COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY & PUBLIC WORKS - - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, February 10, 2004 2:13 p.m. - - - - BILL 040034 - an Ordinance requiring the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development to enter into a certain agreement with the City regarding Authority transactions involving non-City government agencies as a condition of Council approval of future Authority transactions under certain terms and conditions. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JOAN KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN RICHARD MARIANO COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN TASCO - - - - 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 I N D E X BILL 040034 PAUL DEEGAN, PIDC, PAID.............. RONNEL GRIFFIN, Hunting Park Advisory Committee........................ 14 BARBARA LANDERS, Committee Person.... 18 THOMAS LOGAN, 43rd Ward.............. 25 ARLENE FIELDS, Ward Leader........... 29 3 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034
Good afternoon. I'd like to call the order the Committee on Public Property and Public Works. Please forgive us. I understand our sound system is the pits.
All in agreement with such assessment, please say aye. (Laughter.)
A quorum being present, we have in attendance Councilwoman Krajewski, Councilwoman Miller, Councilman Rizzo, Councilman Mariano, and Councilman Kelly Today, I'm hearing the Public Property. Bill No. 040005 was originally scheduled; it has been re-referred to the Committee on Parks and Services. Please note Marian Tasco is here. Please read the title of the bill.
Bill No. 040034, an ordinance requiring the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development to enter into a certain agreement with the City regarding 4 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 Authority transactions involving non-City government agencies as a condition of Council approval of future Authority transactions under certain terms and conditions.
Let me briefly summarize the purpose of this particular bill. In recent community forum on the discussion of the conveyance of property in part of my district, it became clear to me during the course of the community meeting that the subject of the discussion, which was a bus terminal at 10th and Luzerne, had, in fact, been conveyed without my knowledge or community knowledge. I have individuals from the community to testify. The intent of this bill is not to create problems for the operation of PAID, it's simply to ensure something like that never happens in here and we close the loophole in the current agreement. So at this time, what I'd like to do is to ask Mr. Paul Deegan to testify on behalf of PIDC. For the record let me note that 5 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 Councilman Ramos is here.
Good afternoon. My name is Paul Deegan, D-E-E-G-A-N. I represent the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation and Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development. I'm here today to put on the record PIDC and PAID are anxious to work with the Councilman to address this loophole, as you characterize it, and are willing to work with you and anxious to work with you on an agreement as to the requirements of the ordinance that's been introduced today.
Mr. Deegan, could you briefly go through the process currently in place with City Council involved with conveyance and acquisition of publicly owned properties? What's that process?
Councilman, we operate under agreement 1048 which requires an agreement between the City, PIDC, and PAID and basically allows the City to convey property to the PAID for sale to businesses to promote economic development, subject to approval of 6 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 City Council. In 99 percent of the cases acquiring property from the City and selling it to have businesses throughout the City promise to build buildings and create jobs. Also, if we acquire property from private owners using City money, we're required to get City Council approval. So the overall agreement add to the safeguard City Council, acquire the property with Council approval.
Is there any a requirement if property is sold or property is acquired and conveyed not owned by the government?
They are addressed in the agreement. I think in some cases, if we were to acquire a property from another non-City governmental agency for sale to a company, it wouldn't necessarily have formal Council approval. As long -- whenever City money is used, we do need City Council approval.
If there's no 24 City involvement, PAID can enter in such a transaction as a conduit to PAID? 7 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034
In the case of the publicly owned property such as SEPTA which is not a municipally-owned property, there is no requirement to have government authorization, be it the state, local, Council?
The only thing basically is public property owned by the City of Philadelphia?
City of Philadelphia or I think a good example is Byberry Hospital site which is a State-owned property. We are required to use City funds and we came to Council for approval in December. We had an ordinance to authorize us to purchase the property directly from the State. The title went from the State of Pennsylvania to Philadelphia Industrial Development, and we used the City industrial fund money and required City Council approval for that transaction. 8 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034
If financing of the project was not done by the government, although public funding is provided by the government for the developer, then you would not need City approval?
Most of the money we use come from state or federal sources. There is no requirement for City Council approval of different loans and grants that are provided by PIDC and PAID.
I have a comment. I think that -- if I heard correctly. My hearing is going, too. If it's federal dollars and other dollars, no City dollars, you do not have to get any approval from Council; is that what you said?
Yes. For acquiring property without using City dollars, not City property, there is no requirement, any formal 9 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 requirement for City Council approval.
And when you convey that to somebody else, you don't have to have any approval from Council?
But you can see the importance of letting the Councilperson know what's going on in his or her district, because sometimes the property could be acquired for use that's something that's not in keeping with what the community might want.
Yes. I understand that Councilwoman. This was an oversight. I don't think we usually do business like that. We regret this happened and are working to correct it.
What happens if it happens when we take our summer break and there's a hot development for a project, will you wait until September or try to convene this Committee in the summer if we have to? 10 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 Not that we want to.
I think we would have to wait. We try to get everything approved by the June recess.
A little bit on Councilwoman Tasco's question. It's important that the District Councilpeople know what's going, even At-Large. But you're saying if you're not here, the person who comes after you, we know that person will tell us? What Councilwoman Tasco is say is it becomes a problem when they don't know and then they come to you. It looks we side stepped and we don't know anything about it. I know I have a relationship with you. I know most of us do, but some day you -- I mean, we need something better than hope. We hope you live forever, but after you, we need something.
If it's not City money, I should know, he should know, she should know. 11 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034
I think we're addressing that through Councilman Clarke's ordinance. Also, this is the Vice President of real estate at PIDC Thomas Dalfo. I don't know if you've met Tom. He's the person dealing with these transactions, and I'll be still be at PIDC in charge of government relations. And between Tom and I -- he will probably have a check on me so he can remind me because I am getting old. Even if I live forever, I am getting old. He'll remind me to contact the Councilperson.
Follow-up on Councilman Mariano's question. If there is a, quote, hot development prospect when we're in recess and involve City-owned land which traditionally needs an ordinance or resolution, you have to wait until we come back in session anyway, right?
Essentially, the same. This would be no different than the traditional process? 12 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034
Getting back to what Councilman Clarke was alluding to with the SEPTA. That is -- I believe it's sort of a quasi-City-related thing. Could you tell me if what happened in that situation, in other words, what would happen if there's another SEPTA facility that has to go through this process, buying or selling or whatever?
Well, if this happens today, the first thing we're to do is sit down with the District Councilpeople. I don't think we were party to meetings. We weren't active participants there were meetings with SEPTA. PIDC wasn't there. Going forward, when we have this agreement, we'll need a resolution by City Council.
This can be quite embarrassing, especially to the District Councilperson to go to a meeting and the deal has been made and they have no idea, they don't know anything about it. Quite 13 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 embarrassing, to say the least. I can see why this bill was probably necessary, this amendment to a bill anyway.
Councilman Kelly, I can speak firsthand. It was quite embarrassing. Given that we called the community meeting, some of my key supporters right here putting this information out and soliciting input from the residents as to whether or not they want the proposed development. And halfway through my presentation, someone from the staff came up and whispered in my ear, "Councilman, we already sold the land to the developer." Me being me, I immediately got extremely ticked off, but I told the people what happened. Well, what we're doing here is a fete a compli. It's already sold. That was real embarrassing by myself and anyone on Council to go through something like that.
I can tell you firsthand it is very embarrassing. Any other questions from, members of 14 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 the Committee? (No response.)
No. Paul has been involved in the process with regard to the amendment, and we would work with the City to prevent this type of situation from occurring.
Could I ask you gentlemen to stick around? We have some people from the communities to talk about their concerns, I'm assuming about the process as it relates to this particular incident.
My name is Ronnel Griffin, G-R-I-F-F-I-N. I'm the Director of Hunting Park Advisory Committee, a community-based organization located within the 43rd Ward, and I'm also serving as Committee Person of the 43rd Ward, 16th division. We were the coordinators for the community meeting to hear information 15 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 pertaining to a proposed paper recycling center to be located at 10th and Luzerne, the old SEPTA depot. We were so happy that there was going to be economic development within the community, but we were really displeased with the process that was used. I heard briefly about the Councilman being embarrassed, and especially at the meeting we witnessed his embarrassment. Also, there is another component that was embarrassed, that is, myself as one of the leaders for the community who is directly involved in service delivery who people depend upon to present accurate information, who people put trust in because they voted me into office, as well other Committee people. And yet we were at this meeting caught off guard because there has been a major oversight by supposedly experts in this area. Now, one would customary say that grass roots people would make such a terrible mistake. And I would say perhaps not because I look at you guys who are the experts and this should not have been an oversight. 16 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 I am almost at the verge of saying that because the deal needed to be made and perhaps the community would not have supported this economic venture that things were done in the back rooms to avoid the kind of dialog that they may have received from the community. Let me go on record that, yes, the community supports this economic development venture, but under no circumstances do we agree with the way our community was treated. It was embarrassing for our Councilperson who works very effectively with us. It was embarrassing to the block captains who live in that immediate area. The existing businesses and people who have families who live within the immediate area who were not informed that this kind of business or any business was coming into the neighborhood within the near future. You spoke of Public Property and the conveyance of properties and if there aren't City-related dollars involved that you do not have to inform Council, their approval is not 17 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 needed. I take exception to that because perhaps you do not need to inform them because you are getting the federal dollars or other kinds of financial support, but you have Councilpeople that interact with you on a daily basis to get a number of projects passed through the system. And when you do not find it necessary to interact beforehand with our elected Councilpeople, be it our District Councilperson or our Councilpeople-at-Large, you place everyone at a disadvantage. And it cause us not to want to trust the City and its various departments. I could speak forever about this because I'm very passionate about my community. I take my responsibility to heart when it comes to serving the people. It's not about what I want, it's about serving the people and meeting the demands and having respect for people that serve in various places. I thank you.
Thank you. Before the next witness testifies, I'd like to make clear for the record that there was 18 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 dialog with the District Councilperson from SEPTA and the developer, but the arrangement was there was not going to be any action by PAID or PIDC until the community meeting took place, so there was some dialog. I want it for the record.
I need to correct that statement. There was dialog and, of course, we were informed by you of the discussions that you had. But when we arrived at that meeting thinking that the deal had not been cut, that SEPTA had not been sold, that it wasn't a done deal, we were caught off guard. And we looked like fools, quite frankly, standing before an auditorium of a hundred people.
Good after, everyone. Happy new year. It's good to see so many of you that I haven't seen this year, and I wish you all the best all. My name is Barbara Landers. I am a Committee Person, as well as I work for State Representative Bill Rieger's office who is the Ward Leader for the 43rd 19 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 Ward. I am here today to say I am not pleased with what happened with the site at 10th and Luzerne. I found out a week prior to from Frances Jones who works for SEPTA because I heard rumors on Election Day that a proposed recycling unit was coming to 10th and Luzerne. I said, that can't be true. I know my good brother here and that our office as well as Councilman Mariano's office, we do work together in the community because we have two Councilpeople and I do know we would have heard something. Rumors are flying in the community, and I called SEPTA's Frances Jones and she said the deal was supposed to cut. The next thing I'm hearing, the deal was suppose to be but had not been signed on the dotted line in black and white. However, I have a problem with anybody that comes into our community -- many of you know me. I've learned in 43 years or 41 years active in that community and many of you upset the people when you come into our community and do not bother to let the leaders know what is going on in the community. How can we all work 20 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 together to make positive change in the 43 Ward? When we had this meeting called by Ms. Ronnell Griffin and others, we had this meeting and it really upset me to find out that Councilman Clarke knew nothing that the deal was already signed. And I'm saying, you know, the whole meeting was very -- people were very upset about what happened because you're infringing on our rights. Grant you, PIDC -- I was listening to the gentleman here who stated that they do not, quote/unquote, have to notify said representatives of Council or whatever. And I said that's terribly wrong because you do not come into anybody's community, I don't care who it is, because our community may look like, quote/unquote, blight, but we have concerned, dedicated people in the 43rd Ward. I'm saying something has to stop and it has to stop here with Council. We need to stop people from coming to our community and say, "Hey, we're going to put something here and the community doesn't have a say so on it." That is not right. 21 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 We are voters. We do vote. Look at the record. We may not come out in some areas, but we do vote in the 43 Ward do not take us lightly. That's what happened. We were taken lightly. I'm saying for the record it's time this situation to be stopped in the 43rd Ward. And not just in our ward, it needs to stop in any Council District. Nobody should put up with that. We want to put and you, you, you, you, you, all you those not here, you don't have a right in your district. You do have a right. Your voters have a right to say what they want and don't want. I hope this bill gets passed. It needs to stop. I was terribly upset. I don't want the recycle plant. I don't see no benefits. Because I understand that is not up to par either. Our community is not going benefit from it. It's time to stop. Let's all have a say so. That's my point.
In reference to 22 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 the proposed business that's going to be at the site, isn't there -- is this site, since it's past use, is there any zoning ordinances or anything at all that the City needs to involve itself in to give this business the go ahead to establish itself there?
My question is, the proposed use, the recycle facility, since it's -- I have the impression this is a done deal.
May I something before he response, Councilman? The community overwhelmingly supported the project.
Councilman, the site is zoned industrial. It has a long industrial history as a SEPTA repair facility, so the 23 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 proposed use for the existing zoning wasn't any requirement for rezoning or Zoning Board of Adjustment hearing. It's an industrial site.
I would like to add I appreciate your testimony. It has happened to me as well in my district. And, Paul, I believe you know that to be a fact.
There's no 15 way that I can appreciate that. And I hope that this session here, this hearing here will clear it up that they do not go into any Council District without notifying that Councilperson because I know because I've been there. Thank you.
I just have one question, Ms. Griffin to, you. At your community meeting, did you say after all the 24 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 discussion had taken place the community group did sort of approve the facility?
They went on record as approving it. The question was asked, "Do you support this project" after a lengthy discussion, and I believe they support it.
That's when they supported it, after they realized it was a done deal. They felt that rather than having this particular site to remain vacant that they would move ahead and support the paper recycling plant. But they were not initially. They were not seeking to support this. But only after they realized it was a done deal did they say they would support it.
There was no 20 community input as far as anything goes?
You didn't have any opportunity to say pro or con until, of course, it was a done deal, then you had no 25 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 choice on anything.
Mr. Chairman, if I may be able to speak. At this time I'll try to answer your question. My name is Thomas Logan. I'm the Chairman of the 43rd Ward and also a participant in the meeting that had taken place. I think everyone who came to this meeting came to the meeting with the understanding there was going to be some give and take about the use of this land. And I know I found myself on the stage getting ready to talk about something, and we had a State Senator there, we had State Representatives there, we had our Councilpeople there and elected Committee People and so on. So we all were embarrassed and taken back by what happened and we're all still trying to recoup from that embarrassment. One of the things that had taken place, one of the agreements that caused maybe a calmness for the crowd is we were supposed to meet in January, us, elected officials, along with this manufacturer box company 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 operator or waste paper manufacturer to work out an agreement with the community. That has not taken place and it needs to take place because that is one of the reasons why the people said, we'd rather have that than nothing at all. They're tired of looking at what's going on there, a rat-infested, unsafe area. All kind of things that go on. So we're still waiting to go put together this meeting with the elected officials. However one of the things that we all have to be mindful of is the fact that most zoned industrial land, all of you District Councilpeople run the risk of having things placed on this land without your say so because of the way the Zoning Code reads. And that becomes problematic to you as an elected official. Because zoned industrial land encompasses just about everything. We have pockets in the City of Philadelphia, especially North Philadelphia, I believe there's some up in Germantown as well that are now becoming prisons and all kinds of other 27 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 things that are happening. And I don't know what this body can do to kind of protect the citizens they represent. Something needs to be done to broaden or have some input into the industrial zoning classification before they can come in and open up anything they want to.
Has the community been advised of the impact? When you're talking about paper recycle, I think of big bales of paper, tractor-trailers track, flatbeds coming in and out of in facility. Has anybody explained what it's going to be like to live in that environment?
My understanding what this place is supposed to be is when you talk about recycle, it's cardboard boxes is what I understand. It's not the normal waste operation. That's what we were told. Now, supposedly they're receiving 28 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 four to five tractor-trailers a week or day. And what's supposed to happen is the employees are supposed separate and break the boxes down and reship it back out to their customers as used boxes. Believe it or not, there's an industry for used boxes. There is no chemical breaking down of paper and things like that going on. That's the way it was explained to me at that meeting.
I later learned from my husband who worked for over years at a 13 paper manufacturing company warehouse as well 14 as some of the other people within the 15 community that there are indeed some 16 environmental issues that need to be 17 addressed. There is a meeting that was 18 scheduled with the American Paper. I forget 19 his name. 20
Because of the 22 weather, we were unable to have that meeting. 23 There is A meeting scheduled Wednesday, a tour 24 of his facility. Subsequent to that meeting, 25 there will be a meeting with the Committee and 29 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 Block Captains.
What is the name of this paper recycle company and where is the other facility?
Arlene Fields. I'm the Community Ward Leader, 24th Division. The pictures that you have, that's the facility.
Old Stenton Avenue. Two of the facilities are on Roberts Avenue as you go around towards the expressway. The pictures they showed us has a beautiful front. I went with my camera to take pictures. I know sometimes what we see is not reality. The pictures you have here are the actual pictures of all of the conditions that are existing at his three plants. One is abandoned, and one looks like it's abandoned. 30 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 That's the picture with the doors falling down. And they use the front part that's on Berkley. The other plant on old Stenton next to the abandoned one, it looks like it's abandon with broken dumpsters and everything all over. They're using the front part of that. What we saw at that community meeting was not reality.
Those are the pictures of the existing sites that they are functioning. Even though it looks abandoned, they're still working in them, in two of them.
Is he relocating to 10th and Luzerne and continue to operate Old Stenton?
All three of his facility. He plans to relocate his whole operate there. One of the things we did ask, 31 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 because we have no choice, you're coming, it's a done deal, the trash that's around there, you know, we want you to take care of that. He said he has to evaluate those things like trash and decide whether to remove them.
He says he has to he evaluate the trash that's in the area that has built up since being abandoned. He has evaluate before he make a decision whether or he's not going to remove it.
Excuse me. I'm not clear on that. If he has purchased the lot, are you saying he has to evaluate whether he moves the trash from the 10th and Luzerne spot?
On the sidewalk there's trash in that area still on the property.
He has to evaluate it before what? 32 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034
Before he decides to remove it, it has to be evaluated first.
Mr. Deegan what is the responsibility of our agency, PAID, around the issue of the trash? And what is the responsibility of the City to make them clean up the other site? And does he owe any back taxes?
I think for any property owner to maintain their property has a certain level of responsibility. He's required to take trash away on the sidewalk.
I had the same problem at Sixth and Grange with the industrial site and the surrounding quality of life has just deteriorated for the neighbors over there. They went in without me being notified, without any discussion. It's created havoc. These people have no since of responsibility to live up to codes and it's a 33 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 constant fight. I think that as someone who is bringing industrial in, bringing these business into a community, they -- you ought to have some enforcement arm to make sure that they come in and they clean up and that they don't create a disturbance for the existing community. I'm telling you, it is a problem. I have it. I have it at Sixth and Grange. It is a terrible situation. They get these properties -- and we're supposed to bring business in and I appreciate that. But there has to be some better monitoring of these businesses and hold them accountable for what they do in these communities because they do not -- they are terrible. And for him to say he has to evaluate whether he moves the trash or not, I don't think he needs to have the property.
I think we will find a way to ensure he does the appropriate 34 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 thing at both the new site and the existing site. My understanding is the existing site was questioned at the community meeting. Correct me if I'm wrong. There was concerns about leaving three abandon properties to consolidate and move to the new facility. He said he has buyer for the existing site. It's clear we need to follow-up on that on our end. We don't want to essentially leave three businesses and allow them to blight the neighborhood. We want to make follow through, Mr. Deegan? I'm going to participate in that discussion. Also, does anybody from PIDC plan on attending the meeting Ms. Griffin has spoken of earlier, the follow-up meeting?
The meeting that's scheduled for Wednesday of next week is with the subcommittee that was formed as a result of that meeting for the tour of the facility. Subsequent to that will be the larger community meeting where we would ask PIDC and all of the other agencies to come and meet 35 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 with us.
I'd be happy to take that role. I'd be happy to be at the meeting and make sure we follow-up on this.
After seeing these pictures, it makes a light bulb go off and you realize that obviously there's got to be a process here. And if this gentleman plans to operate 10th and Luzerne like he does the other three facilities, he's a slum lord. Maybe he's doing business like we see in these pictures because he's trying to relocate, but he's certainly not a good neighbor. I would hope you already have a plan in place -- and I heard Councilman Clarke say there are potential purchasers, but are you sure of that, and that we're just not leaving Councilwoman Miller with three blighted properties in her Councilmanic District? Is the right hand talking to the left hand here? 36 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 I don't think PAID is doing anything productive here, based on what I've seen.
I can check see talking to the purchasers of the property help them financing do renovation clean up the property.
I don't think you should have moved forward with the 10th and Luzerne without knowing the answers to what happens into the three. I wouldn't want them to be in my neighborhood.
I'll get those answers for you, Councilman. I don't know them myself.
If there's anything you can do stop this process until we know the answers, that would be greatly appreciated.
I'm very familiar with the area in the 23rd Ward. It sounds as though you reluctantly went along with this project although you are very, very disturbed about the way they moved getting this property 37 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 without consulting elected officials, our colleagues, and more importantly, the people that live in that community. Have you talked to them because I know the area and I know the people are hurting in your neighborhood like in my neighborhood for jobs. Have they made any commitment to you hire people from your community at this new facility coming to your neighborhood?
Arlene fields. That was one of my questions to the gentleman when we were at the meeting about hiring our people in our community that were qualified. He said he would consider it, that's not something he wants to do, he is a businessman, not a developer. And I offered some suggestions that he could do hiring folks in the community, and he doesn't particularly want to do that because his operation is not of that size that he we can hire folks from the community, but he would consider it. And those were his words. And the plan that I offered him, he 38 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 said it was a good plan, he would think about it.
Maybe reconsidering him moving to your neighborhood. I would say to all community groups in this City that if you have a plan that is transporting from one place to another, they have to do some hiring of the people in that area.
This is one of the things I presented to him. He proceeded to say he was going to consider it but it was not something that he was looking towards doing in the very near future.
There were a number of issues that were identified at this meeting and some of them had to do with the lighting of the surrounding area, as well as the employment piece. It's our understanding that with the subsequent meeting we will have those issues identified with Councilman Clarke's involvement and I believe Representative Thomas involvement as well as state Senator Shirley Kitchen and Ms. Shirley Gregory on 39 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 behalf of Congressman Rob Brady. We're waiting for this meeting of next week so that we can move forward and have our issues addressed. It's refreshing to be here to hear the support that Council continues to have for communities. I'm really glad to be here and support this bill 100 percent.
You can be assured that I support it and I'll take the lead of my Councilman Darrell Clarke on this issue as well.
Mr. Deegan, one thing that I would have -- and I know Councilman Clarke requested it, and I want to make sure. This is a follow-up question excuse me, Councilman Clarke. Did you ask 40 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 them to organize a meeting and bring in the owner of American Box and Recycling?
A new meeting, additional meeting to talk about what's coming?
Where we left it, it was supposed to be a follow-up meeting to discuss the issues. The first meeting was to talk about the employment, talk about the facility traffic flow, talk about all aspects of the new development. And there was going subcommittee formed, we understood, to meet with the City and the developer to talk about those issues and have a follow-up large community meeting. I understand that meeting didn't happen because of the weather, whatever reason. But I expect Mr. Deegan to assist individuals participate in any follow-up meeting with the community to talk about the very pertinent issue, despite the fact they have sold the property. I understand the gentleman has also received financing from 41 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 PIDC, which is troubling to me because I didn't find that out until after that had happened also, which is not normal. Normally we get a call. For some reason, this particular project didn't fit any of the norms. We insist that that happen. In my discussion with the owner of the property indicating they're willing to do all of that.
But I need a meeting with the owner of the property to discuss his relocating, moving from -- it's my district and Councilman Nutter's district, to 10th and Luzerne. After looking at these pictures and if you drive down Old Stenton Avenue, it's really a very unkempt highway. You actually think most of these businesses are closed and abandoned. And that's the way it's been operating over the years. We've tackled some of that this past summer. But I need to also have a meeting with him.
Absolutely. And Councilman Rizzo wants to be informed 42 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 about that meeting. Let me know, because we can't leave this. Leave this and then not be able to decide whether clean up at 10th and Luzerne? We're slum landlords here.
Councilwoman Krajewski can tell you how bad it can be. Yesterday, there's a company, a sludge company, whatever it's called, how a company can pull out of an area.
We had a site went from Delaware Avenue to Castor that went out of business in '99. They just picked up and relocated, I believe to Florida, and it's been like this since 1999. Left it with a big, big EPA tarp over it. It's a disgrace that these companies are allowed to do this.
I'm also concerned -- and I don't know if this is a correct question to ask or not, but I'm going to ask it. We're concerned about any finances that may be 43 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 available to our community as a result of tax credits. Is there any funds that the community can realize as a result of this business relocating into our area? For example, I know that -- I think its business tax credit. Is that what Councilman Goode introduced? Councilman Goode introduced to Council and we're interesting in being recipient of some finances, if possible. Do you know what I'm talking about?
I'm thinking a subsequent community meeting there should be City, PIDC, Commerce Department, any agency that deals with financial incentives for emerging or existing businesses to give you a fair shot comparable to what this individual did as a finance of this particular project. I think that's appropriate. Councilwoman Miller.
What I think would be very appropriate is when you have a business moving from one part of the City to another that they not get any financial 44 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 assistance until we look at how they're going to clean up where they are in order to move into another area. Because I think we're just promoting bad business practices. We should not giving American Box a dime until we know that they're going to clean this mess up. Because, if not, who's going to clean it up? The City. This is a private corporation. We should not have to clean up their trash.
I believe it's State financing for the building renovation and building construction.
They already financed it. 45 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034
So it's a lesson that when these transactions are coming before you that you understand the condition from one community to the next, that you've got to look at what they're leaving from one before we give them any dollars. You know it's got to be a connection here. There has to be some responsibility to the City before they move from A to B. If they haven't done well in A, why should we help them in B? They should get no help.
Especially with no additional jobs. It doesn't sound to me there's any economic stimulus. He's just a trash basher that moves from one place to the next.
That's not a consideration. But also, there's another thing that needs to be kept in mind. He's a businessman, not a developer. He's only there 46 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 to do business. He is a businessman, not a developer. Those are his words.
I don't know what that means. He's trying to be slick.
Last one. Can PIDC put the brakes on this project, put a hold on what we're hearing here today until these questions are answered?
I think, unfortunately, he already has the land and the means to build his building.
We need you to be able to stall and make sure that he doesn't take all the money and leave this mess behind 47 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 in a district I have a lot of interest in, and everybody at this table does. It's just not the right thing to do. I hope now you follow a plan, a strategy how to do this kind of deal because obviously you don't.
Thank you. Is there any other testimony at this time? Anyone else scheduled to testify? (No response.)
Any questions from Members of the Committee? (No response.)
Hearing none, I'd like to offer an amendment to the bill 16 circulated earlier. This amendment essentially references the original bill that created the PAID agreement. The new language authorizes, pursuant to Bill 1048 done in 1974, that authorizes the original PAID agreement with the City. Part 2 of that amendment incorporates new language that provides that no conveyance of real estate by the City to the Authority be effective until such time the City enters into an agreement 48 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 with the Authority to obtain approval of City Council by resolution 4 In earlier discussions with PIDC, I understand it may take some time to pull such agreement. What I'd like to do, if it's okay with Members of the Committee, is amend the bill today, pass it out of Committee and place it on the Calendar to ensure that PIDC in a timely way does the agreement to amend the current agreement with the City of Philadelphia to incorporate the language, and I would like to do it in a timely way. I will have the bill on the Calendar. We will hopefully, in fact, pass this on the Calendar, and your ability to convey any property will be stopped until this agreement is in place. Is that okay?
I'm not clear what we're doing what is amendment one.
The amendment references what we did in the original ordinance.
Is that the bill you introduced? 49 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034
We didn't reference the statute done in 1974 that created the said agreement.
You want to vote it out and put it on the Calendar. Why would you hold it?
I may not. Originally, I think I said I would hold it in Committee. After hearing the testimony, I want to vote of out of Committee and get on the Calendar. I understand you can't do the agreement in a day.
Amend the existing agreement that they would have to --
We are committed to working on that agreement as quickly as possible. I have talked to a representative in the Department about the form of the 50 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 040034 agreement, and I think it's something we could get done very quickly.
Okay. I'm saying since the clock is ticking, let's report bill out of Committee. It's going to be on the Calendar, okay?
That will conclude the hearing if there is no testimony. If there are no other questions or testimony from the witnesses, we will close the public hearing go into the public meeting. - - - - 51 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY - - - - Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - - - - Public meeting conducted by the Committee on Public Property, held in Room 10 696, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILL 040034. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JOAN KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN RICHARD MARIANO COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN TASCO 52 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - PUBLIC MEETING
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit the amendment to the bill.
Councilwoman Krajewski made a motion to amend Bill 040034. Is there a second? (Duly seconded.)
Mr. Chairman, I move that bill 040034 be reported out of this Committee, as amended. (Duly seconded.)
That concludes the public meeting. Thank you all very much. 53 02/10/04 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - PUBLIC MEETING Mr. Deegan, especially thank you all for coming. (Council adjourned at 3:15 p.m.) - - - - 54 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of February 10, 2004, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PUBLIC WORKS _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR