properties, and there was also a previous attempt to acquire these properties through spot condemnation. The nature of these properties made that difficult. In particular, one property had previously been in the ownership of the City and was conveyed by bid and there were no reverters to the ownership, although no rehabilitation or improvement of that property ever occurred. That's a generalized discussion of the history that precedes this bill that's before you.
Mr. Eisenstat, 21 BILL NO. 990327 are there sufficient funds in place to fund this proposal?
Yes. These funds are actually coming from People's Emergency Center. This is not a direct project funded by the Office of Housing and Community Development. This is what we would we otherwise refer to as an assisted condemnation.
Thank you. Just for the record, Mr. Eisenstat, the title of the bill 17 reads that you are essentially acquiring five properties and you've testified about that. Can you tell us what the addresses are of those properties? It doesn't seem to be listed in the bill.
Sure. I would be happy to provide you those addresses. They are 3939 Warren Street, it continues 3941, 3943 3945 Warren street, as well as a two address property known as 3942-44 Lancaster Avenue. 22 BILL NO. 990327
Mr. Eisenstat, the end of your first paragraph says, "The acquisition of 3939 through 3943 Warren Street and 3942-44 Lancaster Avenue," and I assume they are all of the properties involved, "will not require any relocation." Now, it seems strange to have it worded that way. Are the buildings occupied or not occupied?
The Warren Street properties are all vacant lots. The Lancaster Avenue address is a vacate structure.
I think displacement creates an entirely different problem. Reminds us 23 BILL NO. 990327 of Leithgow, Hegerman Street, all of those things if there's displacements. But there's no displacement here; is that right?
All properties here are vacant. They've been vacant for a long time. Only one property has a structure. That structure has been vacant for a considerable amount of time. Everything else is a vacate lot.
Thank you. Our next witness is Gloria Guard, president of the People's Emergency Center.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm Gloria Guard from People's Emergency center. Rebecca Badigon from our CDC will be bringing you my testimony as well as some charts and graphs. I think that many of you already familiar with our work. We're the oldest shelter for homeless families in the State of Pennsylvania. These properties that will be able to be turned over through urban renewal are immediately next to properties we already own. There is a huge 14,000 square foot playground that we developed about eight 24 BILL NO. 990327 years ago and we'll be placing a child care center for over a hundred children right on that playground. Upstairs will be a job training center for over 200 women each year, all of whom are homeless and all of whom are facing welfare cut-off. This is our response to Welfare Reform, and as Mr. Eisenstat said, this is the only way that we can get these properties which are really perfectly situated for our needs. What you have in front of you not only is my testimony, but also we have some pictures of the lots as they now exist. They're all abandoned. They're trash strewn, they're filled with abandoned vehicles. There's no question that renewing this area will be a huge boom to the Lancaster Avenue corridor. In addition, you also have letters of support from virtually every organization in West Philadelphia as well as a petition signed by over 125 individuals in and around the neighborhood. We have the full support of Councilwoman Blackwell. And I believe that we've done our due diligence in talking to the neighbors over a year and a half about this project, and they're all anxious for it 25 BILL NO. 990328 and 990329 to get off the ground.
Thank you. I know that Councilwoman Blackwell said she wanted to be here, but an emergency came up. She told me that she fully supports this bill. Are there any questions from members of the Committee? Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? Thank you all very much.
Would ask the Clerk to please read the title of Bill No. 990328.
An Ordinance amending ordinance approved December 15, 1969, as amended, which approved the redevelopment proposal, the urban renewal plan and the relocation plan of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area, by approving the 24th amendment of the redevelopment proposal, the 16th amendment to the urban renewal plan and the 15th amendment to the relocation plan which provide, inter alia, for additional land acquisitions of approximately 57 BILL NO. 990328 and 990329 properties and provision of certain relocation services, as required by law.
Good morning. My name is Noel Eisenstat. I'm the Execute Director of the City's Redevelop Authority. I am here today with members of my staff and others to discuss Bill No. 9 990328, and later 329, I believe.
They were introduced in succession. And as I will explain, the first bill 14 328 --
Mr. Eisenstat, if you're going to be testifying on Bill 990329, I think we ought to read that into the record.
I'm suggesting you read that later. I'm just explaining that whatever you wish to do, I'm just explaining this bill.
If they're companion bills then they should be read. Will the Clerk please read the title of bill No. 990329.
Bill No. 990329, an 27 BILL NO. 990328 and 990329 Ordinance amending an ordinance approved December 22, 1987 which approved the redevelopment proposal and the urban renewal plan of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the Cecil B. Moore Avenue Urban Renewal Area, by approving the 6th amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the 6th amendment to the urban renewal plan, which provide, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately four properties.
The first bill before you, 990328, acquires approximately 57 properties in three different projects. They include 40 properties for the Cecil B. Moore ownership zone. This is 40 properties in the area of 14, 15, 16, and 1700 block of North Bouvier Street in the areas generally bounded by 19th and 20th Streets. These properties will be assembled with the existing 218 parcels whose acquisition was previously authorized by Council. The second element of this bill is the acquisition of 16 properties for the Welsh School parking lot. The Welsh School parking lot is an arrangement reached with the Empowerment Zone as a 28 BILL NO. 990328 and 990329 funding source to provide additional parking to take -- is there a problem?
The Welsh School parking lot is a program that provides additional parking for teachers in the school of the Welsh School adjacent to the Empowerment Zone ball fields.
Previously, City Council 13 approved what was known as the ball field project, 14 one of the first the Empowerment Zone projects, and 15 in doing so, certain streets were closed and there 16 were certain negotiations at that time and then followed on that there was a request of the School District to replace the loss of the parking for the ball fields. The School District has come back as part of that and has requested additional vacant parcels, all vacant, to be acquired close to the school for additional parking for the Welsh School. In an addition as part of this bill, there is one property to be acquired for Project Home in the Project Home area located 1816 North 29 BILL NO. 990328 and 990329 23rd Street. Those are the elements of the first bill before you. The reason why the bills are companion is simply the next bill overlaps as part of the Cecil B. Moore Home Ownership Zone an additional three properties. What we have is the intersection of two urban renewal areas, the original Model Cities area in late 1980s was then redefined and separated into the Cecil B. Moore Urban Renewal Area. That's the cause for the companion bill in which then that there are to projects that are happening, as I said, three additional parcels for the Home Ownership Zone project and an additional one properties to be acquired on the 1600 block of North 16th Street for the Beach Interplex Organization for a day care center.
Thank you. Mr. Eisenstat, do you have letters of support from the community organizations in these area supporting these acquisitions?
Yes. In various different forms we have support. The Cecil B. Moore Home Ownership activity is being under taken by a local development corporation entity set up by 30 BILL NO. 990328 and 990329 PHDC. And that group that is not, I don't believe, here today. And this is actually a request of the developer. We're carrying out the acquisition on behalf of this local development corporation. The Welsh School activity is being undertaken on behalf of the School District, however, there was extensive community dialog surrounding the Community Trust Board in the neighborhood before these acquisitions occurred.
On the School District acquisition of the properties, there are no 13 relocations in that parcel?
That is correct. Concerning the properties with Beach, Beach is a not-for-profit entity located on Cecil B. Moore Avenue and we're again acquiring this on their behalf and I believe that itself is evident of support. And the Project Home property is in an area that Project Home has adopted as, I believe, part of the Philadelphia plan and has extensive out reach in that area.
What is the budget for this condemnation package?
We separate each 31 BILL NO. 990328 and 990329 condemnation package separately. So if you give me a moment, I have to aggregate them out.
Just a moment. Concerning the school, you've asked me about the estimated budgets. These are estimates. With those estimates I would caveat that independent outside third-party appraisals will still have to inspect properties, but for the purpose of budgetary purposes we've estimated that the acquisition of the lots for Welsh School are budgeted about $40,000. 14 The property concerning Project Home is estimated 15 about $5,000. The property concerning Beach is at 16 about $6,000. And the acquisitions of various properties on Cecil B. Moore are in the $300,000.
How many parking spaces are we making available to the school?
Thank you. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? 32 BILL NO. 990328 and 990329 The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Eisenstat, just so I understand, in Bill 990328, the total of 57 properties that are proposed to be acquired, do I understand from your earlier comments that within this bill there are actually three different projects going on, one involves 40 properties, one involves properties 11 and one involves one property; is that my 12 understanding? 13
And in Bill 990329 15 there are two projects going, one involving one 16 property and one involving one property.
Thank you. And all these projects are separate and apart from each other but the area happens to be within either these model cities and/or Cecil B. Moore urban renewal areas. And so if you have different things going on but they're in the same area, you put them in the same bill but they are separate stand-alone projects? 33 BILL NO. 990328 and 990329
Are there any other questions from Members of the Committee? Do we have anyone else to testify on the two bills? Please approach the witness table. MS. SINGLETON-McCLEARY: Good morning Councilmembers. My name Linda Singleton McCleary. I'm the Housing Development associate with Project Home. Project Home is actively home ownership development in the lower North Philadelphia area of the Philadelphia plan. The areas are bounded by Susquehanna Avenue on the north, Cecil B. Moore to 23rd Street to Ridge Avenue on the south, and 22nd street on the east and 29the street on the west. We have completed five units with HRP funds through the Redevelopment Authority since our participation in the Philadelphia plan. We currently have under construction eight units with Year 22 funds. And this unit that we're requesting today will be one of three units that we have in our application to the Redevelopment Authority for funds. We also have funds through the Sisters of 34 BILL NO. 990328 and 990329 Mercy to bridge any financing required for our construction projects. Our homeownership units are offered to first-time home buyers who are low and moderate income buyers. Project Home is also a certified 08CD housing counseling agency with one counselor on staff. And we currently have 8 qualified buyers for these units currently under 9 construction. Each of these units in our 10 application for HRP funds were completely occupied, 11 each of the blocks that they're located on. 12 We are very appreciative in you hearing 13 us today. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses on these two about bills? Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name John H. Morley, Jr., M-o-r-l-e-y. I heard earlier testimony regarding Empowerment Zone funds. And during the spring there was some news reports of, in my opinion, improper use of Empowerment Funds. Council was to hold public hearings, and those public 35 BILL NO. 990328 and 990329 hearings were canceled. I ask as a citizen of Philly that the Council delay any decision on that until you hold the public hearing on Empowerment Zone funding.
I didn't hear Empowerment Zone being mentioned today. Did anybody else?
Who testified to that? Mr. Noel Eisenstat, did you testify to a Empowerment Zone? Maybe I just didn't understand your testimony. Mr. Morley, what bill are you refer to?
I'd be happy to provide some clarification, Council President. Again, my name is Noel Eisenstat. Only by the way of background did I explain that the acquisition of 16 parcels that are occurring on behalf of the School District are being funded by the Office of Housing and Community Development. And to explain that transaction, what I provided was the background that one of the first activities directed by the American Street Empowerment Zone was the creation of a ball 36 BILL NO. 990331 field that was fast tracked. As a result of that creation of that ball field, the School District lost a substantial amount of its property, including some parcels that were used for parking and other security around the school. This project has no Empowerment zone money. It is not approved by the Empowerment Zone Community Trust Board or by the offices in City government that administer the Empowerment Zone funds. This project is fully being funded by the Office of Housing and being administered by the Redevelopment Authority to assist the School District.
Thank you. Mr. Morley, does that respond to your concerns?
Is there anyone else to testify on Bill Nos. 990328 or 990329? Seeing none, I would ask the Clerk to please read the title of Bill No. 990331.
An Ordinance approving the redevelopment proposal of the Redevelopment Authority of the City Of Philadelphia for the 37 BILL NO. 990331 redevelopment of a portion of the Jefferson Square Redevelopment Area, Jefferson Square Urban Renewal Area being the area generally bounded by Washington Avenue on the north, South Fourth Street on the east, Dickinson Street on the south and South Sixth Street on the west; approving the urban renewal plan and determining that such plan and redevelopment proposal conform to the general locality plan and make adequate provisions for individuals, business concerns and families who are displaced; determining the necessity for changes in and for zoning, streets, alleys, public ways, street patterns location and relocation of public utilities; determining that the urban renewal plan and redevelopment proposal prohibit discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry or handicap; declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project, except as otherwise expressly provided for in the proposal; and declaring the redevelopment undertakings in the Project to be an important part of the City's program to remove and prevent the spread of urban blight. 38 BILL NO. 990331
Thank you, Madam President. Today, we will hear a lot of testimony from a number of people who live and are concerned with the area that was just described in the bill 8 known as the Jefferson Square Revitalization Area. And I'd like to take some time, and I will try to be as brief as possible, however, that may be difficult because this has been a project that I have been involved in since the spring of 1996. In the fall and spring of 1995 when I was campaigning for the office of City Council in the 1st District and I was asked by a number of community groups what my position maybe on certain issues, one of the things I spoke to was my concern for blighted areas in the 1st Councilmanic District that was primarily on the fringe of or within stable communities, communities that had been maintained, homes that have been occupied by families for three, four generations. And I think all of us know and can point to a number of neighborhoods throughout the City where pockets of blight have been causing the more stable communities to begin to experience 39 BILL NO. 990331 blight similar to the much more blighted areas around them. What my concern was, that something needed to be done before this blight would continue any further. During the first few months in office, I discussed my plan and my vision with a number of people, both in and out of government. During that period of time, I came to know a gentleman by the name of Jeremy Newberg who is here this morning and will testify sometime during these proceedings, and he asked me a few things about why I decided to run for City Council, what was I planning to do. And one of the issues I talked about was neighborhood revitalization. And through those conversations, I came to understand that Mr. Newberg had been involved in a number of neighborhood revitalization efforts throughout the City and maybe throughout the country. I believe he had did something similar to what I was proposing to do in the Jefferson Square area in California. And it basically was an informal conversation that we had and expressing a plan and a vision and a dream I had for my community. It evolved to the point where in June of 40 BILL NO. 990331 1996, after receiving some state funding from Senator Fumo, we had hired an architect to design for us a conceptual plan of what we would hope that the Jefferson Square community would look like and become some day. We convened a meeting in the Mt. Sinai Hospital conference room facility at Fifth and Reed. About 50 or 70 area residents attended. We flyered that community with about 800 flyers. Mr. Newberg and a few other people personally went door to door and left a flyer in each and every mail slot in the area described in the bill to inform people that a meeting was going to be taking place about a plan and a vision for that community, for their community. At the time, there was a lot of apprehension, and I understood the apprehension because prior to my getting elected to Council, with all due respect to some of my predecessors, many of them had a plan that never came to fruition for one reason or another. But I was determined that I would do something to correct the problems in that community. And I was determined, and I'm sure there's some people that would disagree with this 41 BILL NO. 990331 statement I'm about to make, that I would include the community in that process. That was the reason for the first meeting in June of 1996, was to alert people in the community that from time to time they may see folks walking through their neighborhood with a clipboard and paper and pencil in hand taking down notes, taking photographs of their properties or their neighbors' properties. And I wanted them to understand why that was being done. And I also wanted them to understand that no decision would be made without their input.
We may not agree in the end and we still may not agree at the end of today and we may not agree at the end of this year on how this process will continue and how we move forward, but they were always going to be part of the process. And anyone who has known me before I got elected to Council and during the time I've been in Council know that anytime there's an issue of major concern, there is development similar to the entertainment on Delaware Avenue, I've always taken the position and insisted that the community be part of that process, and I've been successful to date in making certain that the community was part of that process. 42 BILL NO. 990331 As a result of that first meeting -- by the way. I was also a board member of the Mt. Sinai Graduate Health Services which were running Mt. Sinai Hospital at that time and I expressed to them my desire to do some rehabilitation of that community. They welcomed that idea, and in the process, they had agreed to donate about 60 parcels of land that the Graduate Health Services had been accumulating for a number of years in anticipation of hospital growth, which by the way, led to a lot of the deterioration in that community. Much of the deterioration, the majority of the deterioration was not caused by the residents in the Jefferson Square community; it was the result of the hospital, Graduate Health Services land banking, holding onto properties, not maintaining them and basically letting them deteriorate and ultimately having to be demolished. I was not the Council Person at that time. I was only a resident who lived about six blocks away, which is where I still live, at 11th and Federal. After the agreements were made with the Graduate Health Services to donate the properties to a CDC that we had created known as the Jefferson 43 BILL NO. 990331 Square Community Development Corporation, as many of us know, Mt. Sinai went out of business and was acquired by Allegheny Health Services. Discussion began with Allegheny Health Services to describe what the plan and vision was for the Jefferson Square community and how we believe the hospital facility would fit into that plan. Allegheny Health Services was very cooperative. They agreed to the agreements that we had made with Graduate Health services and agreed to be a partner with us to donate the land to the Jefferson Square CDC and to work in corporation with us. As we all know, subsequently, Allegheny Health Services went out of business; they went bankrupt. The building that make up the Mt. Sinai facility, which are about three buildings that make up the campus, are now sitting vacant. Over 400 jobs were lost. Most of those jobs were held by people from that community. This changed the dynamics of what we were proposing to do in terms of home rehabilitation. We now had to two battles to fight: One was the rehabilitation of homes, the removal of blight, and the other one was to find a tenant or tenants that would occupy the Mt. Sinai 44 BILL NO. 990331 facility because we believed then and we still believe that no one will buy a new home across from a vacant hospital building that occupies almost one square city block. It just is not attractive. It's not an attractive to make an investment in. During the course of the last two years, I have been negotiating with a number of people who have expressed interest in the hospital facilities. We were successful with the help of the Redevelopment Authority and the Administration in having the one of the buildings which we refer to as the north building, and that's the building southeast corner of Fifth and Reed, one of the three buildings that make up the hospital facility. We were successful in getting a tenant who will rehab that building starting this summer and create 37 units for senior citizens. We still have two other buildings to find a tenant for. By the way, when we made the agreement with the owner, the new owners of the North Tower Building, community participation was there.
I am on the board that will oversee and screen future tenants to that building with the hope that those folks that may have to be relocated as a result of 45 BILL NO. 990331 the new housing development would get first preference, those seniors would get first preference if they choose to relocate into the housing facility within a block or two from where they are presently living. We made certain of that. That was part of an agreement before I gave my stamp of approval for that building to be sold. In the course of the last year, year and a half, a group known as New Tower Investments or New Tower Associates purchased the other two remaining buildings of the Mt. Sinai facility. They have been negotiating with, and I have been a party to the negotiations, with a company known as Kessler Rehabilitation Services. Kessler Rehabilitation performs the same kind of work that Magee and the Moss Rehabilitation Center does. Kessler is a North Jersey company that is looking to move into the Philadelphia area. When they first went to look at the Mt. Sinai facility, they went back to the owners of the building and said that they didn't think -- they were interesting in the building but they were not particularly excited about the community that surrounded the hospital facility. They needed additional parking in addition to the parking that 46 BILL NO. 990331 is already on site -- and I'll describe that in a few minutes -- and they were also concerned about the blight and deterioration and the vacant lots and the other poor conditions of that community. Through negotiations with Kessler, we found that they have a need of approximately 200 parking spaces, if not more. That will require a significant number of single family residential properties to be acquired in order that we could facilitate the needs of Kessler. It is not a done deal. It was very close to being a done deal about six weeks ago, but for a number of reasons, one of which is Kessler's concern that this bill may not move forward and that the urban blight certification may not be approved. Their concern is they may not have a facility with a parking lot that will accommodate their needs. We have been attempting to work with the community. About a year and a half ago when L and I at my direction were going through the neighborhood from Federal Street to Reed Street from Fourth Street to Fifth, I directed License and Inspection to do a survey of the neighborhood to identify any properties that may be in need of repair or to be 47 BILL NO. 990331 demolished. As a result of their survey, several properties that are owner occupied were slated to be demolished. At that moment, a great awareness by the community became known. We were contacted -- when I say we, I speak to myself and Jeremy Newberg and the other members of the Jefferson Square CDC. We were contacted by a group known as the St. John's Episcopal Community Group. I believe I'm pronouncing that correctly. Are you correcting me, Gina?
Thank you. St. John's Leadership Team. They were concerned for the community and the residents, many of them long-time residents, what would become of these people should the hospital facility be occupied by Kessler, should condemnation move forward. We explained to them our plan. We explained to them that we would work with them. We explained that there were certain things that we could and could not do, that there were certain federal regulations that required notification, funds for relocation of families that may have to be relocated. Several meetings took place. I believe 48 BILL NO. 990331 I attended two of those meetings. I was not able to attend all of those meetings, but in my place, Jeremy Newberg who has been the point person for me through this whole process for the last three years attended those meetings. And I assured everybody that when Jeremy spoke, he was speaking for me. The problem we have today is that I don't have a deal with Kessler in writing. And this Committee will have to make a decision whether or not we move forward with the bill that would ultimately require condemnation of houses that are occupied, but may not necessarily be needed because we may not need a parking lot. I'm going to move that we hold this bill 16 until September. One, it will give me more time to work with the community. Two, we hope to have either this tenant or another tenant in place and we will then know more specifically what the parking needs of the future tennant, should it not be Kessler, may be come September. But I do want to mention that I attended a couple of meetings in front of the Planning Commission. One had to do with blight certification, the other had to do with the approval 49 BILL NO. 990331 for the urban renewal area. And they were very heated conversations, obviously, and a lot of things were said. The one thing I want to assure everyone in this room, and especially this Committee, is there has never been anything done slight of hand, there's never been anything done out of the view of the public. There have been a number of stories written in the South Philadelphia Review, in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and I also believe in the Philadelphia Daily News about this proposal. I understand the emotional sensitivity of people who may have to be required to move from their homes. We are going to make every effort, and we have been trying to get through to these folks, to make every effort to let them understand that we intend to do as much as we can to see that those folks are relocated within the community. The first plan that we had presented in the June of 1996 literally was a conceptual plan that showed basically all of the homes from Reed Street north to Manton, from Fourth Street to Fifth Street being taken out and replaced with new housing. That was just a conceptual plan. Since that first scheme, eight other schemes have 50 BILL NO. 990331 evolved. The schemes have changed basically because of the concern and the questions and input we have been getting from the community. If you will look at today's scheme, and I hope I have it up here. I think it's behind the one on the easel now. You will see we have reduced the number of houses dramatically down to somewhere between 40 to 70 new houses from an original figure of -- and I'm looking over at Mr. Newberg. I can't remember the original number of homes, but it was significantly more. I think it was more than 70 if I'm not mistaken. What we are attempting to do is to see if we can keep as many homes that need minimal rehabilitation to purchase those homes and make those homes available to those folks who may have to be relocated from the two streets that may be the area where the new parking facility needs to be constructed, and they are the 1300 blocks of Leithgow and Lawrence, South Leithgow and South Lawrence Street, in addition to other folks who may have to be located or may want to be relocated to make way for some new housing.
The scheme that we have now is not in stone. We are still working on it. We are tweaking 51 BILL NO. 990331 it. We are finding out what we need to do. We want that input. But we will never be able to move forward and make the quality of life in that community any better than it is today if we don't all sit down and discuss this and make some decisions realizing -- and I've been haunted since the day I first said this -- that for some folks there is some pain. It doesn't make me happy to say that, but I have said that. I've been accused of being a heartless person. But it's a fact, it's a reality that sometimes folks may have to be relocated and there's a pain involved in that. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. DiCicco, we're unique --
Ma'am, you will have an opportunity to speak. AUDIENCE MEMBER: We don't have a vacant property. You have it down as a vacant property, and it's a commercial property.
We are going to sit and discuss with all folks, those people who live in occupied houses, people who don't live in 52 BILL NO. 990331 houses, their vacant buildings, vacant properties, commercial properties, residential properties. In the last three or four weeks we have ceased negotiating to buy any occupied properties because we don't want to be accused of making a deal that may be less of a deal than you can get should you decide to sell by way of the Redevelopment Authority. So the Jefferson Square CDC is only looking to purchase vacant land and vacant buildings going forward. The other properties that are occupied, those deals will be negotiated between the property owner and the Redevelopment Authority. And that was explained at a June 5 meeting of which about 200 people attended at the George Washington School at Fifth and Federal. At the request of the Planning Commission, we held up on voting the bill 18 out of the Planning Commission until we met with the community, and that meeting lasted about two and a half to three hours, if I recall correctly. I had everyone from the Redevelopment Authority, the Department of License and Inspection, the Planning Commission -- I'm trying to remember the other agencies -- L & I, myself included convened that meeting. We opened the meeting up for questions. 53 BILL NO. 990331 There with questions and answers. We took notes of questions we did not have an answer for. We have made you part of the process. I know some of you will disagree with that, but somebody has to make something happen here. And politically, this is not a good thing for me because I've made a considerable number of enemies in that community. But I didn't get elected just to make friends. I ran for office because I hoped to make a difference, and I hoped to make a difference in everyone's life in a positive way. I'm sure we will disagree on the avenue I have taken, but I have taken a leadership role in this community and intend to see this go forward. And I will work with every person, either individually or collectively, to see that you you are all made whole and that no one gets the short end of the stick in the negotiation process. And I stake my reputation on that, and I've been involved in this business for about 32 years. And as I said earlier, I still live in this community. I just built a new home six blocks away from the Jefferson Square community. I'm familiar with what this neighborhood was, what it is, and I have a vision for what I'd like to see 54 BILL NO. 990331 it become in the future. The chart to my left indicates the area between Reed Street and Federal from Fourth Street to Fifth Street. And if you look at the chart, the green indicates vacant lots. The gray area are the habitable properties. The blue are the blighted properties. And the black indicates the area which is everything in here for the -- the black indicates, the little dots on these other properties that maybe red, green, or gray indicate the proposed urban renewal taking. As you can see from this chart, there is a significant amount of vacant land. Much of this land, as I said earlier in my testimony, became vacant as a result of the Graduate Health Services land banking over a series of 10 or 15 years and basically not paying attention to the needs of the people who lived in this community. They basically bought properties, let them deteriorate and really didn't give a damn about what happened to the people who lived in this property. What we're faced with today is a lot of blight, a lot of vacant properties, and a lot of structural damage to houses that are occupied today 55 BILL NO. 990331 because of the properties that were demolished next door to them and there was no concern for the structural integrity of the properties once those buildings were demolished.
This was not property owners who live in them, those properties today were not their fault, but as a result of the Graduate Health Services and their ambition to take over this community for the purpose of hospital expansion without considering the community. This chart represents scheme No. 8. Remember, we started with scheme No. 1, and I think we're working on scheme No. 9. I don't know what the final scheme will be, but we'll keep working at it. What this plan shows is the same area I described, but you will see in this area especially up in here along Fourth Street and along Fifth Street on the east side. I'm little bit color blind. I think this is like -- I don't know what color that is, actually. It's not the green. It's olive. Thank you. In the first scheme, which I don't have with me today, none of those properties existed. Everything became new. But we have changed that 56 BILL NO. 990331 because we understand that should this parking lot become necessary, Leithgow and Lawrence Street which are here would have to come out to provide for the parking spaces that are needed for the hospital facility. What do we do with the folks who lived here 30, 40, 50 years? It's traumatic enough for them to have to be relocated. How do we keep the folks in this community, how do we keep them in the community going forward? What we did was we looked at the properties on Manton Street between Fourth and Fifth, and we realized that there are a significant number of properties there that are in pretty decent shape and require a minimal amount of rehabilitation, as we did with Titan Street and properties all along Fourth and Fifth Street. We thought that this might be an opportunity for some of the folks who live on these streets to be relocated to. They're not being moved to North Philly, West Philly, Southwest Philly; they're still part of the community that they've been involved with for a number of years, decades in some cases, and be relocated to homes that are either similar and in some cases will actually be an improvement to 57 BILL NO. 990331 the condition they're living in today. Scheme No. 9, which I mentioned that we have not finalized yet, we're looking at possibly where we're showing -- by the way, these are new construction; these are twins. We were looking at maybe not doing a set of twins here, but doing a contiguous number of homes, maybe six homes here in the same fashion that the other homes on Fourth Street are, typical row houses, for the folks on either Leithgow and Lawrence that they may been relocated to. So we understand what relocation is. This has been a learning experience for me. I'm finding out that, as Jim Kenney would say, no good deed goes unpunished, and that it is not as easy as a dream and a vision to accomplish. There are people, there are lives here, and we are making every attempt to address their needs. This is just an artist rendition of what we hope the new housing will look like. They will be three bedroom, 2 bath homes, side yard, rear yard, either a carport and/or garage. Jeremy Newberg will at some point during his testimony explain to you the price of the houses, who can 58 BILL NO. 990331 qualify for these houses, what we will do in terms of low interest loans to accommodate people who live in this community who may have a desire to buy one of these new homes. The big plan for me was, as we begin to develop this -- and by the way, this Committee heard testimony a couple weeks ago with the Martin Luther King Revitalization Project. This is very similar in terms that we are dealing with people's lives and relocating people. That is being pursued by the federal government in their ambition to remove high rise public housing units. This is my plan. This is my plan. This is not a government-generated plan. There will be some government money involved in it, obviously. There will be a considerable amount of subsidies that go into this project, but this was my plan, this was part of my vision.
So I take full responsibilities for what happens here. As you know, I lobbied the Administration about two years ago, and the Mayor put in the capital budget a year ago $3 million for land acquisition to begin this process to move forward to begin to create home ownership opportunities for low moderate income families. 59 BILL NO. 990331 I think that probably closes most of the statements that I wanted to make. And I'm sure that during the hearing, the rest of the hearing, I may want to add a comment or two. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you very much. I know that -- I'm speaking for myself. I certainly want to thank you for giving us this history. And it's quite evident that you have worked long and hard to come to this. It looks beautiful to me. Do you want to call the witnesses and have them on record?
I think I'd like to, if I can, call Mr. Newberg up because he can fill in some of the issues on what we've been doing in terms of notification and discussions we've had with some of the community and also some of the financing issues, and then we can go onto the normal list of witnesses from there. Thank you.
My name is Jeremy Newberg. Just to summarize what Councilman DiCicco said, the 60 BILL NO. 990331 Jefferson Square plan consists of up to 70 new construction houses which will be built in a semi-detached concept with off street parking, front and side yard, approximately 1350 square feet. It will be priced at $85,000. With the current Delaware Valley Mortgage plan loans and the evolution of much more affordable mortgages for first time home buyers, a family could get in with a 97 percent mortgage, and some situations even more probably with about 2500 down, maybe a little bit less. Minimum income would have to be 28,000. That is at 80 percent median income. This is targeted to a moderate income. In addition to the 70 new houses, there will be up to 80 rehabs of owner-occupied housing. Philadelphia does not have a particular strong record of funding owner-occupied housing because it's a very difficult task and it's very expensive. A major philosophical value of the Jefferson Square plan is that it is based on revitalization which is to benefit existing residents as much as creating opportunities for new buyers. So you have to do owner-occupied rehab; it's absolutely critical. And we will raise the additional funds to do that, 61 BILL NO. 990331 either through a combination of grants and/or low interest loans depending on the full scale of the repairs that a family wants to do. The third component is the reconfiguration of the Mt. Sinai Hospital campus which will include 37 new units of low income housing. We want to set these rents at $325 a month, and for certain senior citizens on a fixed income, we will work with the Housing Authority to get an additional subsidy particularly for very low income senior citizens. We have many people in the neighborhood who only make between 800 or a thousand dollars a month on a social security check. So we want to be sensitive to those needs and provide a financing structure so that they can be served in a unit that is new, that has security, that is clean, and has sunlight. In addition with the reconfiguration of the medical tower and also the administration building, we have the potential to bring 300 new jobs to this neighborhood. These will be health care in personal care. They're going to serve -- these are going to be jobs that will be accessible to people in the neighborhood. They will not all be high-end professional jobs. They will be accessible 62 BILL NO. 990331 jobs for people on working incomes and we will do everything in our power to make sure that people from the neighborhood get access to these jobs. Finally, we want to create a homeowners' association that will work with us in creating community gardens and block patrols and preserve the investment that's been made. We have five guiding values. One, a healthy neighborhood includes housing that serves people who are in a range of low and moderate incomes. The City's had a very impressive track record of doing new construction, new configuration types of housing. Often it's assisted with federal subsidies, typically, home or community development block grants passed through from the federal government. But if you think back of the neighborhood where you grew up and go back 30 years, maybe 40 years, there may have been someone making minimum wage living pretty close to maybe a neighborhood merchant, maybe a doctor. What I'm trying to say is if you think about the old row house neighborhoods, people earned a range of incomes in the older row house neighborhoods. What's happened with the demographics of our City is 63 BILL NO. 990331 that people earning moderate incomes and, yes, higher incomes have moved out. We're not about a gentrification project; we're about a revitalization project. But to do this you need to avoid producing housing that exclusively serves very low income people. " Our goal is balance. Secondly, we're entirely focused on home ownership.
South Philadelphia has been negatively impacted by properties particularly on the north/south sites Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh Eighth, that used to be merchants and then the owner living on the second and third floor. Well, they often fall prey to being chopped up into three residential units, sometimes 4, whether or not they meet code, and then the landlord can bring in whatever types of renters. That is a destabilizing force. We want to focus on home ownership. Third, any new construction that will attract new residents should be balanced with access to funds for rehabilitation of houses owned by existing residents. I just can't emphasize this enough. The Jefferson Square plan is much more than just new housing, it is up to 80 units of 64 BILL NO. 990331 owner-occupied rehab. Fourth, we have a responsibility to address the needs of senior citizens and long-term residents of the neighborhood with sensitivity and respect. Well, we've met with people from the neighborhood, people who present themselves as leaders, representatives. Yes, we have many arguments, but there's one message that comes out very clear that we hear, and that is, be sensitive to the needs of senior citizens, take the extra time. And we will do that. Fifth, we seek opportunities to sell as many of the new houses as possible to existing residents and their family members who have long-term relationships with the neighborhood and are committed to contributing to its revitalization. This is a point that gets lost. " Well, if you don't make a combined income of 28,000, it's difficult. However, there are a lot of people that go to church in this neighborhood. A lot of people have moved away from the neighborhood but they still go to church. They may work for the 65 BILL NO. 990331 City, they may work for other industries, but they have a relationship to this neighborhood. We want to create a new modern house that meets their needs and encourage them to move back to the neighborhood. " It's sort of a puzzled look. But we have a good year before the first houses come on line. We should be meeting with these people, pre-qualifying, seeing what the issues are, working with home buyer education providers so that we can get on plans to get them pre-approved for these mortgages. But that is our focus, is to sell as many of the houses to people from the neighborhood or have a connection to the neighborhood as possible. I'm going to brief today and I'm actually go right to the conclusion. As you think about this plan as you listen today, if you keep four points in your mind as you think about voting for such a project like this. Before you vote, please review the pictures of the blighted houses and the vacant hospital and Mt. Sinai. Maybe take a 66 BILL NO. " 9 This is a bold plan, it's a new plan. 10 It's a non-traditional type of affordable plan. It's really more of a neighborhood revitalization plan. But it would be a profound act of leadership if you were to vote in that manner. Secondly, we will take whatever time is needed to manage the relocation process with sensitivity and dignity. On a personal note, my mother was a social worker. My mother was a drug and alcohol therapist. My father's been in public education for his whole career. I did not get into housing to disrupt people's lives, but I do understand what a neighborhood like this needs in terms of getting on a firm footing to be successful for another 30 or 40 years. It needs some changes. We are committed to working with residents in a sensitive and dignified 67 BILL NO. 990331 manner to reach that goal. Third, our goal is that every neighborhood who makes a sincere investment in the community will benefit from the revitalization efforts of this plan. Finally, your vote to approve the urban renewal plan will enable us to complete the site acquisition and move this plan forward.
Your vote will help us move from a plan of promise to a plan that was realized with performance and benefit for the neighborhood. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I was called out of the chamber, and I did not hear all of your testimony. It's my understanding that the proposal is for 40 to 70 new homes. How many people would have to be relocated?
For the new houses there are -- and this is just the new houses, not the parking. We have identified houses where we are 21 requesting owners of existing properties to move. 22 We don't want to use that power. And we want to go 23 embark upon a process where we'll meet with each 24 family, and these are predominately senior citizens, 25 to ask them "what are your housing goals and 68 BILL NO. 990331 options," and that can be a bit of an offensive question to ask someone who's lived in a house for 30 or 40 years and paid off the mortgage. I don't take that lightly. But if you're just one house standing amidst all other vacant houses on a lot, it's holding up a project. What we offer in return for the relocation, the full federal benefits and then some. And when we say then some --
I think for the audience, they should know that.
I'm not an employee of the Redevelopment Authority. So to the best of my knowledge, I'm going to give you what I know of relocation benefits, okay? But there are various nuances to it. First, you're offered fair market value for the property, full fair mark value. If you disagree with the price, you are actually given funds to hire an appraiser to contest the price and then you negotiate. Secondly, you're given up to 22,500 hundred dollars if you cannot find a comparable house to the one you're living in and 69 BILL NO. 990331 then all your moving costs and settlement costs are covered. With the renters, if they're relocated, it's a little -- the formula is a little more complex. You're essentially given subsidies to find a comparable rental unit where your rent does not exceed 30 percent of whatever you pay for the next five years. Our goal, our standard, is that if you want to stay in the neighborhood, we're going to work with you to find a house within five blocks of where you live now and preferably within the target area. And that's going to take a lot of work, but that is how we hold ourselves accountable to our values that we want to preserve as much of the neighborhood character that's positive as possible and keep as many existing residents in the area in housing that, one, meets health and safety code, and two, the new house you move into you're paying a comparable monthly housing payment to what you were paying before, unless you choose to upgrade.
How many units are being proposed for senior citizens?
The Mt. Sinai Apartment building will be 37 units that will be reserved for 70 BILL NO. 990331 senior citizens aged 62 and above. We are what's known as the special limited partner. We are the non-profit that the Michaels Development partnered with. Our role and responsibility is, one, to monitor construction quality, and two, to assist in the coordination of the lease sub process so we reserve the maximum amount of units for people from the neighborhood to move into the Mt. Sinai Apartments. These will be gorgeous apartments.
And with the many meetings you've had with the community, has this been made clear to the seniors and have any of them expressed a desire to be relocated to the units?
Your question in broader terms of how people support this project. At first in conversations with senior citizens on Leithgow Street on the 1300 block, they didn't really know what's all involved in this type of project. Quite frankly, it was perceived as a public housing project. It's not. It's privately owned. The standard of construction is very high. You're not entangled with public housing regulations. You can do maintenance and do much better property 71 BILL NO. 990331 management. And rest assured, as the special limited partner, we'll make sure the property is accurately maintained. We are planning a rooftop garden. The developers are trying to get some land in the back for a patio and breathe space for the apartment. But it speaks to a broad issue which is we didn't put together a large group of supporters for this project today. We didn't want to rally. We didn't want to show a force. Most of the people in the neighborhood have known each other 30 or 40 years. Doesn't mean they get along. They do know each other because they're from the hospital. There's quiet respect and caution. There's a reserve that we're not going to get too far out until we see some performance. So neighbors, when we met one-on-one are quietly supportive. In a group they hold their comments. I would say that's fair given the difficulty these residents have there.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. First, it's Mr. Newberg, is that correct? 72 BILL NO. 990331
I heard your request or suggest that Members of the Committee tour the site or look at the pictures. Just for the record, I want to let you know I've already toured the site on my own because I've known about this project for a little while, the proposal, and I wanted to see the area for myself. I have walked the different streets that are proposed to be affected by this project. Now, to the best of my knowledge, you and I don't know each other, right?
I need to ask you a few questions by way of background. I have not met with you. I've read the proposal. I think it has plan No. 8 attached to it. But can you share with us by way of background and experience who you are in the whole scheme of things and what is Capital Access?
Sure. I was born and raised in Philadelphia. I went to a school --
I don't want to go back that far. We can talk about your adult life. 73 BILL NO. 990331
Sure. I've been in housing in my professional career years 4 experience in it. I started with an organization on 5 the West Coast. There I got involved in developing 6 purchase rehab programs for scattered site housing 7 in predominately working class neighborhoods where 8 what we were trying to do was mix public subsidy 9 with private bank financing to revitalize blighted 10 houses in East Oak Lane, West Oak Lane, South 11 Central Los Angeles and also we were in Kansas City 12 and Baltimore. From there, I went to work for the Federal Reserve Bank, did a lot of training for banks in community reinvestment, but I missed doing deals so I moved back in '93.
I trained bankers. That was in the nine western states. But I missed actually doing deals, doing projects. So I went back to Philadelphia to CoreStates for two years and again got very involved in financing developers that would do both non-profit and for-profit scattered site purchase rehab neighborhood facilities. I've always been involved in projects that involve some 74 BILL NO. 990331 type of neighborhood revitalization and affordable housing component. In '95 I started Capital Access, my own consulting company. We do FHA mortgages. I originate multi-family loans using the FHA. I'm currently funding two projects in University City. I just closed a $6 million project in Columbia, South Carolina. We did a $3 million project in Wallingford. The second service that we provide is the development consulting, which is what I'm doing with Jefferson Square, where we are essentially a project manager and we help non-profits move through the funding and development process. And then, finally, I do training and technical assistance.
This last service you provide, training and technical services, can you expound on that I a little bit?
Sure. The training and technical assistance is funded through the Home Technical Assistance Program, which is a national funding. I'm actually subcontractor to a national contractor, the Development Institute out of Baltimore. But this is what we do, I try to work 75 BILL NO. 990331 with local governments that are struggling with how to come up with a housing strategy to get the most housing for their housing subsidy dollar. We just completed the City of Bloomington, Indiana, where we did scattered purchase. The challenge is to train the staff in basically the same development responsibilities and the same development skills that a non-profit has to go through.
Okay. You indicated that you have about years of experience and you 12 said the bulk of you life's work has been in housing. Based on that, is it fair to say that the bulk of your housing experience has primarily been on the finance side of housing as opposed the construction side of housing?
Finance and planning, right. I do not have specific construction management skills. My role has been to get this project started, to get it funded, to get the properties acquired, to go through whatever rezoning and community design and community approval is needed. Then a larger builder needs to be brought in to manage the mechanics of construction. If they want sales and marketing lease up, we can 76 BILL NO. 990331 participate in that.
I understand. In that regard, and that was the next area that I wanted to go into, you made reference to some of the other projects that you have. Are any projects that you have worked on or currently working on that are similar in scope or magnitude to this particular project?
In terms of the scope and magnitude, this is the biggest. In terms of the application of the concepts, we completed last year a program in Tallahassee, Florida, where we were working with the City. There were several vacant lots in an area known as Frenchtown near the Florida State University campus where there were vacant lots blighted and we put together a development plan for a non-profit to access home subsidy funds, private bank financing, to develop the mechanism to produce new construction houses over the next five years.
For this proposed project, what are the total estimated project costs?
It's a movable target. The reason is because we don't know yet how much total acquisition will be. We operate from the 77 BILL NO. 990331 assumption that for every new house you have to acquire three row house lots. A row house lot is 4 feet by 44 feet. And so we're currently acquiring 5 lots for 4,000 a lot. A shell can go from 6 to 6 10,000. A house, depending on what the roof and 7 mechanicals are, we've been purchasing between 10 8 and 25,000. So I can't give you a precise figure. 9
Have you purchased 10 some property in this area already? 11
We have acquired 16 12 houses. We have 11 under contract. We have 23 that 13 are public sector owned for which we've made 14 requests to acquire, and as part of the bankruptcy 15 agreement with Allegheny, there are 21 houses not 16 including the parking lot that will be deeded to Jefferson Square. We've made significant inroads with 74 properties for which we have site control.
The property you started talking about initially, putting aside the Allegheny properties, those are all privately owned properties that you went out and struck deals with the owners?
Right. From September to the end of January we sent out letters. We've 78 BILL NO. 990331 created a massive database --
Myself, my 2 staff people. We are under the direction of the Jefferson Square Community Development Corporation.
When you sent the letters out, whose name or what organization's name was at the top? Who did the person get a letter from?
The Jefferson Square CDC. I am the treasurer and secretary of the CDC, so I signed the letter.
The letter said, "We're interested in redeveloping your lot or your shell. We're interested in purchasing it. Could we meet with you?" In bold letters we said, "The decision to sell your house is completely voluntary." Some people responded, some did not. We did about two or three mailings.
So let's get back to total project cost. I heard what you said in terms 79 BILL NO. 990331 of what you're anticipated owner occupied properties --
I can actually answer your question. If you had 1350 square feet union wage job, you're looking about 70 to $75 a square foot. So depending on what you can negotiate, you're looking about a hundred thousand dollars, to 110,000 to build the actual structure and the improvements. Acquisition can be anywhere from 12,000 to even as much as 45,000 because you have to buy three row house lots for one new and add on another percent 13 for various costs, so this project may cost between 14 150, 160 a unit. We're selling it for 85. The 15 reason we're selling them for 85, we want them 16 accessible to moderate income first-time home 17 buyers. 18
I understand that. 19 Are you only dealing with the housing rehab, or are 20 you involved with the Mt. Sinai component? And Councilman DiCicco earlier talked about Kessler who may or may not be doing something. Are you just involved in the narrow housing components?
I do not have an official 80 BILL NO. 990331 relationship with the owners of the Mt. Sinai campus. They have not -- they don't include me in on all their business meetings or the CDC.
Okay. Fine. In terms of the housing component of this particular proposal, what do you estimate the total project cost to be?
Including the rehab? The owner occupied rehab or new construction?
Total project cost for what you are proposing, for what you're involved in with the housing, what are the total project costs, new construction and rehab?
I'd have to qualify the answer as it relates to the rehab, the reason being we wanted to get through this process for the urban renewal plan because the next phase we have to do is we have to meet with every one of the owner-occupieds. We would like to go through rehab. I don't have a hard fast number today on that amount.
Fine. What is your proposed funding to do this particular project?
Had that been testified to earlier, Councilman? Did you say that?
The challenge is to pre-sell as many properties as you can. So we expect a construction loan based on 80 to 85 percent of the proposed after constructed value. You get a construction loan that, of course, will be taken out with the first mortgage.
Probably 80 percent of the actual value. A bank isn't going to make a loan based on project loan. They're going to make it on appraisal. The rest will have to be subsidized with additional subsidy. We will not ask the new buyers to directly pay back. However, our goal is home 82 BILL NO. 990331 ownership. We don't want you to flip properties, if we've made a huge investment, in three years they sell it and turn it into a rental. We will put covenants on the loans so that if you sell to another income qualified person, then great. But we want to avoid a negative benefit.
I understand. Why don't we do this, because there are a number of people who would like to testify, the Chair has been very accommodating to me because she's kind of used to me. I'd like to ask a very narrow set of questions and get a very narrow or short response. If you have $3 million in Economic Stimulus Fund coming into the project, are you getting city, state, or federal funding into the project, and what is the private sector funding in this project? I assume Capital Access has something to do with capital, is that right?
We will probably need to raise to million dollars in direct subsidy, city, state, and federal sources. We have not done that fund raising campaign yet for one very specific reason. As a lender who's done training for funders, you can't get anyone's attention unless you 83 BILL NO. 990331 have site control.
That will be in the form of the construction financing and the end mortgages.
Do we have any information or have you done a survey of, based on the value of the homes, survey of income availability in the neighborhood?
The incomes are very low. However, we're buying a property on Fifth Street, and one of the renters called for some information. We found out this person actually works for a state penitentiary and qualifies. Within days I met 25 with him and ran through the numbers and we 84 BILL NO. 990331 qualified him for a mortgage and he's first on our list. We were delighted.
I'm very happy for that person. What I want to know is the 40 or 50 people may need to be relocated, do we have any idea of that universe of people how many would actually qualify to be in one of either the new homes or rehabilitated homes?
I don't have all the data and I don't know the resources a family brings to bear. What I do know is in meeting with families is many have said, "We're interested in or my sister is interested or my son is interested in buying; can you give us more information?" So I can't give you a hard and fast number on that.
Do we know at this point in time who the proposed developer would be on this project?
Not at this time. We have been strictly focussed on land acquisition.
Okay. And lastly, I thought I took this down somewhere, but the proposed housing parcels are?
That's a pure upgrade question, like if they want to add a fourth bedroom. This is not a for-profit motivated deal.
I'm not questioning your motives. You are certainly entitled to earn a living. And the rental prices, is there any rental?
For the 37 units at Mt. Sinai, those will be -- we're targeting those in the low 300s. However, we're going to work with each resident. If they cannot afford that amount, we're going to ask for additional subsidy. Our goal is that no matter what your income is, we try to get you a unit so you don't pay more than 30 percent of whatever you make.
So lastly, two components of this are home ownership, either brand-new construction or I assume significant rehab?
Owner-occupied housing. And the only rental is Mt. Sinai Apartment 86 BILL NO. 990331 building which currently is a building adjacent to Mt. Sinai which has a name?
It's on the southeast corner of Fifth and Reed and it's known as the Doctor's Dorm.
The Jefferson Square Community Development Corporation is the developer of this project.
My compensation basically is a consulting fee, a monthly consulting fee.
From the CDC we get $3,000 a month for our services. 87 BILL NO. 990331
At this point, because the project is in such an early phase, I did not feel it was appropriate to negotiate anything further, so we do not have any type of agreement of any equity or you know.
That covers you and your staff, or do they get a separate fee?
But that's not total compensation? That comes to $36,000 a year divide it over three people, it's a very low figure. I'm just trying to figure out how you manage to survive.
I mean, we charge a modest fee because this project requires a lot of hand-holding and it's what we needed to do to move it forward. I have other clients and other sources of income from my company.
So you're not going to starve whether this goes through or not. First, to the people here, City Council often is a complex body. We have different kinds of council members. Councilman DiCicco is the District Council Member and there are all together, so 10 we're 10. There are seven of us who are Councilman-at-large and the practice is District Council Member in matters such as this has a primary responsibility. He's elected or she's elected by a particular district. But those of us who are elected by the whole City also have a responsibility since we're elected by everybody in the City just as the Mayor is, and I'm one of those Council-Members-at-Large. Like Councilman Nutter, I did not wait for the invitation to go down. I was down there yesterday morning and went through Hegerman and Lawrence Streets -- not Hegerman. Leithgow and Lawrence. Hegerman is the place threatened with being removed from their homes. I think they have been removed from Hegerman, seven of them. And I have a vision of the City of 89 BILL NO. 990331 Philadelphia. Councilman DiCicco and probably every Member of Council has. And I was very much impressed what I saw in those two blocks. I saw homes that were taken care of in a very loving matter. I saw the empty lots. But I saw the other kind of homes and the vision I have of a redevelopment of a revitalization does not begin by creating further trauma and damage by uprooting people from their homes. (Applause.)
The area needs a lot of work and there are a lot ideas in the program you talk about, but I think that when you plan a development based upon driving people out of their homes, I find that plan somewhat in conflict with your stated goal with home ownership, long-time home ownership. (Applause.)
I understand it is intended that there will be continued discussions between the developer, Councilman DiCicco and people in the community. I think they're good. I think the area needs a lot of work, but I think it ought to start by not uprooting people out of their homes. 90 BILL NO. 990331 (Applause.)
One last general comment. To uproot people out of their homes to provide parking space -- (Applause.)
(Continuing) -- is something I think people ought to go back to the drawing board. And they ought to give this community -- it seems to me from the homes I saw, it seems to be a proud community and it really isn't for others to say we're going to relocate you within five blocks. (Applause.)
The homes if the people that live there now are as dear to them as the new homes you're talking about will be dear to the new owners. But I understand there have been people, and your testimony indicated it, that have lived in these homes from 30 to 40 years. And I ask what madness is it to talk in terms of uprooting them? And so I leave it at that point. But whatever the intention, and I assume everybody's intentions are a very high degree, but I think facts contradict intents when it means people are going to 91 BILL NO. 990331 be driven from their homes. (Applause.)
I understand the matter is not going to come to a vote today, right, and that it's going to be studied. And I heard from Councilman DiCicco. If he looks weary, he has been working on many more plans, not just this. I think we've got to keep working until this community base is whatever is built around it. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Our next witnesses are Mary Black, Gina Caruso, Kathy Furber, and Dorothy King. I'd like the people in the audience to know that Councilman Cohen and Councilman Nutter have indicated that they have taken a tour through the community. Councilman Kenney and I both live in South Philadelphia and we certainly are very familiar with the area in question.
I would like to thank Jeremy Newberg for his testimony. You filled in all the blanks, and I appreciate that. Thank 92 BILL NO. 990331 you.
Good morning, everyone. My name is Mary Black. And I'm here representing the St. John's Leadership Team. I live at 1303 South Leithgow Street. First of all, I want to say to Mr. DiCicco to congratulate him on his honesty because my home would definitely one of the ones taken to provide parking facility for the hospital. I just want to say to the Board that my family, my people along with other people we've been living here 40, 50 years. I attended the George Washington School on Fifth and Federal. I'm 49 years old. Our family is going on the fifth generation in that block. I just, you know, cannot see how, as the gentleman said, that I would have to leave my home to make room for a park, to replace a park for my home. I have five children. All my children were raised there. My grandchildren come there to play. I can't really understand how anyone could say that they understand how we would feel unless you were wearing these shoes. I just want to say we have three goals we require. We would like know who 93 BILL NO. 990331 would be to be forced out of their homes. We would also like any government agency coming into the community to put some of the money aside for rehab for housing. And we as a community, we would like to have a voice in whatever happens in our community. (Applause.)
Also, I just want to say to you, Mr. DiCicco, and whoever else is involved in this matter, that when you talk about money, money cannot replace, I don't care how much you gave us or offered us, it could never replace what we have in our community as far as years and whatnot, what I have generation after generation being born in there. Money is not an issue here. That's all I have.
Good morning. My name is Gina Caruso. I live on Reed Street. One of the things I would like to clarify this morning is, are 94 BILL NO. 990331 we to have another public hearing in the fall? Is that what our goal is?
I believe Councilman DiCicco said he would like to have the summer to try to work out the concerns of the community and probably in fall come back.
Another public hearing. Councilmember DiCicco and Jefferson Development Corporation during this time to work out the details?
I would like to ask a question regarding your question.
One of the problems I've experienced is that there were no 21 group of people that came on until the St. John's Leadership came. Since that time, there are those in the St. John's community that say the St. John's Leadership Team doesn't speak for me, meaning for the other people in the community. I really need to 95 BILL NO. 990331 get a better understanding of who is really speaking for them, because when we do individual discussions, we are then accused of undermining community by pitting one neighbor against the other. While I respect the St. John's Leadership Team, I have been told by other people who met with the community that the St. John's Leadership Team speaks for the entire community. And I don't have a problem if that's what you all decide. It would be helpful to me to know who it is we should speak to when we have these discussions rather than have four or five different discussions and everybody all over the place and I get accused of not giving enough information out, which I've been accused of for the last two years. You have to come together, maybe not today or this moment, but at some point in the next week or so, make some decisions if this is, all the people in the audience today, who you want to speak for you.
I do, and St. John's 96 BILL NO. 990331 Leadership Team represents the community.
That's okay if that's what the consensus of the residents agree to, then I don't have a problem. Now, as a matter of record, you are established as the spokespersons for the community? If someone in the audience has a problem with that, I think you need to come forward.
I need to concern myself. I don't want to come back here in September to have people say, "Well, I didn't know about this; I didn't know about that," because that's what I've been hearing. And no matter who I speak to they say, "Well, you didn't tell me." The next group says, "I didn't know anything." I need to know who the spokespersons who are really the leaders of this community and who they're speaking for, on whose behalf they're speaking.
The St. John's Leadership Team I'm not sure represents the entire community.
I have been flyering since June of 1996 and I still come to the same point that when we have meetings people say they don't speak to me.
Let's start fresh here. We'll set up a meeting with you, the community, Jefferson Square and it's Board of Directors, let's all meet and we'll all talk.
Is this in relation to this statement? Identify yourself. Identify yourself AND pull up a chair. Relax and identify yourself for the record.
Are you going to address what Ms. Caruso just testified to?
Do you have a statement to make in reference to what Ms. Caruso just said? Is that what your testimony is going to be?
Pull up the chair so you can use the microphone. Please identify yourself for are the record.
I'm a life-time resident in the community. What I'd like to say is St. John's do not represent the entire community.
Maybe yet, but as this point. My family lived in this community over 60 years. I do not agree with the project of moving out for parking. But when notices went out, I don't think everybody in the community was invited. I can speak for myself, and I probably speak for others. I think some people are isolated. And I agree, we should all together, people who live in this community, and stand up. We have our own problems within ourselves, within the community, and we are trying to come together to make sure the problems are taken care of. But St. John's, my opinion, is 99 BILL NO. 990331 not the person who speaks for everybody in the neighborhood. I own five pieces of land in the community. I'm an elected committee person. I worked in council in prior years. I have lot to bring to the table. I believe people should not move unless they want to move. They should not be pushed out of our community. I had conversation with Councilman DiCicco over the last two or three months. I had conversations with Mr. Newberg. We do have drugs in our neighborhood. We have blighted areas in our neighborhoods. We do have vacant lots in our neighborhood. Councilman DiCicco, the community takes a stand at this time. The community do not want to move. And rightfully, they should not move out of the neighborhood. I'm in a position now and a few people now, maybe we can come up with another plan. I spoke with Councilman DiCicco and you said you need postpone hearings and we can sit down as group see if we can come up with another plan. My point of this is that the St. John's Leadership Team is not the lead player.
I think the Councilman said to call his office to set up a meeting. Thank you.
My name is Kathy Furber. I'm a member of St. John's Church at Third and Reed. I happen to live at Second and Reed. In 1996 we formed a search committee to hire new clergy. In that statement we wanted to have more outreach. In October of that year, we hired on our new clergyman David Funkhouser. In February of '97 we had started to work with a community organization, we wanted to address the problems of housing, crime, and schools in our neighborhood. We started several months of leadership programs and workshops with the community organizer. And in November of '97, we agreed to really become involved as a community organizing group. At that point, we did not know what plan we were going to take. In January when the homes were cited on Leithgow and Lawrence Street, the neighbors of the area came to us and asked us for help. At that point we started getting involved and having community meetings. The first meeting was an open meeting 101 BILL NO. 990331 for the community with over 125 area residents directly concerned with what was happening. Since then, some of them have split off and formed their own groups. Some of them have political connections and were undermining some of the efforts that we were taking in order to keep this plan going. What we have constantly said to Councilman DiCicco in various meetings people have had was we wanted to form a partnership. We were objecting to the fact these were expensive homes put in a lower income area. We asked that couldn't more affordable housing be built for the residents that already live there, and this has been said at every meeting that we had. It's been said to other people we've met with that this was our goal, to get a partnership to build more affordable housing so that the current residents would be able to stay in the community that they've already invested in. The blight in the area that has developed was not their fault but a result of the owners of the hospital owning so many properties and letting them deteriorate and be knocked down. We saw the need to help the community and try to find a way to address this problem. We do know there is 102 BILL NO. 990331 another plan other than this one being developed and we would like a part, a say, in how that's going to continue to happen.
My name is Dorothy King. I live at 1313 South Leithgow Street in South Philadelphia where I was living there 40 years. My kids were raised in that street with the elementary school in that street, from elementary to high school graduate, some went to college. Now, here come the grandkids. They went to the same school which is two blocks there. Then the great grand. This street is like a treasure to me. If this street is taken away from me, it cannot even be replaced not even by money. We start having meeting I think it was January the 3rd, 1998, and speaking with the Leadership Team. We didn't know which way to turn. And if it wasn't for the St. John's Leadership Team, I don't where we would have been today. (Applause.)
They helped us. For what they've done, I can't explain. We didn't know where 103 BILL NO. 990331 to turn. They come to us like a family. We went around in the neighborhood when this first happened in the rain until o'clock at night. Can you 5 imagine, 9 o'clock at night. I got sick, I went to 6 the doctor, but we was determined. We put flyers on 7 everybody's door. No one turned toward us but St. 8 John's Leadership Team. We wanted to come as 9 community and work together. We couldn't make them understand, together we stand, divided we fall. (Applause.)
We started having meetings and we had a meeting one night with our Councilman Frank DiCicco. He explained this to us, what was going to happen. He said that they was going to build townhouses where our houses would be at. He told me to my face, he said, "Mrs. King, Leithgow Street and Lawrence Street is completely out." Leithgow Street is where I lived 40 years. He said people come into the neighborhood with money and he said that they wanted grass, trees, and a place for the kids to play. I said, "Councilman DiCicco, what about my kids who was born and grandkids who was born and raised in the street?" He said, "Mrs. King, Someone has to hurt," that's what he said, 104 BILL NO. 990331 "Someone has to hurt." We don't want our Councilman to think that we're against his plan. We are with his plans. Who wouldn't want to live in beautiful city. Our street might look little bad now, but it wasn't all the while when we had houses. I think it was 1970, that's why our street look that way. They took down houses in a row house. These row houses are supposed to support each other. They came in the neighborhood and took down houses from here. What support do we have? These are row houses. They are supposed to support each other. That's what made it look that way today. To me, it's beautiful to me because I know God can build our street back up. I feel like this, years ago people moved out of this vicinity. It wasn't good enough for them to live in, they moved out. Strawberry Mansion, the suburbs those big houses out there, they're tired of them and they want to come back in the neighborhood, you know. They feel it's getting too convenient for our black people. They want to move back now. We've got Disney World coming, golf courses down there two blocks away. They have the movies is down there for our kids three blocks away. It's too convenient for 105 BILL NO. 990331 us now. But we lived through the bad part, we want to live through the good part. We want him to join us and the money that government has funded for the community and what we want is we want to be a part it. Don't take away and do what they want to do with it. Bring the city up. We're a community. This money was for us. We are the community. We just want to be a part of it. And Mr. DiCicco, this is what we want and I hope you agree with us to some extent. Let us be a part of each other. That's all I have to say.
The record will reflect that an overwhelming majority of the people in the audience did stand. Our next witnesses are Shirley Corbin and June Cairns.
We're going to defer to the public hearing later in the fall, but there are other witnesses that wanted to speak.
Are they from 106 BILL NO. 990331 United Communities? We have a whole list of people, and I'd like to go down the order as they called in.
We're going to speak at the public hearing at the fall so we're not going to speak now.
We are from the neighborhood. I don't know if we appear on your list.
Ironically, you're next. Excuse me, isn't there Jeanine Vollbrecht and who is Angela Vollbrecht?
She's not going to speak, thank you. Her name was on the list. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Jeanine Vollbrecht. This is Edward Vollbrecht. He resides 107 BILL NO. 990331 at 514 Gerritt Street which is the targeted area for the Jefferson Square project. In addition to his residence --
Excuse me, Gerritt Street is not part of the targeted area.
Excuse me, Councilman. We do own garages in the targeted area, 1213 South Fifth Street, 443 Manton Street, 441 1/2 Manton Street, all zone commercial. I'd like to point out on your map you have explained here, you're showing them as vacant properties. We have pictures of our garages that have been in our family for years. We have those attached to a letter that I drafted that just explains some minor points, probably more I could have addressed. And also one of the maps of whichever plan it was that shows that our properties, originally the only one that was marked to be taken was Fifth Street. Now, as the maps 1 to 8, all our properties are marked as empty or whatever. They are not empty properties. In fact, they're all zone commercially. Approximately eight weeks ago is the first time we received any notification, and that notification came from Capital Access from Jeremy 108 BILL NO. 990331 Newberg that he was interested in acquiring our properties. Not until then had we had any notification of the danger of property being taken. These garages are not vacant properties and are extremely important to my family. Although my father does not run his business on the premises, all of his commercial items are stored there. The garages are completely full of everything he needs to run his business. And to take the property without equal replacement would force him to liquidate his stock, equipment, supplies, and tools, therefore, putting him out of business. This will cause him great financial loss of his livelihood, everything my dad has worked for in this community. My father is in poor physical health and cannot empty these garages himself. He's 56 years old, has a 22-year-old hip replacement which needs to be redone, a herniated disc in his back, high blood pressure and on high blood pressure medication. He has a hernia which requires surgery. After he received the Capital Access letter, my father postponed his operation. If you demolish my father's garages, he would have to hire professional movers to relocate his merchandise. 109 BILL NO. 990331 Today, as you should know, in the South Philadelphia area garages are a premium. We have inquired at several Realtors, and we can give you the Realtors' names and the amounts, and there's nothing financially feasible for our family right now. The cheapest garage for the size needed to house our merchandise is $99,000, which is out of our price range. Are you prepared to pay us that and for relocation of our property which we've owned and paid taxes on? My father has spoken with Mr. Jeremy Newberg, and yes, granted we feel that the neighborhood needs to be improved. He has stated that he is more than willing to give the garages a facelift, paint, siding, stucco. Mr. Newberg wasn't interested. He said could put four homes on our property. Is the objective to rehab the area or is it really a matter of financial gain on someone's part? We could understand if there was structural damage or some other dangerous condition, but there's not. What kind of city are we living in that a person works his whole life to own property, pay taxes, be functioning citizens of this city, and you 110 BILL NO. 990331 come along and take our property because of its location? What happened to the American dream for the average person? I respectfully request that you don't approve the plan as it is. It displaces senior citizens and people with modest incomes from their homes and properties, some of which lived here all their lives, including me. I am 34 years old, I graduated from Temple University. I went to school and grew up and was raised in Philadelphia. This is not a plan that you want to rehab the neighborhood, it's a land grab. Someone gets some money out of the deal. (Applause.)
Design a better plan. Give people a say in the neighborhood. Give residents the opportunity with possible low interest loans to fix up their homes and let our garages stay. Build new homes on the vacate lots that will blend in with the community that already exists. I'm asking you not to displace us. There's a need for garages in every neighborhood. They do not detract from the community. Our garages are on the northeast corner of Fifth and Manton Streets and are 111 BILL NO. 990331 the only commercially occupied buildings in that area. I'm asking you to leave our garages alone. We're more than willing to side them do whatever is necessary. They've been in our family. We have lived in this community. I have served in this community. I am a Philadelphia Police detective and I have been on the force years. I have lived in 9 South Philadelphia and my family lived here and I 10 think that if do you not help the community here, you're only hurting them. I don't think that's what City Council is supposed to be for. That's all I have to say. (Applause.)
My name is Ed Vollbrecht. And Mr. DiCicco made a statement about Mr. Price's house. Mr. Price's house is not on your list to be taken.
Mr. Price is not on the list to be taken. He was asked to come here. And he also didn't come because his house -- that is the 112 BILL NO. 990331 problem. Mr. Price's son is on the zoning board.
His house is not on the plan to be taken, that's the problem.
It's not on the list to be taken and his not coming here address the issue. Yes, there needs to be housing, but not your type of housing. Your housing don't fit in the city. It does not fit in the city.
I would beg to differ with you. They're homes selling all over in the city. Let me perfectly clear, I hear everyone say we have problems, yeah, we need to do something.
Has anyone come up with another plan or any plan? And when you speak to this type of housing people don't want, I beg differ with you. People in the city, they want a side yard, a rear yard, and a place to park their cars -- let me finish.
Let us speak when we 113 BILL NO. 990331 were speaking, sir. (Applause.)
Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? Thank you very much. Our next witness is Reverend David Funkhouser. REV. FUNKHOUSER: Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I'll be very brief. I'm Pastor of St. John's Episcopal Church at Third and Reed. Long before the initial plan was revealed to the community for Jefferson Square, our church had been involved, as we said previously, in efforts working with United Communities and a city-wide effort to address concerns of communities, social problems, communities are suffering, and this kind of thing. So I just want to make clear that the St. John Leadership Team came out of that effort and really cannot claim to represent every person in the community. That's not the point of this. The 114 BILL NO. 990331 St. John's Leadership Team has undertaken to try to pull together the community and to address these issues and has put forth considerable effort, as you can see today by the presence of people here, to do so. And it is our hope, our genuine hope in the months ahead that in good faith we in the community who live and work there can work with Councilman DiCicco and other persons to address our concerns and to come to some mutual agreement about what is really best for the community.
Thank you very much, Reverend. REV. FUNKHOUSER: I will be the last speaker from the Leadership Team. Thank you.
Do you we have anyone form the Community Legal Services?
Peggy Brookins, co-Chair of the Leadership Team. Florence Lipps.
Thank you. 115 BILL NO. 990331 Reverend Dolores Richardson, Frannie Cooper, Suzanne Haney. Is she here?
Please identify yourself and proceed with your testimony.
Please identify yourself and proceed with your testimony.
My name Suzanne Haney. I live in the 300 block of Manton Street. I am an elected committee person for the second ward, the second division, which includes the area from Federal to Wharton, Second to fourth. I am also here as a historian. I am particularly interested in the Civil War in Philadelphia. This area that we are discussing includes part of the historic heart of Civil War in Philadelphia. Unbeknownst to many of the members of both City Council and our neighborhood, this particular area was very crucial during the period a hundred years ago in our nation's history. The Washington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia railway which had a main terminus in the northern end at Broad and Washington Avenue had a line that went to the navy yard at Washington and 116 BILL NO. 990331 Federal Street. Every union army troop that came and fought during the Civil War went through this area and stayed at the Union and the Cooper refreshment salons. Many of them were housed at the buildings that were located in this area. Many of those that were wounded stayed at private hospital buildings in this area. The park which is the name of this development, Jefferson Square, was an encampment area during the Civil War. The wounded were brought by ferry boat down the Susquehanna through the canal and up the Delaware River to be hospitalized, not only in the private homes, but also at the largest union hospital privately owned which was at Broad and Washington Avenue. One of the reasons why I'm particularly concerned is that there has previously been a lack of understanding of the historic nature of our neighborhood by many of our local politicians. Our previous 1st Council District representative 15 years ago attempted to take the northwest quadrant of the Jefferson Square Park and put a basketball court there. At that time we got the documentation on the historic nature of the park and were able to stop this. The sign at Delaware Avenue discusses -- 117 BILL NO. 990331 that is a marker from the Historic Commission in Harrisburg -- says that there was a battery there. It does not mention that there was a navy yard, that it was major embarkation for immigrants. And one of the concerns that we have is because of the development along the river, much of the historic area will be fluffed over. My particular concern is the area from Federal to Wharton which is white in the little area in the map. The impression is because the area is white it will not be touched, and it has been glossed over at meetings and stated that there will be loans and grants for the members. However, the information I have is that the reason it is white is survey has not been completed and should there been funds and go through, there will be then a completed survey of that immediate area. Many of the houses in this area which are federal period houses built prior to 1865 which may have been a hospital building, may have been part of the underground railway, and active Civil War activities right in this area from Washington Avenue to Wharton Street from Sixth Street where we have the cemetery over to the Delaware River. Until this survey is completed, I think it would be important for there 118 BILL NO. 990331 not to be too much activity in terms of any demolition of any of these properties at this time. At the present time, many of the neighbors in this community, including those in Penns Port, nd unfortunately do not have active civic association on the west side of Fourth Street that are surveying the historic sites that we have from the Civil War. We are currently planning a tour in the fall in conjunction with the National Trust. We are planning a troop enactment of 2,000 union colored groups and the first city troop and other troops who came across on the ferry at Delaware and Washington Avenue and then marched in uniform to our park and then stayed overnight in the various homes and buildings here.
At the present time I would like you to consider the historic nature of the area and I would like to also mention that I'm very pleased that you're going to postpone the vote. I would be happy to give you additional information on the historic sites located in this area. I urge you to consider the fact that we do have an area of interest and of historic nature immediately in this area. Are there any questions? 119 BILL NO. )
Any questions for this witness? Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Kirk Brown, please. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Kirk Brown. I live in the 400 block of Dicker Street. I also serve on the CDC for Jefferson Square. During the last 12 years that I have spent living in this community, which might seem like a New York minute compared to that of some of my neighbors, I have seen a great deal of planning come and go for a community that is desperate for improvement. I live immediate to Mt. Sinai, sharing more than just our fences, a great deal more. There has always been a shared sense of security, lighting, parking, and safety which has not always meant that as neighbors we have been on the same side of these issues. When I moved to this community, Mt. Sinai was a bustling, full-service health care institution, part of the Einstein Medical Center. 120 BILL NO. 990331 Since then, it has moved through the hands of several area healthcare giants, Graduate Hospital and then Hahnemann and then Allegheny and now Tenet, an unprecedented number of turnovers, even for a hospital in these times. However, its current operator may be its worse: No one. From what I can see, the hospital campus has been unused and unkempt, and with the exception of a planned senior's apartment project, nothing stabilizing is in the works. The operative word being stabilizing. While many of us debate the value of the Jefferson Square CDC, I am openly critical of any plan that does not include in some form or fashion a lasting solution to the hospital's orphan status. I am aware that the Jefferson Square project is not going to be able to happen without the disruption and displacement of some families in the area. I believe firmly that as long as a comprehensive relocation package is made available to those who are directly displaced by new construction, the CDC will have gone a long way in minimizing the impact of the plan. In spite of this, turning away from the project or putting it off means more months and years of squalor and 121 BILL NO. 990331 blight, a condition painfully obvious to those of us that have lived in it for years and in many cases a lifetime. I am alarmed at what may be perceived as a project aimed at kicking out poor and defenseless, often minority, families to create housing that they cannot afford. My position is, who can afford to continue with the conditions as they are? I find it disturbing that these are conditions, at least during the years I've lived in them, which have 12 gone unchallenged for generations. Where is the chorus of concerned parties when drug deals are open air and permitted round the clock? They are in fact neighbors who feel imprisoned inside their own homes, afraid to enter and leave because they know that saying anything or doing anything to end these decrepit conditions would be dangerous. If the plan includes a comprehensive relocation package, as it must by federal mandate, that assists individuals or families in moving into safer and cleaner housing in the immediate area and creates new housing for those who would otherwise pass this community over if given the chance to live in town, then the result would be win-win. The 122 BILL NO. 990331 prospect of bringing families who have left the city back and restoring the vitality of a neighborhood lost to drugs, violence and abandoned properties would be wholly welcomed by myself and my neighbors who have waited long enough to see such a change. I have no axes to grind, and unlike many of my neighbors, I can move at my leisure. But I ask myself, why when you knew you could do something to bring change didn't you speak out, why did you turn your head when you saw dope peddling, the coming and going from abandoned houses, the crumbling structures, the graffiti, why didn't you do something? So I've decided to answer my own conscience.
Excuse me. Kirk thank you for your testimony. I just have a couple of questions. I don't know if you stated what you do for a living.
You're a member of the Jefferson Square CDC. 123 BILL NO. 990331
Have you had an opportunity to make a profit from your experience being on the Jefferson CDC? With the exception of Mr. Newberg who does receive a salary for the job he does, are you being compensated from CDC at all ?
I have no background in construction. I know nothing about engineering.
I want the record to be clear that this is not corporation that is set up for the purpose individuals being rewarded for their efforts. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Ross, please, Joseph Ross. Good afternoon. Identify yourself for the record and proceed.
I'm Joseph Ross. I'm representing my wife and my daughter, Dawn, who owns property in the area. How you doing, Mr. DiCicco. Mr. DiCicco, I understand exactly --
Excuse me. I don't 124 BILL NO. 990331 want to be disrespectful, but the way in which we conduct these hearing you give testimony about what your concerns are and your dialog with Councilmembers are not permitted.
I want to thank him for introducing Jeremy Newberg. He's a very cut-throat business man who has no regard for anyone. You know, I find it ironic you could come into somebody's neighborhood without informing them, without having the community involved and say you got a vision, you wake up out of the blue and say you got a vision. We've been having a vision for 20, 30 and 40 years. We never said we didn't need a change. You can help us change, too; give us some grants, give us some loans. Don't just take and take and take. We went through that before with Society Hill, with Queens Village. Where you want us to go? I call it the ethnic, that's what I call it, ethnic cleansing. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
John Johnson. After Mr. Johnson is James Peoples, so if he could up to the front.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 125 BILL NO. 990331 John Johnson, I represent the Government Committee. We were asked to testify today in reference to support of the concerns of a community. I think that I'm going to reserve the bulk of my testimony. I understand we have a postponement, thank God, of this particular situation. I'm going to reserve the bulk of my testimony. I want to make a couple comments here. First of all, I think Mrs. King summarized very well, Councilman, the heart-felt declaration of how this process works to eliminate certain senses of reason. Reason being if you have a house which you've lived many, many, many, many, many years and all of a sudden there is a project which hopefully is good intending which has a head attached to it which seems to eliminate the fact that you might want to remain in that neighborhood regardless of what kind of improvements are going to be made because you too are not foolish enough to think you want to stay there without improvements because you've been trying improvements many years. Maybe you weren't able to get those improvements because of a system that didn't see a profit to be made, whatever reason. It was mentioned here earlier this 126 BILL NO. 990331 upturn of situations and also was mentioned that there's been a history of neglect here. So you have a group of people who are set in a pattern of neglect, not because of their own lack of dignity or their own lack of wanting to do better, but because of circumstances which are basically related to city government's looking down the way not being in a position, not wanting to extend a helping hand. These people are not asking you for something that is unreasonable. They're saying, give me relief. Don't make me part of a system wherein I'm looking at a new development coming in my area and I'm no 14 longer a part of that. One final comment with regard to the Redevelopment Authority and how that little system works, and I think Mr. Cohen alluded to it. These are things that are heart felt, this game of politics the game of public service. The extent to which the Housing Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority which has this imminent domain component to it, this imminent domain head to it without compassion, the use of law is a bad thing. Without compassion the use of law created slavery. What I see happening here is the fact they're saying to 127 BILL NO. 990331 people directly and indirectly, "Well, we're going value for you house we. Think it is XYZ." If you don't appeal it, that's what happens in the detail. When you ask details that what you have to face when you try to do an individual protection of your property, it is said to you the Redevelopment Authority will indeed make you an offer based on, quote, what is considered to be fair market value. Who determines that? Well, usually that determination nowhere compensates you for your property to leave a house you lived or 30 years, 13 which has been the testimony here. This is a bad 14 use of law. This is a law that is used by people 15 who are not sensitive to the real conditions here. 16 If you have creativity and you have the willingness 17 to be creative, you take that law and you say, these 18 people have a certain kind of condition, let's fix 19 it, let's really fix it. 20 It seems to me, in summary, if in fact the Leadership Team had not been on the case, this thing would have gone through. Seems to me that's how it appears. (Applause.)
Now, I say that with all 128 BILL NO. 990331 due process of government, all due process of government because I would hope that we all understand we are encouraging productivity progress in each neighborhood. Then you have another issue called relocation of the property. It's a relocation of people or displacement of people. And live in properties that are declared abandoned, that's not really good homework. Therefore, I would say that people here need to be given an award for being alert. They need to be given an award for having the courage to be here today. I /ARD without hardship some people that's a hardship. So we are really extending ourselves to be a help in any fashion that we possibly here. The people are making a cry to you. They should not have to cry. That's my comment. I do reserve my comments for the hearing in September. Thank you, Councilwoman.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Mr. Ross, can you come back to the table? Mr. Ross, would you please come back to the witness table? Thank you. Mr. Ross do you recall 129 BILL NO. 990331 calling my home on Sunday, June the 6th and leaving a message on my voice mail?
Do you recall the statement you made to me on my voice mail?
Would it refresh your memory if I told you you said you were Joe Ross and you owned the property in the Jefferson Square development plan.
You don't remember you thank me for directing you to Mr. Newberg, however, he's just not giving you enough for your property. Maybe we can talk and do a little bit better? Do you recall that conversation?
Whatever you said. We talked 130 BILL NO. 990331 -- I talked about my property. I said you have an interest in so and so and so and you gave me your card. You said call Mr. Newberg. I called Jeremy Newberg. Jeremy Newberg told me he wouldn't give anybody no more than $20,000 for their house. He told me he would not give anyone more than $20,000.
I have an appraisal slip. You can't see it, unless you want to buy it now. (Applause.)
If you want to buy it, we can come to terms. Other than that --
I have to know what you're asking before I can answer that question.
It's not important. You know why it's not important? You always going to find the lesser because you always not going to live up to your word. You're not going to do what you're supposed to do and you're a taker. You're a taker and you're a taker.
Thank you very much. 131 BILL NO. 990331 (Applause.)
James Peoples, John Morley, Jr., and Fred Druding after Mr. Morley. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Identify yourself for record and proceed with your testimony.
Section 1710C8 of the Pennsylvania Statute states the planning commission redevelopment area plan shall include without being limited to the following, a statement of estimated cost for acquisition of the redevelopment area and all other costs necessary to prepare the area for redevelopment. The Jefferson Square redevelopment plan did not indicate acquisition costs. The Court stated while usual and taking of property to effectuate a redevelopment plan, a plan must be specific enough to notify potential condemnees of 132 BILL NO. 990331 their future. There's been testimony today that indicates that no final decisions have been made on the plan and therefore any action by Council is premature, in my opinion.
Excuse me I hate to interrupt you. Didn't you come about another bill 8 having to do with Cecil B. Moore Model Cities?
Do you own a property in the proposed Jefferson Square?
I have difficulty seeing the relevance of what are you talking about.
It is two blocks removed. I'm a Philadelphia taxpayer giving testimony about funding.
Okay. The plan doesn't specifically list properties to be condemned. I think it should list specific properties. A fair 133 BILL NO. 990331 market value of property immediately before and after taking is customary measure of determining just compensation. The bill states for the redevelopment of the area by private enterprise under the circumstances. It also states for which public money may be spent. The plan states the Jefferson Square CDC was formed and received $3 million in state funds to revitalize the redevelopment area. Because taxpayer money is being used, I request Council to add an amendment that public bidding procedures be used for any and all construction related to this redevelopment. John Dougherty has a business of the electrical trade unit. He's a board member of this CDC. I am asking Council to amend this bill with the statement that fully disclose bylaws, officers, board members of the Jefferson Square Community Corporation, New Tower Association, and the Kessler Court. That's the end of my testimony.
Thank you very much, sir. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee. Thank you. Our next witness is Mr. Fred Druding, 134 BILL NO. 990331 and after Mr. Druding is Reverend Carl Fritchette.
My name is Fred Druding. I'm here today as executive of Wico (ph) Development Corporation which is a member of CDC operating in South Philadelphia. We've done some rehabs in the Jefferson Square area on the 400 block of Manton Street. We've also done some rehabs just south of the designated area along Fifth Street. I'd like first of all to commend Councilman Di Cicco for the plan that he's developed. He has worked with the community. There are people here today who have not testified that are in favor of this plan, but may have felt a little intimidated by people that are opposed to it. I couldn't agree more with the people here today in terms of additional community input. The Councilman knows this, it's something he's working toward and made a commitment to continue involvement of the community. A good plan always, for it to be successful, has to have community input and it will be successful because the Councilman has made a commitment to do that. I have a particular interest in the community because I was born at 1326 South Fifth 135 BILL NO. 990331 Street which is right in the heart of Jefferson Square. My grandparents lived on Wharton. My parents first lived on Reed Street and I had an uncle that had a Jewelry store at Fifth and Titan, so I'm very familiar with the area, its good days to its bad days and the future it holds. It's a wonderful area with many wonderful people. I think everyone, including those who might be opposed to this particular plan and intend to come back here in September, want to see something successful. But I think part of the problem and part of the misconception that people have come here today have been stories that have been spread throughout the community, flyers that have been distributed stating a lot of misinformation. Those flyers were unsigned but yet they said they spoke with factual information. It was not factual information. It was misinformation that got people upset that shouldn't be upset. Everyone wants to work toward better communities. We're here to do our part for that and I know Councilman DiCicco and everyone sitting down that they'll be able to do that. I would close with one recommendation that might be a little bit of help and something for 136 BILL NO. 990331 the Councilman to consider. Since there is some doubt who really represents the community in question, perhaps individual streets can select their own representative and those people collectively that are within the designated area could then serve as the advisory group to work with the Councilman to come up with a final plan. Thank you.
I want to thank you for last comment. I failed to mention that earlier when I spoke about forming a group to address the concerns going forward. I offered a similar proposal to the folks who live in the MLK area. And again, I thank you for bringing that to my attention. I failed to mention that earlier. And we can do that as Fred Druding just described. If the residents on a particular block were to choose one person, to be a member of the task force, at least I will know that every neighborhood or block in the area has representation. You decide on 137 BILL NO. 990331 that and when Jeanine Caruso calls me to schedule a meeting I think that could be a good working committee going forward. Thanks again, Mr. Druding.
Not to get into a discussion with Mr. Druding, but only to express views, Madam Chair, on one of the comments that he made which had to do with whether or not some people in the audience had a comfort or discomfort level about the prospect of testifying. I would say, at least for myself, and I know generally how the Chair feels about these matters, there's certainly no 16 reason for anyone who has an interest in testifying at a City Council hearing to be afraid to testify at public hearing which are always open to the public. We are here for anyone who has anything to say. And I would certainly feel remiss to not say that if someone wants to testify, they certainly can and should feel free to do so. If you chose not to for whatever personal reason, that is certainly fine. The notion that anyone would feel intimidated, I would have to reject that concept. Just because 138 BILL NO. 990331 people have differences of opinion doesn't mean in a public forum anyone should feel any discomfort about coming to the witness table and saying whatever it is they have to say. We, as Members of City Council, reserve the right to hear all kinds of testimony and we'll make our decisions based on the facts as they weigh out. This is a very serious matter. We are taking it very seriously and we are generally prepared to listen to what somebody has to say. I think this has been a good discussion, open and frank and honest because there are serious matters being discussed and talked about, the prospect of redevelopment in general which could be good but relocation and displacement which has an effect on people's lives who have lived in a place for many, many years. So I would just state that for the record to make sure it is very clear that we are a open and free body we welcome all testimony. No one should ever feel intimidated to come to the witness stand and testify here in City Council.
Thank you. Our next witness is Reverend Karl Fritchette. Do we have anyone else in the audience that would like to testify? 139 BILL NO. 990331
I have copies of letters by neighbors who were not able to attend here today. I'd like them to be entered into the record. One by Ms. Taylor and one by Ms. Testa.
We will make that a part of the record and a copy will be given to the stenographer.
I'm Suzanne Haney. I spoke earlier. I just wanted to mention that I have some written materials and maps that were not yet prepared from the printers that I will be submitting in support of my testimony. Thank you.
Thank you so much. We're really very behind schedule. If you'll be brief, I'll be more than happy to recognize you, but you must be brief.
I'm Joe Ross again. I'd just like to know how do you get on this elected committee?
They have an elected committee that works in that area, Jefferson Square 140 BILL NO. 990331 area. Do you have that Mr. DiCicco? How does someone get on the elected committee?
I'm not sure of what committee you're speaking. The St. John's Leadership Team?
Well, I actually chose the people to be on there based on my interaction with people in that community initially. And we have since then taken a couple of more names that have been recommended to me by other neighbors, other people from the neighborhood.
I just explained how that happened. I started somewhere. I started with a group of people from the neighborhood. Mr. Kirk Brown who's here is one of the --
I won't pencil you in. If you would like to serve on the board, I suggest that you send us some information to the CDC by way of Jeremy Newberg.
Is there anyone else to testify? AUDIENCE MEMBER: What kind of information is necessary to get on the board?
Your name, your address, your desire to be on there. And then that will be presented on the board and they'll vote on whether or not they want to accept you or not. But we're going to have a task force set up. I think you just heard me say that. AUDIENCE MEMBER: We're talking about the Board, not the task force. 142 BILL NO. 990331
Thank you all very much. I thank you all for your patience. This will conclude the public hearing of the Rules Committee. We will now go into our public meeting. - - - 143 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Tuesday, June 15, 1999 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Rules, held in Room 401, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 980846, 990048, 990327, 990328, 990331 - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA VERNA COUNCILMAN FRANK DI CICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN - - - 144 PUBLIC MEETING
The record will reflect that Bill 990358 is recessed until tomorrow June 16, 1999 at 1 o'clock. The record also will reflect Bill No. 6 990696 has been continued until the call of the Chair. Bill No. 980048 is being held at the request of the sponsor. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding Bill No. 980846.
Excuse me. We're trying to conduct business so if you want to have conversation, please do so in the corridor. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President. I offer an amendment to Bill No. 980846. And the amendment should read in Section 1 under 3 under the title "adult bookstores located in the following areas shall not be open for business between the hours of -- where it reads 12 o'clock midnight, it should be 3 o'clock a.m. and 8 o'clock a.m. 145 PUBLIC MEETING (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will significant by saying eye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 980846, as amended, be approved.
And make a motion for suspension of rules. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 980846 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation as amended, and that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit First Reading at our next Session of Council. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? 146 PUBLIC MEETING The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The record will reflect that Bill No. 5 990311 has been recessed until tomorrow June 16, 1999 at 1:00 p.m. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter regarding bill number 990327.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill 990326 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit First Reading at our next Session of Council.
It has been moved and second that Bill No. 980327 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit First Reading at our next Session of Council. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is 147 PUBLIC MEETING carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen regarding Bill No. 990328.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 990328 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with the request that suspension of the Rules to permit First Reading at the next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill 990328 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permanent First Reading at our next Session of Council. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter regarding number 990329.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 990329 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and 148 PUBLIC MEETING further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit First Reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 990329 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit First Reading at our next Session of Council. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding Bill No. 990331.
Madam President, I ask that bill be held until Council reconvenes in September.
Thank you. The record will show that Bill No. 990331 is being held at the request of the sponsor. Thank you very much. (Council adjourned 1:00 p.m.) 149 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of June 15, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON RULES ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public