COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, June 1, 2006 10:45 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN BILL 060286 - An ordinance approving the thirteenth amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Mantua Urban Renewal Area... BILL 060347 - An ordinance approving the thirty-fifth amendment for the redevelopment proposal of the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area... - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
This is a public hearing of the Rules Committee, and I would ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 060286.
Bill No. 060286, an ordinance approving the thirteenth amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Mantua Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at the intersection of 40th Street and Spring Garden Street, including the tenth amendment to the urban renewal plan and relocation plan, as amended, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately properties for 17 commercial and related uses, the land 18 acquisition of approximately four 19 properties for residential and related 20 uses; the provision of certain relocation 21 services, as required by law, and 22 declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project.
Mr. Wetzel, are you testifying on this 3 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 bill? And City Planning. Is City Planning here? Please approach the witness table. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Herbert Wetzel. I'm Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I am here to speak in support of Bill No. 060286, which is the thirteenth amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the tenth amendment of the urban renewal plan for the Mantua Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 21 properties for commercial and related 22 uses and four properties for residential and related uses for three proposed development projects. The Interagency Acquisition 4 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Review Team authorized the acquisition of two occupied structures, two vacant structures and vacant lots in support 5 of the Mantua supermarket project. The 6 Redevelopment Authority has been working 7 with Strong Properties, Inc., whose plan 8 is to combine these properties with those 9 privately acquired by Strong Properties 10 to newly construct a supermarket retail 11 center at the site. The estimated 12 acquisition costs are 235,000 and the 13 funding source for acquisition costs is 14 NTI bond proceeds. 15 Residential and related uses: 16 The Office of Housing and Neighborhood 17 Preservation has requested the 18 acquisition of three vacant structures as part of the People's Emergency Center Homeownership Phase II project. These properties will constitute part of a site to newly construct 18 homeownership units in the West Powelton/Mantua area. Each is 1,800 square feet, three bedrooms, one and a half baths and will have off-street 5 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 parking. These units will be marketed to moderate-income families and the sale price estimate is at $95,000. The estimated acquisition cost is $188,685. The funding source for acquisition costs is NTI bond proceeds. The Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation has requested the Redevelopment Authority acquire one vacant lot as part of 1260 Housing Development Corporation's Mantua Project. This property will be utilized as green space for their Melon Street Development, which is comprised of one two-story ten-unit apartment building and one two-story four-unit apartment building. These units will be rented to low- and moderate-income families and persons with disabilities. The estimated acquisition costs are $11,500. The funding source of acquisition costs is NTI bond proceeds. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 6 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 060286 and ask for the suspension of Council rules to allow a first reading today, June 1, 2006. Thank you.
Yes. Good morning, Madam President and members of the Committee. I'm Richard Redding, Director of Community Planning at the Philadelphia City Planning Commission testifying today in support of Bill No. 16 060286, which calls for the acquisition of 26 properties for commercial and residential development in Mantua. It was approved at the Commission meeting of March 10th of last year. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Council President, 7 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 I've invited the developers for each of these projects here. I know two of them are here, so if there are specific questions about the development, which you've asked previously, so we now are standardly asking the developers to come to the hearings.
Wonderful. Mr. Wetzel, the title of the bill describes the development as, quote, beginning at the intersection of 40th Street and Spring Garden Street. I am having difficulty in visualizing this description. Can you be a little more specific, please?
I think we have a map over there. That's the beginning corner of the urban renewal area.
That's the beginning corner of the urban renewal area that we're amending the 8 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 redevelopment proposal for.
Thank you. According to your testimony, all of these lots and structures are vacant. Does RDA staff take photos documenting these conditions?
No. There's actually -- my testimony was that we're acquiring two occupied structures.
According to the fact provided, there are seven residentially zoned properties that are slated to be reused for commercial purposes. Does this bill authorize that zoning as a matter of right?
No, it does not. The developer would have to seek the zoning change.
And can you tell us if the RDA actually 9 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 prepares a zoning change for introduction into Council or does that come from the City Planning Commission?
Thank you. Are there any questions of the witnesses? (No response.)
Not at all. My fault. I just put my light on. With regard to the list, we would like to ask RDA to defer use of eminent domain with regard to 3619 and 21 Haverford Avenue. We'd like to see if a proposed developer, owner and RDA can make arrangements for alternate locations 10 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 for this property owner, if it becomes necessary.
Yes, and apparently, Madam President, it was a double property that wasn't so listed. So the City exempted one half of it and not the other half. So we want to make sure we resolve that issue, and we spoke with Mr. Wetzel yesterday.
Yes. I will go on the record and acknowledge and accept the request of Councilwoman Blackwell that we will not proceed to use eminent domain on 3619 and Haverford Avenue and, again, 18 work with the developer and the owner of 19 the property. 20
Very 21 well. Thank you. Do we have any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we 11 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 have anyone else to testify on this bill?
Rich Leinbach and John Mancini. And after Mr. Mancini is Christopher Booth.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Rich Leinbach, real estate broker, Coldwell Banker, commercial. Madam Chairperson and Committee members, we represent the estate of William July and have listed properties on 37th and Haverford over to Brandywine, and two of the parcels are part of the ordinance, 3700 Haverford, 3704 Haverford, and we'd like to oppose the taking of those two properties so that we can market this entire parcel together. We have received numerous calls on the project for development.
I have no idea or information about this. I 12 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 understand the son of the estate owner works for Risk Management and is here in the room. I don't understand even if we have people work for the City, if they're interested, I have no idea why we have this issue. We always try to resolve any problems we have before we come here, and I'm embarrassed whenever we have one. But I don't even understand. If we have the son who works for Risk Management, he probably knows as much about this as we do, and if we have brokers who are experienced at doing this, why are we here and what has -- I'm curious as to what their relationship has been with RDA, with City Planning. Certainly they've said nothing to me so that we can figure out where we are and what we're supposed to do. We're trying to build a supermarket for the community. We never try to hurt anybody in the process, but I don't understand why people haven't been 13 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 in touch with me or RDA or City Planning or somebody so that we're not here at this table in a public testimony on opposite sides of the issue.
We have made contact last week. We just listed this property.
We had -- I know John had some conversation with Herb Wetzel, and I believe we e-mailed a package to Councilwoman Blackwell's office on Friday.
Madam Chair, could we have Herb Wetzel come back. Maybe he could --
Certainly. Mr. Wetzel, please approach the witness table.
But didn't they know so long ago? You have to be notified so many months. You have 14 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 to have so many opportunities for notification. I still don't understand why experienced people haven't tried to communicate better prior to a public hearing. I don't understand that.
I was contacted by Coldwell Banker last week and I indicated to them that we were moving forward with an acquisition for affordable housing project and if they had concerns, they needed to direct their concerns to Councilwoman Blackwell and her office.
Madam President, this is the one that is for People's Emergency Center. That's the oldest housing shelter in our state. This is part of their development, and they're there on site every day. As I said, I have no idea. I have no idea why there's been no 24 communication and I don't understand why at this point when we're only trying to 15 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 help do apartments for low-income people why we're here now with this debate.
What are the addresses that you mentioned earlier, sir?
The two in the ordinance were 3700 Haverford and 3704 Haverford.
Madam President, we are requesting, if the Committee would consider, that we move forward.
Thank you. Excuse me, sir. Did you want to also testify? 16 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347
Yes. I'm John Mancini. And I did contact Herb originally when we listed the property, which was just recent, and he suggested that I did send a package to Jannie Blackwell's office, and I did get a confirmed e-mail from her assistant that she received it and thanked me on Friday. So I don't know. Maybe there was a short time period or Jannie didn't receive this for some reason, but it was definitely sent and I was thanked for sending it.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the Committee of the two witnesses? (No response.)
Seeing none, gentlemen, thank you very much. Our next witness.
Is Mr. Booth here? 17 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 (No response.)
Madam President, he was involved with the property referenced earlier, 3619 to 9 Haverford, that we've already talked 10 about. 11
So 12 he's been here and left and is satisfied. 13 Thank you. 14 Are there any other witnesses 15 that would like to testify on this bill? 16 (No response.) 17
18 Seeing no one, I would ask Ms. Murray to 19 please read the title of Bill No. 060347. 20
Bill No. 060347, 21 an ordinance approving the thirty-fifth amendment for the redevelopment proposal of the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at the northwest corner of Front Street and Spring Garden 18 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Street, including the twenty-seventh amendment to the urban renewal plan and the twenty-fifth amendment to the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of properties for residential and 8 related uses, the additional land 9 acquisition of approximately 66 10 properties for institutional and related 11 issues, the additional land acquisition 12 of one property for commercial and 13 related uses; the provision of certain 14 relocation services, as required by law, and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project.
Good morning. My name is Herbert Wetzel. I'm Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I am here to speak in support of Bill No. 060347, which is the 19 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 thirty-fifth amendment to the redevelopment proposal and the twenty-seventh amendment to the urban renewal plan for the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area. The proposal and plan provide for the acquisition of 81 properties. Fourteen properties are to be acquired for residential and related uses, 66 properties are to be acquired for institutional and related uses, and one property is to be acquired for commercial and related uses. Residential and related uses: At the request of the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, one occupied structure will be acquired for residential and related use. This parcel will complete the site assembly for the last phase of the Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zone. The property will be used in the development of 41 new construction homeownership units as part of the third and final phase of the Cecil 20 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 B. Moore Homeownership Zone Project, which is an area bounded by North 19th Street, North 20th Street, Master Street and Jefferson Street. The current property owner will be relocated as part of the development plan. The estimated acquisition costs, including relocation benefits, are $142,730, and the funding source for the acquisition costs is NTI bond proceeds. At the request of Tower Investment, Inc., 13 properties will be acquired for residential and related uses on behalf of Pennsylvania Development Partners, LLC, an affiliate of Tower Investment. The RDA Board authorized the Authority to enter into a Non-Assistance Agreement with Pennsylvania Development Partners, LLC. The agreement will require that Pennsylvania Development Partners, LLC to pay for all direct and indirect costs associated with this acquisition. Estimated acquisition costs are $2,752,000. 21 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Institutional and related uses: At the request of Temple University, 66 vacant lots will be acquired for institutional and related uses on behalf of Temple University. Temple plans to develop a new student classroom and laboratory building. The RDA Board authorized the Authority to enter into a Non-Assistance Agreement with Temple University. The agreement will require Temple University to pay for all direct and indirect costs associated with this acquisition. Estimated acquisition costs are $1,318,375. Commercial and related uses: At the request of the Commerce Department, one vacant parcel of land will be acquired for future commercial development. It is intended that this parcel will be for the proposed site of a supermarket development at the southeast corner of 27th and Girard Avenue. Estimated acquisition costs are $2,752,750. The funding source for 22 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 acquisition costs is the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 7 060347 and would ask for the suspension of Council rules to allow first reading June 1, 2006.
Thank you very much. I'd like to hear from City Planning, please.
Thank you and good morning again. I'm Richard Redding, Director of Community Planning at the Planning Commission, testifying in support of Bill No. 060347, which authorizes acquisitions in four sections of North Philadelphia. No. 1, 27th and Girard; No. 2, Temple University; No. 3, Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zone; and, finally, in Northern Liberties. The Planning Commission approved this at its meeting of April 20, 23 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 2006. At the same time, we amended the North Philadelphia Redevelopment Area plan to correct any land use discrepancy, and it's also consistent with a previous blight certification for the vicinity of 27th and Girard. That's my testimony. Thank you, and I'd be happy to try to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. Mr. Wetzel, can you be more specific about how the authorization process for acquisitions work and what laws govern this process?
The process from the very outset requires that an area be certified blighted by the City Planning Commission, and that requires the Planning Commission to do research, do a blight certification and adopt a redevelopment area plan. Once that's done, the Redevelopment Authority can proceed to 24 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 adopt what's called redevelopment proposals, which these are today. Adopt a redevelopment proposal, have that redevelopment proposal go to the Planning Commission, and then that redevelopment proposal has to come before this body in the form of an ordinance, and then the Mayor has to sign that ordinance. Then the Redevelopment Authority can proceed to acquire.
Can you explain why or how the 13 properties proposed for conveyance to Tower Investment, Inc. made it to the redevelopment proposal and then into this bill?
Yes. It was a request to continue. There was a previous redevelopment proposal adopted for Tower at this particular location, and this was additional properties to fill out that site, is my understanding.
I understand certainly your commitment and 25 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 I will state for everyone here that you have always, always kept your word with us.
However, once this bill passes in its present form, the authorization for acquisition exists in perpetuity with no 10 sunset clause. In the future if there is different leadership of the RDA, they could exercise the right to do whatever it is that would be contrary to this bill. Wouldn't you agree?
I know you're going to agree with us. You're wonderful and you always keep your word, but --
-- I think that we have to be very careful of what we're doing.
I agree with you, 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 and I think that we have done a number of things in the past, for example, in your district and in others where you have said, Would you not acquire these properties, will you enter into a rehab agreement with these individuals so that once they fix them up and satisfy that rehab agreement, then whatever is in this ordinance goes away. In addition to that, if I were requested by any Councilmember to issue a letter to anybody who owns a property that's in this ordinance, I could issue a letter that indicated the fact that the Redevelopment Authority has no intention of acquiring this particular property under Bill number, whatever the bill 19 number is, and once that letter is issued, our power to acquire through eminent domain ceases and they'd have to come back to Council again. The Redevelopment Authority would have to come back to this body. So if there is at any point in 27 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 time -- most of the time what we've done is rehab agreements or revestment agreements with owners so they would go and fix up the properties. But if any Councilmember here who asked us to send a letter to a property owner saying that we will not use eminent domain as authorized under that bill, then we could not act on eminent domain without coming back to this body with another ordinance.
And I would be glad to do that at any time for any Councilperson.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Wetzel, how does this happen? How do you get properties from one district and another district and 28 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 comingle them in the same bill? Thank God people paid attention and looked at it. These are pretty routine bills, they go through pretty quickly. And what are the properties in Councilmember DiCicco's district, what are they for? What's that project?
That's for residential and related uses. It's a proposed project by Bart Blatstein. And the reason that this ended up covering two Council districts is, the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area actually spills over into the First District, a small piece of it does.
Well, did you know that this happened? Did you know that this happened when it was done? When the bill was drafted, who drafted the bill?
So you were aware that there were two different 29 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 districts?
I was aware that this -- I wasn't aware from the very beginning that there were two different districts. I'd become aware of it recently that there were two different districts.
I started talking to Councilman DiCicco, what, last week when I became aware of it.
And you're going to find out how that happened, or 30 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 you just think that was a mistake?
Despite the fact that the development may be controversial in somebody's district.
Yes. I think it was a mistake, and I accept responsibility for it.
I will share with you a memorandum that I issued yesterday saying that no redevelopment proposal will go before the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Authority unless there's written evidence from the district Councilperson that such an ordinance has their support. And I'll share that. I have it with me. I'll share it with you.
No. I've been 31 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 here six and a half years and it's never happened before.
So it's only happened in Councilman DiCicco's district with a project that might be controversial in the community, and that just happened?
Accepting responsibility is one thing, but who in your staff is doing it? That's the other question. And how did it happen and why when one time in six years it happened it's in Councilman DiCicco's district, with a project that may be somewhat controversial? Potentially, not necessarily.
Does it or 32 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 not? Doesn't it seem strange to you?
A single mistake in six years in one district where there may be some issues. Okay.
Good morning. Follow-up question. Has this issue been fixed going forward?
Yes. I'll share with you the memo that my general counsel will -- I drafted to our general counsel. I think the simplest way to solve this is that there needs to be written evidence from the district Councilperson of their support or it doesn't go to our Board of Directors. That way, this won't happen. And there's only one urban renewal area that I'm aware of, unless there are others as a result of the change in districts, that is shared right now by two Councilpeople. 33 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347
I understand. I mean, I think those were shared previously, except that there's less of it in the First District now.
Your general counsel himself drafted the bill 14 personally?
He drafts the bill 16 and sends it to the City's Law Department.
How many people in the general counsel's office over there?
Three lawyers. Robert Guerra, Nicholas Scafidi, Vern 34 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Anastasio.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, if I can, I just want to follow up real briefly on that particular issue, and then I have a couple of questions to ask about two other properties in that ordinance. Mr. Wetzel, is it possible -- because I understand this whole issue about not being able to introduce another ordinance in a Model Cities area until that ordinance is signed because you're actually amending the original Model Cities Redevelopment Authority area. Is 35 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 it possible for the Redevelopment Authority or some other City agency to change the boundaries of the Model Cities area so you don't have an overlap between districts so that in the Fifth Councilmanic District, as an example, that will be one Model Cities area and in the First Councilmanic District that will be another Model Cities area so you don't have that overlap?
It's possible to change the boundaries of the urban renewal area and also a redevelopment area.
So that's something that you can do administratively or would it have to be the Planning Commission?
The Planning Commission has the ultimate authority over the boundaries of this. And I think it would be an excellent idea, because wherever there's a -- and, listen, there could be another one that I don't know of 36 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 at this point in time because of changes in districts, but it would make a lot of sense that an urban renewal area be within a single Council district, that it doesn't overlap more than one, it's not in two districts or three districts, which could be a possibility in East or North Philadelphia. And if that's a request, we could look at how to do it. They'd probably have a different name. It wouldn't be Model Cities A and B. We'd probably want to give it a different name.
While you've acknowledged that that's a good idea, I don't want to take full credit, because you and I had this conversation yesterday, so I want to make sure that everybody knew that you were a part of that discussion.
Councilman, I don't think it would be done administratively at the Planning 37 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Commission. It would go to our official Commission meeting.
And I'd like to actually do this. We have new state legislation so that in 120 days from May 3rd, any blight certifications have to be done under the new legislation. So if we're going to do this, we'll probably want to do this this summer and get these two separated, and if there's any others that are overlapping, separate those as well.
Councilwoman Miller just reminded me that we actually share some areas up in Tioga in the northern part of the Fifth District.
Many of us do share. Like I share with Councilwoman Blackwell.
I think South Central is shared. Is South Central 38 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 shared?
South Central is shared also. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President.
No. That was a part of the earlier discussion. I had some questions on my own. Thank you. Just real briefly, Mr. Wetzel, one of the acquisitions has to do with Phase III of Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zone.
Briefly, can you talk about the process on the current phase of Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zones and any acquisition and relocation of existing homeowners in that particular phase or the next phase, actually this current phase, what the process was for the residents that lived in that particular neighborhood. And the other thing, if at all possible, Madam President, I would like Mr. Bishop from Temple University to respond to the process as it relates to the acquisitions of properties for Temple University and what arrangement or what discussion is taking place with that community up in that area.
With regards to the homeowners whose properties were acquired for the Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zone, each owner of a property was given the opportunity to essentially have the right of first refusal for one of the new houses that is 40 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 being built, and of the homeowners accepted that opportunity. On a Saturday at 10th Memorial Church, we had two drawings. One, we drew their names out of a hat to establish the order they would pick numbers, and then they would -- and essentially we had names 9 on a list after that drawing was done, 10 and each one went in and stuck their hand 11 and picked out a ping pong ball with a 12 number on it, and starting with No. 1, 13 they went to the site and stuck a pin in 14 the new house where they're going to 15 move, which in many cases is less than 16 two blocks, I think you would agree, less 17 than two blocks from where they live now. And it was a very -- I can't describe it. It was one of those rare experiences where doing this work, you really felt like this is the reason that you do this. Seventeen people being able to stay in their neighborhoods, the neighborhoods they've lived in for years. And I'll tell you, the best -- I'll be real quick 41 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 about this, but a brother and sister have lived next to each other in a rowhouse for 30-some years and they were worried that they wouldn't be able to pick the new houses next to each other, because it was a lottery. And absolutely one of them was the fourth person to pick and one of them was the 13th person to pick. So they were pretty sure they weren't going to get a house next to each other. And what was absolutely amazing is, one of them picked ping pong ball No. 5 and the other one picked No. 6, and the brother and sister were able to select houses next to each other. So when they move, after 35 years of living next to each other, they'll continue to live next to each other. It was a great experience, and thank you for asking.
Thank you. And there was no additional cost to that homeowner. There was essentially a one-for-one swap, right?
No. And we 42 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 continue to do this for homeowners who have had some -- yes. Essentially, these homeowners, if they have no mortgage in their old house will have no mortgage in their new house. If they have an $8,000 mortgage in their current house, they'll have an $8,000 mortgage in their new house. But they will have no more debt when they move into their new house than they have on their house today.
Thank you. Mr. Bishop, can you please state your name for the record.
Yes. My name is Tabb Bishop. I am Deputy Chief of Staff, the Office of the President, Temple University.
Mr. Bishop, there are several parcels in this bill 21 that Temple is interested in acquiring. Could you tell me what Temple is going to build and what discussions they've had with the community as it relates to the development of the site? 43 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347
Thank you, Councilman. Temple University, a lot of people look at Temple as a teaching institution, but it also has part of its mission as being research. As the University has been growing and expanding its programs in different initiatives, we needed to find some additional space to do this research. This parcel will be used to support that research mission that the University has. It will be a four-story 200,000 square foot facility on the lower end of that parcel. This parcel is bounded by Montgomery to the south, Berks Street to the north, 11th to the west and Warnock Street to the east. So closer to the Montgomery Avenue side will be the facility itself, and to the northern end, the northern half of that site will be parking for the University use for a variety of students or faculty members that want to use it. And for the University to be able to get to this point, we realized 44 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 that an important part of this process will be making sure we have community support. We've met with the residents closest to that site. That will be Norris Homes, Jefferson Manor and Yorktown. These community groups, we've established a bit of a working rapport with, and we have some forward-looking projects that we're working on together. They have agreed to be supportive of us moving forward on this project. And this is all part of the working relationship that we've established with them that relates not just to this project but to several other projects that we're working on with the community.
I've had a recent discussion with Senator Kitchen, who represents the area, and she indicated that you all will be drafting some sort of agreement between the community and Temple University that will provide certain things as it relates to these discussions. 45 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347
That's correct, Councilman. We will memorialize all the arrangements and then have that as a shared document between the University and the community.
Can we agree that that will be available to this body prior to the ultimate passage of the bill?
Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Wetzel, I just want to go back over some of the questions that were asked by my colleague, Councilman Kenney, in relationship to the office of the general counsel. I'm sure Mr. Guerra 46 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 leaves most of the work up to his staff to decide when they draft legislation and he reviews the final document.
No. He's the kind of general counsel that he does all ordinances and resolutions himself. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And does staff review his work?
There's all kinds of legal activities at the Redevelopment Authority in terms of lawsuits, contracts, redevelopment contracts, redevelopment proposals and things like that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So how would he have gotten the information or the properties in question in my district? How would they have gotten to his desk?
That would have come to him from our Urban Renewal 47 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Division. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So staff has nothing basically to do with the drafting of the legislation?
No. And the legislation is drafted and then the process is, an ordinance or resolution is drafted, it is then forwarded to Richie Feder in the City's Law Department for review and approval. We get an e-mail saying come pick it up. We deliver it to the second floor to the Mayor's office. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The reason I ask that, because you and I have had a number of conversations over the last several months about that office and, in particular, one of its employees and the information that comes out of that office concerning me and my activities as a Councilperson and the job that I've been doing, most of which have been very negative. So in the 11 years that I've been here -- and I fully agree with the comments made by Council President 48 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Verna -- I always found you to be a very trustworthy person. You've always responded to my office and me. I never had a question about your sincerity or honesty or integrity, but as you know, there's been a lot of blogs and other information coming out of that office. So for me, this becomes another issue where I have to put out one of those little fires in the community that I represent. In fact, there are a number of folks here from Northern Liberties today who may have been under the opinion that because Mr. Blatstein is a big contributor, maybe not to me but to other folks, and the issue of pay-to-play and all those things we're dealing with, that there may have been some side deal agreement between me and Mr. Blatstein to include or somehow insert these properties in question into this bill, which is not the case. So I just wanted to make sure 49 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 that when you go back and talk to Mr. Guerra, that he makes certain that some of these things be put to rest once and for all. Because taxpayers are funding that office. There's a whole issue going on in this Council on the reorganization of the Redevelopment Authority, and for its employees to sit there and basically promote themselves on a daily basis, whether it's against me or another member of this Council, I think is certainly inappropriate for a government authority to engage in that kind of practice. I wanted to state that for the record. My colleague, Councilman Clarke, who is the sponsor of this bill, earlier spoke on this, as we did, Mr. Wetzel, and I'm going to make a statement for the record that because of the several concerns that have been raised by the property owners and the civic association regarding the portion of this bill that relates to my district 50 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 and Northern Liberties; more importantly, the developer who would like to acquire these properties had not approached my office or the community prior to the introduction of this bill and, as a result, the prospect of moving forward on condemnation makes me very uneasy, I am requesting that you do not move forward on property acquisition on any of the properties in my district until you hear from me. And that has been met with the approval of the sponsor of the bill, Councilman Clarke.
And as we discussed, I will go on the public record and agree that the Redevelopment Authority will take no action regarding these properties without discussion with you directly. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.
Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? 51 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 (No response.)
Seeing none, I would ask Ms. -- I'm sorry. Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you. My fault. I submitted it earlier. We have testimony from Gloria Guard, People's Emergency Center, and we ask that this be submitted for testimony supporting the application.
Our next witness is Daniel Bleznak and Steven Seidel. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Your Honor, I am not part of --
I'm sorry. You're going to have to come to the witness table, identify yourself, please. I'm sorry. Councilman Nutter, did you want to put something on the record?
Yes, Madam Chair, before we go into the next round. Going back to the issue earlier 52 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 that was raised about urban renewal areas and districts which happen to cross boundaries between or among multiple Council districts, I'd at least like to get on the record for Mr. Wetzel. As was pointed out by yourself, you share some with Councilwoman Blackwell. Councilman Clarke and Councilwoman Miller share some. I share at least share one with Councilwoman Blackwell as well. So I would only ask that if the Redevelopment Authority is reviewing all of these urban renewal areas and looking at them on a Council district basis, to make sure that any that are shared primarily, I think, between the Third and the Fourth are reviewed as well, and if they're going to start separating them based on boundaries, A, B, 1, 2, 3, whatever the system is going to be, I just want to make sure that those get reviewed as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank 53 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 you. As a matter of fact --
-- we just got bills from the Administration and I assume that there is one that we got that relates to Councilman Clarke and Councilwoman Miller. Gentlemen, I'm going to ask you to please be very brief. Please identify yourself for the record and be as brief as possible.
My name is Daniel Bleznak. I am here today representing my family partnership of 27th and Girard Limited Partnership, which is the owner of the parcel in question at 27th and Girard Avenue. I will be as brief as possible. We have a long history on this site and I will try to be quick. I would like to thank City Council and the Rules Committee for providing me with the opportunity to speak today regarding the thirty-fifth 54 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 amended redevelopment proposal and the twenty-seventh amended urban renewal plan that is the subject of this Rules Committee session. As I mentioned, my name is Dan Bleznak and I come before you today to speak on behalf of 27th and Girard Limited Partnership. 27th and Girard Limited Partnership consists entirely of my family members. First, I think it's important that I provide you with a history of my family's involvement in the site, as we've been part of the West Girard Avenue community for more than two generations. And let me be absolutely clear, we have not and have no intention of abandoning the West Girard Avenue community or this site. We believe that the successful redevelopment of this site must occur, not through the taking of our property but rather through a public/private partnership between property owner, the City and the local civic groups. Any other method will 55 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 further delay redevelopment of this site and the revitalization of the West Girard Avenue corridor. We, therefore, respectfully request that this property be removed from the proposed ordinance. From 1958 until approximately 1997, the property operated successfully as a small neighborhood supermarket. In the first redevelopment of this site when my family originally purchased the property, the then existing bus terminal building was converted to a Baltimore Markets. In this process, this conversion, we worked hand in hand with the City to redevelop the site in order to make it an attractive and welcoming place for the local community to shop. Eventually, Baltimore Markets was taken over and operated as a Food Fair for many years. In approximately 1980, Food Fair entered bankruptcy, causing the property to become mired in a bankruptcy court litigation. While the bankruptcy 56 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 court trustee shopped the site to potential users, my family diligently pursued a new supermarket, and confident that we could secure a new food store, we bought back our own lease at substantial risk that a market would remain at the property. In 1982, we were able to secure a lease with an independent supermarket operator that operated under the Shop N Bag name through 1997. Unfortunately, due to changing market conditions, the operators of the Shop N Bag store could no longer survive and the building was vacated. In a communication that we promptly shared with Councilman Clarke, then Chief Legislative Assistant to then Councilman Street, this operator advised that it was infeasible to continue to operate a supermarket business at this site. After meeting with the community on several occasions at the guidance of Councilman Clarke and 57 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 consultations with neighboring business owners, we offered the best alternative to a neighborhood market when we entered into a lease with Eckert Corporation to develop a 13,000 square foot drugstore at the site. Understanding the community's desire for a food store, we convinced Eckert to expand the prototype store to sell groceries and commit a certain percentage of its floor area to food sales. While the lease was entered into in 1998, the redevelopment of the site was never realized due to delays in the development process. The primary reason for the delay centered on the vacation of Chang Street, a small public road that bisected the site and needed to be eliminated in order to accommodate the expanded store.
Despite the efforts of Council, including Council President Verna, who was kind enough to introduce the request, we were not able to obtain assistance until January 2001, at which 58 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 time, after spending $500,000 in pre-development costs and securing all building permits and zoning approvals, Eckert Corporation fell into financial trouble and ceased its expansion plans nationwide, resulting in the ultimate termination of the lease. Again with the guidance of Councilman Clarke, we met with many tenant prospects for the property, including several supermarkets. After several failed attempts to secure a supermarket and an alternative drugstore operator to Eckert, we entered into a lease with McDonald's Corporation in 2002. McDonald's attended civic and business association meetings and committed to establishing 60 jobs, as well as enhanced architecture, lighting and other improvements at the site. Although the development received mixed support within the community, the project successfully received approvals and zoning variances, 59 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 only to be later overturned upon appeal, ultimately resulting in McDonald's termination of the lease. During almost 50 years that my family has owned the property, we have successfully leased the site to a food store for 40 of those years. Since Shop N Bag vacated the site in 1997, we continued to pursue the successful redevelopment of this site. Given our longstanding history of ownership at the site, I am sure you can imagine my family's shock this past Friday, May 26th when we received an overnight delivery advising us that the Redevelopment Authority intends to condemn our property for commercial use and that the City Rules Committee would be voting to take our property in less than a week. Again, we have been here for 50 years and have made considerable financial investment over the past eight years in order to redevelop this site, 60 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 which includes, I would like to add, we have recently procured an Act 2 release for this site only two weeks ago. Today, the seeds being planted for the revitalization of West Girard Avenue are taking root. Brewerytown Square has brought new housing and people to the area. Market conditions are now taking a positive turn that will allow us to successfully redevelop this site. Given that market conditions are only now ripe for commercial redevelopment in the area, the introduction of this proposed ordinance is ill-timed and will only stall redevelopment efforts. We believe that a taking of our property, whether for another developer to redevelop or a specific end user or otherwise, is simply unjustified and, moreover, unjust. In closing, I can tell you that I've seen the blogs on the web that talk about our site and the redevelopment that is coming. They even refer to presentations made by other developers 61 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 that claim to have control of the site, and meetings with community leaders. In fact, we hear that in one instance it is rumored that another site has emerged a prime location for a neighborhood supermarket, news which, if true, makes the proposed taking even more unnecessary. I do not put much credence into rumors, but one thing is clear, there's a lot of discussion about the redevelopment of our site, none of which involves us, the owners. On behalf of 27th and Girard Limited Partnership and my family, I ask that you remove the property from the list so that we can work together to bring a first-class development to this community. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
You're welcome. Any questions from members of the Committee? 62 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, gentlemen. First, I would like to thank you on behalf of the community for your years of commitment to the community. It's a community that I lived in and frequented the former shopping site, and as you indicated, it went of business, unfortunately, and there were a number of unsuccessful attempts to get that site developed. This particular proposal to condemn this site was done after substantial discussion, both in the community and among government. It was not our first choice. My understanding, although I was not a part of the discussions, that there had been substantial attempts by both private entities and government to acquire the site on a number of occasions over the last two years. I personally have not 63 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 heard from your family or your representatives in two years, essentially since the McDonald's deal fell through. The site is a blight on the community, and I admit that you in fact attempted to develop it on a number of occasions working with the community. My concern, frankly speaking, because I haven't heard from you in two years, because the community continues to need to have that site developed for a supermarket, we did have hearings earlier, actually late last year, authorizing the City to purchase this site through PIDC. The City has indicated a willingness to make that money available. There has been substantial discussion with the Girard Coalition. They came in on two occasions to testify in support of the City acquiring this site, but in spite of that, I held off. We are now two years down the line since the last proposal and I think 64 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 that it was time for us to act on this particular parcel. In spite of that, as I indicated to you earlier in a side-bar in the hallway, I would like to ask the Committee to vote this out of Committee, but agreed to hold this while we can set up several meetings, both with the City and with the community members and the representatives, and talk about your proposed redevelopment plan, which this is the first I've heard of it. Actually, yesterday when I got a letter from your lawyer. So I'm personally willing to set up whatever meeting we need to have with the community, but I would like to pass this out of Committee so we can continue to move this process and hopefully we can come to a consensus.
We understand and we thank you, and we also agree that this site needs to be developed. And we understand based on our conversations earlier that this property is with a 65 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 whole host of other properties that are considered in this bill and that this legislation is moving forward -- or this ordinance is moving forward. Excuse me. We would like very much the opportunity to meet to discuss redevelopment plans, and, likewise, we believe, again, I'd like to reiterate, that the fastest and best way to do this is through a partnership with the City. And I know that the City and -- I'm curious as to who other property owners or who other developers that are proposing uses at this site be open and frank with us so that we can work together to bring a development plan. We have clearly creative ideas. The site is 1.2 acres and it is small for a supermarket, but large by City standards. There are clearly creative ideas that can be talked through to make something happen here, and we have some of those ideas and I suspect the City does as well. So we would like very much 66 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 to sit down and talk and see what we can work together, see how we can best work.
Thank you. Any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none -- sir, are you also going to testify?
Again, I'm going to ask all of the witnesses that will be approaching the witness table to please, please be as brief as possible. We have an awful lot of work to do this morning and we're really running behind schedule. So please introduce yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you, Madam 67 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 President, Vice-Chair Clarke, members of the Rules Committee. My name is Daniel Reisman. I'm a partner in the Philadelphia office of the law firm of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott. We represent Mr. Bleznak's partnership with respect to the property. I have prepared testimony, which I'll provide, and I guess I'll just briefly summarize it based on --
And if you give us a copy of your testimony, we'll give it to the stenographer and it will be transcribed in full.
Yes, I will. The point I'd like to emphasize at least from -- I'm glad to hear that Councilman Clarke is going to be meeting with my client and try to work on a way to redevelop this property most efficiently. I think the legal issue as the lawyer is that in this context, these types of takings from one private owner to another private owner receive a lot of 68 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 scrutiny by the courts. As the Committee probably knows, the Supreme Court had a decision, the Kelo decision, a year ago. The Commonwealth Court just earlier this February of 2006 also had a decision in fact in which it held that the condemnation of a property by the Redevelopment Authority to a religious institution to use it as a middle school violated state law. And I think in terms of the goal of everybody, which is to put this property back on the market and redevelop it, I think the best thing is for the parties to work together. I note that in the Commonwealth Court case, the Commonwealth Court decision was not issued until nearly three and a half years after the Redevelopment Authority declared a taking. In Kelo, the time between the date of the taking and the Supreme Court decision stood at four and a half years. So I think the takings process is a cumbersome one and I think, again, 69 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 it's best if the parties can work together on this. My client is a capable developer, and I think working with the City, we can redevelop this site. Thank you, and I would be pleased to hand up my testimony so that the members can read it.
I was going to leave it alone, but I'm a little concerned at the tone of your representation. Mr. Bleznak, I have agreed to not proceed on the final taking so we can have an amicable discussion about the site. Then your lawyer follows up by essentially threatening to fight us in court, when I've clearly indicated that that's not our position at this point. So I would hope that in the future when we do sit down and talk, that's not going to be the tenor of the discussion, that you threaten us with the 70 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Kelo lawsuit, which this is, I believe, much different than that particular lawsuit, because we're clearly aware of the state ruling and other rulings. So I hope that's not going to be the tenor of the discussion.
No, absolutely not. I think what I am saying is, other than me being here today, it's best to keep the lawyers out of the process in this redevelopment, other than to the extent there is zoning needs and so on. And I think with the existing developer developing the property, it's going to be more efficient, and I would hope that's the way this plays out. But it's certainly not meant as a threat of any kind. I've just seen these situations where they get tied up, and I don't think it's something that anybody wants to see.
If I may, Councilman, we did receive this only on Thursday and it did take us by surprise. 71 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 I agree with you, we need to sit down and talk, you and I, about how best to redevelop this site. So it is not the intention of our organization in any way to make this an adversarial process. I think, as you stated, for two years it's been too long and I think it's time for us to talk and communicate well, and that is my full intention.
Would the Sergeant-At-Arms get a copy of testimony, please, give it to the stenographer. Our next witness is?
Steven Seidel and -- excuse the pronunciation if it's incorrect -- Irachmiel Daskal.
No. I represent James Geckle, your Honor, and our testimony will be very brief. Mr. Geckle and his family have 72 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 lived in the area and owned the properties in question, which are 959, 961 and 963 North American Street, for approximately 90 years. Mr. Geckle in fact has entered into a contract to sell these three properties to a redeveloper, although not the one that was presented here recently. My client has already done that. And I appreciate Mr. DiCicco's statement that his office is going to cooperate and is willing to stay the proceedings that are involved in this area of Northern Liberties. I would hope that the Council will duly take Councilman DiCicco's honest efforts and agree that 959, 961 and 963 North American be excluded from any action. Thank you.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, 73 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Madam President. Could you tell me when your client was notified of the taking, or proposed taking?
I mean, as I'm sitting here, Madam President -- and I know it's not the Councilmember's fault, because the last witness said he got his notice on Thursday. This guy got his notice two weeks ago. And now we come in here with this legislation, which is supposed to be, in my mind, wrapped up and done, and we're negotiating taking. It's like a courtroom. Why can't we notify these people earlier so that they can come to their district Councilperson, work out what they got to work out or not, and 74 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 then come in here and have a hearing where we approve something that's already been agreed to? I mean, I don't understand. How could a person get on a parcel like the last witness Thursday notice of the taking? I don't understand it. And now Councilman Clarke has got to figure out how to juggle what we're going to do and talk, we're going to hold it up, get it out of Committee, we're going to talk about it later. It shouldn't even be here until everything is resolved. And this happens more than I want it to happen. It happens all the time, that there's always two or three or four people who pop up at the last minute who got notified at the last minute, and we got to come in and be the arbiter of something that we shouldn't be arbitering. It's nuts. It's no way to do this legislation, and it makes people feel like things are happening behind their back when it shouldn't be this way. 75 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347
Councilman Kenney, I think we would all agree with you. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, thank you very much for allowing me to present our case. I just want to mention a brief comment about Mr. Wetzel's proposal. A letter would be --
I'm sorry. Please identify yourself for the record.
I'm sorry. Irachmiel Daskal. I'm an owner of some properties in Northern Liberties.
Not at all. It's 76 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 not the first time. I-R-A-C-H-M-I-E-L, Daskal, D-A-S-K-A-L.
Just about Mr. Wetzel's comment, a letter would be inadequate since no bank is going to fund us or help us rehabilitate any of the properties when the eminent domain looms over our property. So this is really not good. First allow me to comment on the manner in which information concerning this hearing were disseminated. Very germane to what you just mentioned, Councilman. This itself raises some questions about the propriety of due process. Councilman Darrell Clarke proposed the ordinance on May 6th. The letters were dated May 8. Most likely were not mailed out on the same day. The mail was not registered. My letter was 77 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 delivered at an address four blocks away from my property. By serendipity, somebody found it on the sidewalk. Therefore, the hearings were scheduled less than three weeks since the letter was actually issued. I think there needs to be some improvement in this process. So my question to you is, why is there such a rush in this process? What's the reason that we're rushing this legislature in such a manner? Is it because of House Bill 2054 signed by Governor Rendell on May 4, 2006 and will take effect sometime in September and that deals directly with the eminent domain issue? Is the purpose of this bill to declare Northern Liberties as a blighted area before the bill is coming into effect? What is their attempt to pass this bill before the enactment of House Bill 2504? I do not have the answer to these questions. My wife and I are facing retirement, have decided to change our 78 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 strategy and do some investments in the area. We studied and found Northern Liberties to be a very attractive site, and after extensive research, we did start investing and we acquired a number of properties. During the last four years, we invested significantly in this area, and all these properties now will be at risk of condemnation if this bill 11 passes. Since we developed the areas -- and I can show you some pictures -- we're about to complete also 17-lane bowling alley that will add another jobs to 16 the City of Philadelphia and in the last 17 four years we'll be investing in excess 18 of $5 million in this area. " 25 I wonder if Northern Liberties 79 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 indeed warrants a designation of slum and blight. I wonder if Councilman Clarke has visited the neighborhood to determine if Northern Liberties meets this criteria and whether it is appropriate to sponsor such an ordinance. The question I would like to ask is, what are the real motives for this ordinance, knowing clearly that it's not in his district and knowing very well that Councilman DiCicco rejected the sale by the RDA to the Pennsylvania Development Partners, LLC, or, more precisely, directly to Mr. Bart Blatstein? Case in point, Forbes Magazine March 10th of 2006 described Northern Liberties as coveted by developers and ranked it 11th nationwide. I want to repeat that. 11th nationwide, in the 90th percentile as the most desirable area for investment in this country. New York times edition of August 14, 2005 had a major article on Philadelphia describing it as the next 80 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 borough of New York and singled out Northern Liberties as the most desirable area to live in. Metro headlines, that Northern Liberties Continues to Flourish and Experience a Real Estate Boom, August 29, 2005. The Northstar headlines, Northern Liberties' Business is Booming, September 2005. Philadelphia Inquirer, major article, August 13, 2002, as the next hot neighborhood in the City. On and on and on. To date, almost a billion dollars and more are invested in Northern Liberty. Hardly a slum or blighted area. There are additional plans for additional hundreds of housing units in this area, as well as other major developments for approximately another billion dollars. And this is billion, not million.
Northern Liberties is clearly the site for major national and international investors. This certainly does not meet either a slum or a blighted 81 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 area as the Honorable Mr. Clarke tries to convince City Council. My question to this Committee is, what is the proposed use of the 6 properties condemned, among them my own, 7 in the area? Why after so many years 8 that Northern Liberties was undeveloped 9 is the RDA suddenly waking up, coming now 10 to condemn these properties? What is the 11 real agenda? Who drives this agenda? 12 My property at 948 North 2nd 13 Street is the most desirable location on 14 the major artery in Northern Liberties and adjoining mine are two buildings. Since we took ownership of this property, we completely resurfaced the roof. We never received any violations on this property from City of Philadelphia. Neither did we receive any notice requesting us to improve the property within a set period of time. The taxes are kept up. We pay them on time, and the building is connected to PECO electrical work. It is not an abandoned 82 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 property. It is used as an equipment repair shop and storage facility for equipment to be used in our bowling alley that's under construction. It is occupied and used on a daily basis. The facade of this building is not worse than that of the main office of Tower Investment just across the street. The current plans for 948 is to house a tenant who is a graduate of the Cordon Bleu School of Culinary Science in Paris, who will operate a four, maybe even five star French restaurant. Plain and simple, the plan of the RDA is to sell the properties to the PA Development Partners, LLC, which is owned by Tower Investment, which is owned by Bart Blatstein. The choice of the developer is flawed, because there's a clear conflict of interest where Tower Investment invested in this area in excess of $250 million. It is clear that this represents an attempt by Tower Investment to exploit the City ordinance 83 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 for its own advantage by gaining control over properties in prime location that they could not acquire by other means for the sole purpose to reap for profits. The condemnation sale of properties to private developers is contrary to the State of Pennsylvania's state act redefining blight to narrow its use as a basis for condemnation. The House Bill 2054 entitled Imitation Use of Eminent Domain passed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania clearly prohibits this kind of transaction, was signed into law in Pennsylvania as of May 4th this year. Of course, it's going to be enacted only another 120 days. This clearly prohibits these condemnations. It will be enacted on September this year, unfortunately. And 948 2nd Street clearly does not meet any of this criteria. Allow me to conclude only with a statement that was read by the Supreme Court Judge O'Connor following the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo 84 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 versus the City of New London.
I'm going to count it. I'm going to count the 30 seconds.
Okay. This is what Judge O'Connor said. "Any property may not be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the follow-up decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. The aspect of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz Carlton, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory." For all these reasons I stated 85 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 above, I urge you again to completely amend this bill and to delete the 4 properties from the list of Northern 5 Liberties. 6 Thank you very much for your 7 patience and time. 8
Thank 9 you very much. 10 And for our next witnesses, I 11 think in fairness before you testify, 12 there is a commitment on the record not 13 to proceed with the Northern Liberties 14 acquisitions. So if you are testifying regarding that matter, again, I'm going to ask you to really be very, very brief. Identify yourself for the record, please.
Madam President and members of the Rules Committee, I'm Edgar Einhorn and I'm Dr. Daskal's counsel. The only problem that I have with the commitment from the Redevelopment Authority is that it 86 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 creates a very bad problem when you go to a lender. If you go to a bank and Dr. Daskal goes to finance this property, they're going to want to know if there's any imminence of condemnation or other City action. There's a bill that gives them the power of condemnation. Consequently, there's going to be financing problems. I would ask that this bill be deferred until it can be amended. And the reason I say that, if you read your own ordinance, it specifically says that there is no imminence of condemnation because they require funding. If the bill specifically says that, why can't we withdraw this bill, put in a new bill 19 that deletes these properties so these people are not obstructed from getting lending? There also is a problem whether L&I would even issue permits if this is in a redevelopment area and subject to condemnation. 87 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Thank you.
My name is Jared Langman. I own the adjoining properties next to Mr. Daskal, which were just recently approved two months ago by the Zoning Board of Philadelphia and also granted a letter of support by Mr. Frank DiCicco. Here's the notice of my decision granting me my project for the properties that are in question, 950, 952, 954 North 2nd Street. I invested so far to date approximately $86,000 in soft costs, not including my purchase price of the property, which I acquired approximately eight months ago. I've been planning 88 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 over that period of eight months to construct a multi-million dollar condominium project that would consist of five condominiums and a commercial space. Average price selling for $560,000 up to $1.1 million. So this area is an area that I think is far from blighted and, at the moment, is at a boom. A friend of mine, a fellow developer, is building a multi-million dollar project on Brown and American by the name of SREI Innovations, a prominent developer right now in the City. He's also doing a project on North 3rd, 3rd and Brown, where he's building townhomes and condominiums. So there is a lot of small business, individuals investing a considerable amount of money in this area. And right now because of this ordinance, I had to put all my plans on hold. Because I was in the middle of a marketing campaign for this project and now I have to put everything on hold, and 89 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 it's costing me time and money and --
I don't mean to cut you short, but I think you have a commitment that was made here. It's on the record.
I'd like to have my properties and Mr. Daskal's properties completely removed from this ordinance, because this will jeopardize my financing here. I'm in the middle of -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I have a question.
I need my properties completely removed from this ordinance. I want no record of my properties or Mr. Daskal's properties on this ordinance.
Mr. Wetzel, would you please approach the witness table.
I certainly understand. 90 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347
This property is directly across -- I don't know if Mr. Wetzel neglected to mention. Bart Blatstein's offices are directly across the street from these mentioned properties. It's a little bit coincidental, I think.
You cannot -- this proposal is adopted in total or it has to start all over again at the Redevelopment Authority.
And that's the legislative body's choice. The letter that I indicated that I would give is a letter that says that no eminent domain action would be taken under this ordinance, meaning that the Redevelopment Authority would not act and use its eminent domain powers, and it would 91 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 require the Authority, if it ever were to, to come back with another ordinance. We're prepared to do that.
I'm not happy with that. I'm not happy with that. I think the ordinance should be completely resubmitted, omitting my properties and Mr. Daskal's properties that are mentioned.
Excuse me, sir. First of all, the stenographer does not know who you are. You're going to have to identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Einhorn again. Madam President, unfortunately, that letter is not going to satisfy a lender. What happens when Mr. Wetzel leaves, we have a new Mayor, a new Councilman? They can say, We're not bound by that letter. And a lender is 92 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 just not going to take that risk. Either these properties are out of the bill or they're in there and we suffer the consequences.
We have too much to lose. We've invested too much already. It's not fair to us. And just for the record again, this letter was written on May 9th. I received it May 15th. I had two weeks to prepare and do my due diligence here. This is ridiculous. Two weeks to prepare.
Madam President, I agree, this is ridiculous. How many times do we got to go through this where people get notified a week or two weeks before --
That's ridiculous. And it came regular mail. It wasn't certified. It wasn't registered.
-- we didn't do this. This is not this body's fault. It's the RDA's fault that came over here unprepared again. I mean, I understand projects are timely. I understand there's issues, but I can't vote for something that's haphazardly rushed through time and time again. We always have -- every time these bills come over here --
Every time these bills come over here, there's always people popping up with horror 94 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 stories about being notified at the last minute. Their district Councilperson, if they were notified earlier, could intercede and intervene for them and help them, but they can't even do that. Now they're trying to patch and paste this bill together with letters of -- it's ridiculous.
And I'm not voting for any of this stuff anymore. And maybe there's a reason why the Mayor wants to reorganize the housing agencies.
Madam Chairman, what we teach my fellows in medicine, we say if it looks like a dog and it barks like a dog and runs like a dog, most likely it's a dog. Too many mistakes and coincidences in this whole affair. The mistake, the general counsel wrote the whole ordinance.
He hasn't made a 95 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 mistake in six years.
The Executive Director never saw that. We get the mailing late. Something here is different than just a coincidence, and that's our problem.
And Bart Blatstein's offices are directly across the street. That's more than a coincidence. More than a coincidence, Tower Investments.
And, again, you're going to have to identify yourself.
I said Edgar Einhorn, Madam President. Councilman DiCicco didn't say it, but one of the counsel in RDA happened to have been a candidate against him when he last ran for Council, Mr. Anastasio. Coincidental. Another coincidence. 96 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347
Unbeknownst to Mr. Blatstein, he was talking to a friend of mine that Mr. Blatstein didn't know was a friend of mine and told my friend directly that he's tired of looking at these properties out of his office and seeing everyone else get rich from his projects. His words. He's tired of seeing everyone else get rich.
Lisa Baron, Eva Gladstein and Debbie King are our last three witnesses.
You're welcome, sir. Again, I'm going to ask each of you to be as brief as possible. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
My name is Lisa Baron. Good afternoon, and I will be very, very brief, just to say that I do request also that my property located at 97 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 148 West Wildey Street be removed from this ordinance. It is a vacant lot. I have a prepared statement. I'm not even going to read it. I'm just going to say that we were notified on May the -- well, we received a letter dated May the 9th from the RDA saying that they were going to take our property, I could come down to the RDA and look at any proposed plans that were in effect, which I did. I was not able to meet with anyone. President Verna, I had to contact your office to ask for some assistance, and I want to thank you for that, because they were instrumental, I believe, in getting the RDA to at least return my telephone call. When they returned my call, they told me my property was blighted. It's a vacant lot. On either side of me happens to be Mr. Blatstein's properties, which are also vacant lots. The whole lot looks exactly the same. And I said, 98 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Well, how can my lot be blighted and Mr. Blatstein's not be blighted? And there was no answer to that question. So I am going to put my faith in Councilman DiCicco and that this matter will be resolved, but I really -- it's a little tiny by 34 building lot 9 that I still don't know what the RDA 10 wants it for. I listened to the 11 testimony, but I can't understand what 12 they want my little lot for. So I'm 13 asking that it be removed. 14 That's all I have to say. 15
Good afternoon. My testimony mistakenly said good afternoon, until just now. My name is Eva Gladstein, Director of Neighborhood Transformation for the City of Philadelphia. 99 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 In light of the time, I'll enter it in testimony. What it does is summarize the community's participation and organization in the revitalization of Girard Avenue and its strong desire to a have a supermarket development at the proposed site for acquisition at 27th and Girard. As Councilman Clarke noted, there have been several sets of public hearings in support beforehand, and the community's desire remains very strong to acquire that site for supermarket development. I will hand in my written testimony.
I'm Deborah King. I'm Vice-President of the Northern Liberties Neighbors Association, and I'll be very brief. We've been contacted by many of our neighbors concerning this proposed 100 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 taking today and we're very concerned that there has not been adequate public notification or discussion regarding such an issue. I would request now -- I'm changing this -- that the properties in Northern Liberties are taken out until Northern Liberties can fully advise our neighbors of how to protect their rights. We have been working with homeowners to access the resources necessary to improve their property. No 13 property should be taken where there is an owner present with a plan for addressing the blight, if indeed it is blight, and that the property, if it is taken over, be used exclusively for public good, either affordable housing, open space or public services. Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness 101 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 table, identify yourself and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Lance Morabito. Just briefly, I won't say anything that anybody hasn't said already. I own a property in Northern Liberties. I'm one of the owners, 1034 North Bodine Street. I was notified May 9th by the Redevelopment Authority. I'd also like to have this building removed from the list.
Thank you. Mr. Wetzel, can you approach the witness table, please. I know that a commitment was made on the record not to proceed with the Northern Liberties acquisitions and that in fact you would send a letter to each of the owners.
At the request of Councilman DiCicco, I would send a letter if it was his request that under this ordinance the Redevelopment Authority 102 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 would not use its eminent domain powers to acquire these properties. I'm prepared to do that.
And Councilman DiCicco, are you prepared to request that letter? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Absolutely, Madam President, but the concern is -- and it's a dilemma. We're certainly in a dilemma, my colleague, Councilman Clarke, and I. The folks who testified who would like their properties removed from this bill, as was testified by Mr. Einhorn and others, have a serious concern about being able to secure financing to do their projects, even with the best efforts of the Redevelopment Authority. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't figure all that out, so I would yield to Mr. Einhorn on this one. The other dilemma is, as I understand it from Councilman Clarke, who is the chief sponsor of the bill, is that a number of the issues involved in this 103 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 bill are time sensitive for the financing as it relates to projects in his district. So both of these things are kind of competing with each other in the same regard as to what the financing implications are. On our side, if we remove -- and some of these properties have already been approved by the Zoning Board. Their applications have been heard at the Zoning Board. They've been approved for the development as it relates to their application. Now they get notice that their properties are condemned. The Redevelopment Authority under Mr. Wetzel would like to send us a letter and will send us a letter, but I'm being told it won't make a difference in terms of the financing. I don't know if there's a way --
Wait a minute. This is not a condemnation. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's a taking. 104 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347
And Mr. Wetzel, I would like to ask you, if in fact you write this letter, is it, quote, a legal notice, end of quote? How much bearing would it have legally?
I asked this question, because Councilman DiCicco and I have been in discussion over the last week on this particular issue. The legal advice that is given to me, that if the Redevelopment Authority issues a letter saying that it will not use its eminent domain powers under a specific ordinance, a specific ordinance number to acquire a specific property, then the only way the Redevelopment Authority could acquire that property would be to come back to this Council with a separate and distinct ordinance to do that.
I 105 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 don't think we're having a debate here, sir. I know the dilemma that you're in. So if you want to simply make a statement, do so. Again, we are really running behind schedule, and I know how important this is to you. So please make your statement.
Madam President, the problem is, Mr. Wetzel's answer about the Redevelopment Authority not condemning being bound does not satisfy the issue with a bank not being able to lend on this thing, because there is a bill approved which gives them the power to condemn. Their letter does not help us with the bank. Not only that, but Mr. Langman's variance is only good for two years, and if he doesn't pull a building permit in two years, he loses that variance. And as somebody testified, it can take you three or four years until this matter goes through a court, and in the meantime, they've lost their variance. 106 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347
And all of this for a private developer, just what Kelo tried to prevent.
I'd just like to ask the Councilmembers involved in this, Councilman DiCicco and Councilman Clarke, what is the time frame here? Why is this a rush right now? It seems that there's a problem, and the problem is, you have two projects in two different districts meshed into one bill. And I don't know if both Councilpeople are willing to go along and push out this one bill or whether we should start over again and make it two separate bills in two different Council districts. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That is something I certainly would like to do, but I think Councilman Clarke can speak to the issue of the development that is 107 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 already on track in his district and the time-sensitive issue.
Point of information, Madam President. These bills don't need first reading today. They need first reading by next week, correct?
But I don't understand what could possibly change between now and next week.
Well, we could get session done, which would be helpful. I'd like to get our session done at some point today while we're debating this.
Are we going to have another Rules Committee 108 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 before next Thursday?
I'd be willing to sit on another Rules Committee, yes.
We didn't make this mistake which is putting us in this position.
But I think we'll be hearing the same argument next week. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Does anything change? I appreciate the offer, but does anything change?
Jared Langman again. What is the rush here? All these people that are here took their time off of work to be here, had two 109 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 weeks to prepare. What is the rush? If it is a mistake, as Mr. Wetzel acknowledged, let him revise the ordinance, correct his mistake, give him the opportunity to correct it, take our properties that are in question off this ordinance, since he admitted he made a mistake.
Madam Chairperson, the fact that the properties are in an ordinance wasn't a mistake. The fact that Councilman DiCicco -- that it was in two districts but it was one author was the issue that I said was the mistake.
Herb, I would like you to respond to the financing issue.
In your district alone, you know we, at your request, have not taken certain properties, and they've gone out and financed those properties and built those properties. And 110 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 consistently when there is a real developer with real plans and ready to move forward, even though it's been in the bill, you have said, Will you not proceed with condemnation, and to my knowledge, none of those projects never moved forward. I'm prepared to do that again. And Kathy may recall, there's been a number of times that when they're in the bill, they come to you and we'll say, Fine, we have to move the ordinance, but we will not condemn the property. And to my knowledge, unless somebody knows otherwise, those projects have moved forward.
Madam President, is there a document that would satisfy the lender stating what was just stated?
I'm prepared to 111 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 work with Mr. Einhorn, because he doesn't believe that the letter is sufficient. I'm prepared to work with him to figure out something else. I believe from the legal advice I was given, that the letter that says the Authority will not use its eminent domain powers is sufficient.
And if an additional document would be required for the lender to assure the lender of the commitment of the RDA, maybe that would work.
Excuse me just one second. Madam President, could we potentially, since it needs first reading by next week, could we reintroduce a bill 23 today sans the First District properties, schedule a hearing during the week and then get first reading on Thursday? 112 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347
We're required 21 days' notice, but the homeowners aren't. That's great.
That's not fair to the owners here that have also invested a considerable amount of money already.
I mean, that's an assumption on Mr. Wetzel's part that I'm not going to have problems getting financing for this $3 million project that's already been approved.
Thank you, Madam President. Just a technical question. Mr. Wetzel, Councilman Clarke 113 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 and I and a couple others had a bit of a discussion off to the side. It is, at the moment at least, not comprehensible to understand that, with every respect to the RDA Board, because the Board has approved, what, a resolution authorizing this particular ordinance to come over? This is an RDA bill?
Actually, what was adopted was a redevelopment proposal that was adopted by the Board, which says that in this particular urban renewal area, these particular properties --
Stop right there. Are all of these properties in the same urban renewal area?
Okay. They approved a proposal. 114 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347
Involving all of these properties, which are not connected to each other in totality?
Let me -- I'm in a thing here. And they approved these properties to be acquired.
They approved a redevelopment proposal, yes, that would ultimately, if Council approved and the Mayor signed it, authorize the acquisition of properties.
But some of the properties are for one project and some of the properties are for another project.
Then I don't understand why, as a part of what we do, you can't delete properties from a list. Just because you've approved them for a taking for separate projects has no 10 impact, from my perspective, on what we do as a body. So now I need to ask you, if we deleted them, tell me what statute or ordinance interferes with your ability to move forward for those that obviously directly involve Councilman Clarke, which have no bearing on what happens to the properties in Councilman DiCicco's district.
I'm going to need my general counsel to be able to answer your question. My understanding of it is is that when a redevelopment proposal is adopted by the Board and then by City Planning Commission, it is either accepted in its totality or not, and it 116 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 goes back. If you wanted to remove these, you'd go back and adopt a different redevelopment proposal without these properties. It would go to the Planning Commission and come back here as a separate ordinance.
So you're telling us that when the RDA Board approves something and City Planning approves it, City Council is a mere rubber stamp for that process in an up-or-down, yes-or-no vote, with no 14 ability to have any impact on what was sent over to us?
What's the understanding based on? Tell me what statute, what ordinance requires that.
Do you mind if I 117 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 ask my general counsel to come over?
You talk to the Chair. And, lastly, respectfully, we have counsel also. We've had numerous City Solicitors in my years being here 8 and 20 of being around the shop who have 9 sat at that table and told this City 10 Council over hundreds of years, You 11 cannot do X, Y is illegal, Z is 12 inappropriate. We have subsequently gone 13 and done whatever it is that we've done, 14 and many of them are law in place and 15 functioning today. So unless you tell me that Justice Roberts is going to come and sit at that table and tell us that there's something that we cannot do, we all know that it is, respectfully, a legal opinion. It is not from the Bible. It's not in the Constitution of the United States of America. So he's entitled to his opinion. He could be wrong. So it's up to the Chair. It's 118 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 just my observation sitting in the peanut gallery here as to what the situation is. But I am astounded to understand that somehow taking something out of a bill 6 interferes with your ability to move forward. I can understand if we were having a debate about adding something that the Board hadn't approved, but somehow taking it away, it's hard to believe that we can't do what needs to be done, get Councilman Clarke's project moving forward and let Councilman DiCicco deal with his situation at a subsequent time.
Madam President, Edgar Einhorn again. This is a possible solution: If you pass this bill like it is today and you have time to introduce a bill 21 today and the Rules Committee vote on it, why can't you at the same time introduce a bill deleting the Northern Liberties properties? Instead of having to go back to Northern Liberties -- 119 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: There's not enough time.
That's not how it works. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam President, can I just pick up on Councilman Nutter's comments. Mr. Wetzel, when we've done eminent domain actions in the past -- MLK comes to mind -- during the hearings, individuals come up and they had made arguments as to they were preparing to do some work on the property or they were going to build a house on a lot that was part of the taking.
That is correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We entered into agreements literally at the public hearing, have we not, the Redevelopment Authority and the owner of those properties?
At your request, we verbally agreed that you could do a number of things, including like rehab 120 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 agreements and things like that that we have done. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I don't know if this would satisfy the parties that are here. Would something similar to that where we work into an agreement that if the properties aren't developed in a two-year period or some period thereafter, that they would be part of the taking?
And I think in all those situations people have been able to go get financing and do the development.
Ms. Verna, I'm curious to see what the RDA had in mind for the Northern Liberties properties, in particular the ones on North 2nd Street. I'm curious to see what his intentions were to do with those properties, 948, 950 through 954 North 2nd Street, since he's considering that particular area blighted.
Please identify yourself for the record. 121 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 And I'm going to ask you to be extremely brief. We are very, very late for our session.
My name is Alan Langman. I'm Jared Langman's father. I'm a co-investor in his property. Thank you for this opportunity. Just one question to the Redevelopment Authority. How did they determine that the project that we have in front of you that's been approved by Northern Liberties Association, the Zoning Board of Philadelphia, of course there was a variance granted at a hearing two months ago, is inferior to a project that Mr. Blatstein -- obviously his company is taking over these properties in question. So what gives him the ability to say that Blatstein's project is a better project than the Zoning Board approved? I don't understand that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If I may.
Yes. 122 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I think with all this confusion, maybe what I need to do is offer an amendment to this bill eliminating the properties in my district. I'm not an attorney and I don't pretend to be. I don't know what the legal challenges to that may be, but I think notwithstanding the letter from Mr. Wetzel, which I would still encourage that he supply to the owners of these properties, I will offer the amendment to remove those properties from this bill 14 and let's see what happens, because there is no time to do a new bill. That's our dilemma.
So the property owners have to basically take the risk, though? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm going to amend the bill. I'm not suggesting that the amendment will not hold up. I just don't know, and I don't want anybody to leave here today thinking that it may not be a challenge. 123 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347
We'll make them resubmit the ordinance, leaving our properties.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I just need to ask a question of Mr. Wetzel, and if he can answer to the best of his ability, if he needs his counsel to follow up. The properties in question in the Fifth Councilmanic District that are moving ahead for condemnation, if this amendment is done -- and we don't know whether or not it will pass legal muster or not -- how could that potentially affect the taking in the Fifth Councilmanic District? Could those then be challenged if found that the process 124 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 that the RDA currently has is valid that does not allow the elimination of properties off the redevelopment agreement?
Councilman, I actually, to be quite frank, don't know the answer to that because this has never happened, to my knowledge. So I don't know what the repercussions are.
Because this is my concern. And I truly support Councilman DiCicco and am equally exercised, is a good term to use, that this has come before us in this way, but my concern is that I have, as earlier mentioned, 17 individuals who are waiting to move into new homes. And correct me if I'm wrong, if we do not condemn their properties, we will not have the ability to compensate them.
That's not this phase? 125 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347
Well, give me the time-sensitive nature of this condemnation and all of the ones in our district. Because maybe if it's not time sensitive, then maybe we can clear all this up.
Well, Temple would have to answer on the 66 properties. The one for the Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zone --
Yes. That's my understanding, it's the upper portion of the zone. It's the only one property that wasn't included in the original acquisition.
Well, the whole Homeownership Zone is time sensitive, but we could -- if we have to wait six months, we have to wait six months to do 126 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 it.
We don't have a six-month recess. I don't want people to think we have a six-month recess.
No, but we got to come back with a bill, have it reintroduced, do all the advertising and everything. So we're going to be into October before we have a hearing.
But would that affect the funding and the ability for that developer to proceed on the Homeownership Zone?
-- one is 27th and 127 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Girard. And the other one is 27th and Girard.
What about Temple University? Because 27th and Girard, I think we can have a little play in that one. That's right. Actually, we need to talk to Temple University about the timing on their need to proceed.
Thank you, Councilman. From the University's perspective, we are a bit behind the eight ball. We are in a big rush to get this legislation through final passage. That's chiefly based on a couple reasons. One is that we have spent a lot of time recruiting new researchers to the University, and so there's a big expectation that we're going to be doing something in that regard. Secondly, in terms of us being able to continue to recruit researchers to the University, we need to be able to 128 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 demonstrate clearly that we have a project that's going to be taking off, and sooner rather than later.
One, at 27th and Girard that we probably can have some flexibility with -- I guess I'm talking to Mr. Wetzel. One, at 27th and Girard that we may have some flexibility with. One, Temple said that there's a certainty as it relates to the time-sensitive nature of it. And the Homeownership Zone, you're not sure.
This will conclude, I think, our public hearing. We will now go into our public meeting, and the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 23 060286.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move that 129 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Bill 060286 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 9 060286 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 please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. Regarding Bill No. 060347, we are going to continue that hearing until Thursday, June the 8th at 9:15. Thank you all very much. This 130 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 concludes our public meeting. (Committee on Rules adjourned at 12:50 p.m.) - - - 131 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on June 1, 2006, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)