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.)