COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:15 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN BILLS 060544, 060585, 060582, 060621, 060625, 060631, 060635 - - - 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
Good afternoon, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Committee on Rules. I am going to appoint Councilman DiCicco to serve on the Committee. To my left is Councilwoman Brown. To my immediate right is Councilman Kenney, and Councilman Clarke is just coming in. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 060631. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 13 amending Chapter 14-400 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Commercial Entertainment District," by adding requirements for, among other things, transportation and parking management plans, adding provisions for temporary structures, providing for additional permitted uses, providing for long-term maintenance plans, creating additional signage controls and by making technical changes, all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank 3 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. you. Who do we have here to testify? Good afternoon and welcome. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Thomas Chapman of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify in favor of Bill No. 060631, which was introduced by Councilman DiCicco on September 20th of this year. This bill adds a number of technical amendments to the Commercial Entertainment District. The zoning designation that was written by the City Planning Commission in conjunction with the Law Department was enacted by City Council to regulate licensed gaming facilities in the City of Philadelphia. These amendments address several issues that were identified by community groups, gaming proponents and the City department subsequent to the enactment of the 4 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. original Commercial Entertainment District legislation. This bill would require that a transportation management plan be submitted by the applicant with their plan of development. This plan must include all details, such as internal and external circulation, a traffic and parking study, and assess the impacts of these businesses on roadway capacities and public transportation. These amendments will also require that a long-term maintenance plan for all of the facilities and improvements be included in with the submitted plan of development. Permitted uses would be amended to include off-track betting facilities, docks, health clubs and spas. These amendments limit the signage permitted on a roof or marquee to two accessory sign faces and a maximum of 300 square feet each. Bill No. 051028, which created 5 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. the Commercial Entertainment District, was considered and approved by the City Planning Commission at its meeting of November 22, 2005. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee, and thank you.
No. Kevin Greenberg from the Law Department, if you have any questions.
Fine. Thank you. I know that one of the amendments, 14-404, provides that the Planning Commission may approve an application for temporary facilities and related temporary structures. What type of facilities and structures are being considered?
Madam President, under state law, once these facilities have been approved by the Gaming Control 6 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Board, the operators have 18 months to get them up and running, and that's why legislation provides for temporary facilities. We don't know that the operators will do this, but they do have the flexibility of doing it.
And, again, I apologize, because my voice is a mess. They're required to do it as part of Act 71. They need to have a temporary facility on site or in proximity to their site in order to get the slot machines running immediately.
I'm sorry. Please identify yourself for the record.
Kevin Greenberg from the Law Department. The Councilman is correct. In the absence of the completed facility 7 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. being done in that 18-month period, they have to have a temporary facility. The temporary facilities are only allowed to be in existence for three years.
Councilman DiCicco, did you want to add anything to that? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No. 14 Councilman Kenney explained it. Thank you.
Section 14-406 (5)(b) relates to waterfront setbacks and amends this subsection to allow the Planning Commission to reduce the setback requirement if site specific conditions warrant the reduction. What might constitute a condition that would warrant such a reduction? 8 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.
Madam President, let me preface my comments by saying that we firmly believe that for any of the waterfront facilities, that they should provide a 50-foot setback from the river. However, I believe that it was one plan in particular that showed a feature that we thought was a rather nice feature that didn't comply with that particular provision of the legislation, and that was a feature that allowed one part of a finger pier to be connected to another part of a finger pier by a path or a bridge, if you will. On that plan, I believe that bridge was maybe to 17 feet in width, and it just seemed 18 unreasonable for that structure to be 19 required to be 50 feet in width, and to 20 the best of my recollection, that 21 generated this proposed amendment to 22 cover situations like that. 23
What 24 is the procedure that the Planning 25 Commission must follow before a waiver is 9 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. granted?
Madam President, any plan of development has to be submitted to the Planning Commission for review. We are going to review every aspect of that plan. That plan has to be reviewed by both the Planning Commission staff as well as the City Planning Commission requires consideration by the Planning Commission at one of its monthly meetings.
And after the Planning Commission acts on that plan, it then comes over here, Madam President, at which point Council would then also review it.
Thank you. Section 14-408, Off-Street Parking, the amendment to this section 22 removes the requirement that a traffic study be submitted. Is such a study presumed to be incorporated into the proposed amendments 10 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. to Section 14-403(3) relating to plan submission requirements?
That's all that amendment does, it just moves that requirement to a different section of legislation.
Thank you. Are there any questions by members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, thank you, gentlemen. 11 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.
I would ask Ms. Murray to read the title of Bill No. 060544. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 8 approving the third amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Kingsessing Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Chester Avenue on the north, South 52nd Street on the east, the Amtrak right-of-way line on the south and South 61st Street and 62nd Street on the west, including the third amendment to the urban renewal plan and the first amendment to the relocation plan, which provide, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 30 properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the project. 12 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.
Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. I am Michael Koonce, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 11 060544, an amendment to the Southwest Schuylkill Redevelopment Proposal and the third amendment of the Kingsessing Urban Renewal Plan for the Southwest Schuylkill Redevelopment Area and the Kingsessing Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 30 vacant structures and lots. These properties have been requested for acquisition by the Southwest Renewal Initiative, which is a multi-phase project proposed by three developers: Presbyterian Homes and Services, Board of City Trust and the Philadelphia Housing 13 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Development Corporation. The properties will be substantially rehabilitated and sold to low to moderate-income first-time home buyers. The purpose of these acquisitions is to facilitate a proposal which includes properties to be acquired under the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, a strategy to rebuild Philadelphia's neighborhoods and thriving communities with clean and secure streets, recreational and cultural outlets and quality housing. Among the central goals of NTI are to eradicate blight caused by dangerous buildings, debris-filled lots, abandoned cars, litter and graffiti and to promote redevelopment through large-scale land assembly. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 24 060544 and first reading on October 26, 2006. 14 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Koonce. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Madam President and members of the Committee. I'm Richard Redding. I'm Director of Community Planning at the City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify in support of Bill No. 060544. This amended redevelopment proposal was approved by the Commission on May 18th of 2006, and this item is fully consistent with the Kingsessing Redevelopment Area plan amended by the Planning Commission in October of '02. I'll be happy to try to answer any questions. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Mr. Koonce, are the properties to be acquired part of a larger development proposal or are these 15 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. properties scattered throughout the area? If so, I would like you to elaborate on the development of this project.
This is actually the second phase of a project that Council has already passed ordinances in support of in the past. I have Jennifer Lewis here, who could actually give you details of the project's past and current status.
Hello, Madam President. My name is Jennifer Lewis. I work for Sherrick Project Management. We are the project management firm for two of the developers involved in the Southwest Philadelphia Revitalization Initiative. That is the project that we are talking about and the properties that are currently under request for acquisition. This is a multi-developer 16 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. project that, as Mr. Koonce explained it, involves Presby Homes and Services, Board of City Trust and PHDC. It's a three-phase initiative. We have already completed the first phase of the initiative where 30 homes were rehabilitated. Of those homes, they sold for approximately between $50,000 and $60,000. So they've created a housing market out there in Southwest. We're moving on to our second phase now where there's another approximate ten homes to be developed that they're currently in the planning phases now of starting construction probably within the next few months, and this will be the third phase. So we're looking to be able to roll from our second phase into the third phase.
Thank you very much. Can you tell us what the total cost of funding to rehabilitate these vacant structures and lots will cost? 17 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.
Under the first phase, they cost approximately 140,000 to 160,000. So we did a combination of sources to fund that, between the Homeownership Rehabilitation Program, the home sales, as well as an additional subsidy that the developer would get, whether it be the Federal Home Loan Bank or DCED.
So the total was somewhere about 140,000 to 160,000 for development. So the -- my math, I don't know if I can do it that quick. I worked with Presby on ten homes, so it was about 1.6 million.
And this phase, the total development costs will be approximately 4.8 million.
The total development cost for this phase of 30 18 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. would be approximately 4.8 million.
Thank you. Mr. Koonce, I believe you received a fax from my office yesterday about 2125 South 60th Street.
It is my understanding that this property was purchased at sheriff's sale in April of 2006 by the adjacent property owner. I would like the RDA to defer the declaration of taking until further notice. I have been notified by the owner that if there is no redevelopment moving forward within a reasonable period of time, I will seek declaration of taking.
Thank you. I believe there are some people that would like to be recognized. Good afternoon, sir. Please 19 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. identify yourself -- Mr. Koonce, would you please stay. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Madam President. Yes. My name is Abu Bakar Sadiki Dabo (ph). I'm the owner of the building that we're talking about, 2039 South Redfield Street. I've been residing in that building since 1991, until last year October 26th a fire caught my house.
Yes, ma'am. And it's been under construction. Up to today it's been completed already. It's almost brand new and it was done through my mortgage company, and I have pictures inside of the building that's been reconstructed.
No, I haven't. 20 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. At least the rooms that these pictures represent are certainly up to City Code and RDA rehabilitation standards.
So at this time, we certainly will not consider this property.
Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming in.
Do we have anyone else to testify? Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Eddie Diggs and I'm here concerning the property at 2133 South Cecil Street. However, it should be 2131 South Cecil Street. I was sent two letters 21 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. concerning 2133, and that property has been sold by me. 2131 should be the one that's in question.
Within the last two months. I did not receive anything on 2133 until I received this, except for the fact that they sent me a bill that it was going to be boarded up, and that was paid for. Taxes and everything was up to date on that property.
Would you say a year to three years, five years?
Well, the property was reported like vagrant. People were 22 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. just moving in and out as they wanted to. It was reported as a drug house.
Yes. I did. I've sold it, the 33 that you have here. I'm here concerning 31. It should have been 2131 South Cecil.
3131, Mr. Koonce, I'm told is not on the list. Is it on your list?
Is vacant as long as 31 was vacant, yes, up until it was sold. 23 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.
31 is the one that the City took from me without my saying yes to it. I received a booklet with 33, and what it is, they were telling me that the things that I could -- who should have contacted me, things that could have been done. I was contacted back in 2004 concerning this. I did not receive a booklet with that, with this thousand dollars as an estimate compensation for the property. There were phone calls made periodically between myself and Mr. -- I hope I'm pronouncing this right -- Mr. Petro.
Petro. I did not consent to this. I did not consent to the sale of it. To expedite time, I told him I sent -- there were e-mails sent and I said that I would sell them 2131 and 33 24 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. as a package deal for $5,000 -- I mean for $10,000. However, that was rejected. I received recently, September the 20th, that -- and it read, "An ordinance has been introduced to the City Council that would authorize the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia to acquire above-referenced property," which is the wrong address, 2133. I'm here to defend 2131, not 2133 because that has been sold, and, in fact, I even have the deed back -- the information back where the deed was transferred. So I don't --
Some clarity here. At some point I believe in 2003, 2131 came before this Committee and it was approved for acquisition for condemnation. We proceeded to condemn the property, and in 2004, we conveyed the property to Philadelphia Housing 25 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Development Corporation for rehab -- or for construction. I don't know whether PHDC has started the development of that property or not.
It's finished? Okay. Then as part of Phase 3 of this development, we were asked to acquire 2133, which is adjacent to Mrs. Diggs' property and she owned it as she owned 2131 at the time we initiated the process. At some point, I think I believe she said in the last month or two, it was sold.
The last three months it was sold, but the last time we checked City records, the deed hadn't been recorded, which is why in September we sent Mrs. Diggs a letter inviting her 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. to the hearing, because we believed that she at that time was the owner of the property.
Yes, but it was sold before that. When I received the information from you concerning -- when I received this letter, I had in my hand where the deed had been recorded.
But 2131 has been acquired, conveyed to PHDC to develop. It's been developed and I assume is either sold or awaiting sale to a low to moderate-income homeowner.
Can you be clear, please? Are you more concerned about 2131 or 2133?
31. That's the reason why I came, even though the letter was for 2133.
2131 27 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. is what was taken in the past; am I correct? I believe that you have the right to just compensation on 2131 and I would suggest you work with the Redevelopment Authority.
The offer that they are making me, I'm not satisfied with that based on the fact that when they came to me, the only reason why I was notified that PHA was taking the house was, they were taking it -- that they were taking the property was, I called concerning the taxes on the property, and when I called concerning the taxes on the property, I was told by Mr. Petro that the property was no longer mine, that the Authority was taking the property.
I was not delinquent in any way. I was up to date on everything on that property, the same as I am or was on 33. I was not delinquent on anything. All water bills 28 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. paid up. Everything was paid up, including the fact that they did in fact send me information for the taxes and I even paid the taxes. And they were making me an offer of $1,000. Then they came back with $1,500. Then they came back with $3,500. I don't understand.
I guess I'm being prompted to ask you again, how long was this property vacant?
It was vacant without vagrants for about -- I'm not sure. This is an estimate, a guess, but I was still paying taxes on it -- for approximately --
For approximately -- I'm giving an estimate on it. For approximately, say, six years.
Would you consider the property to have been blighted? 29 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.
Would you consider the property to have been blighted?
No, not if I'm paying taxes on it and I'm having it boarded up.
No. I don't understand that. What we're looking at here is, if I were not paying taxes on it --
Would you say that the property was in good, fair or poor condition?
I would say it was in poor condition, because people kept 30 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. breaking into it.
It was not neglected. If I'm paying taxes on property, property is not neglected. If I'm having it continuously boarded up because the City is ordering me to do this, it is not neglect. It's the fact that I could not live in the house myself to protect it against the people in the area. The houses were reported as drug houses, and nothing was done about that.
I don't really have any knowledge of the situation for the first property, but as we haven't concluded negotiations, if this is a valuation issue, we're quite willing to reopen negotiations to see if we can reach an amicable settlement.
Is that all right with you? 31 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.
Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes, Madam President. My name is Richard Moore. I'm a real estate broker with Best City Homes. I'm here in regards to three properties: 6026 Greenway, 2012 South Salford Street and 2008 South Salford Street. These three properties are owned by Patrick McCrystal, Jr., and I have these properties under agreement of sale currently to an Olga Barker, who plans on rehabilitating them, and the settlement hasn't gone through because we got the letters.
You're not speaking into the microphone, 32 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. and I have people talking on either side of me. It's very difficult to hear you.
The three properties in question I currently have under agreement of sale with an Olga Barker, who plans on rehabilitating these properties, but we couldn't complete the transaction because we received these letters.
And I believe all of the three properties were delinquent in taxes?
And they had been vacant for quite a number of years?
So when do you think the prospective buyers will be rehabilitating these properties?
Well, she was planning on starting as soon as 33 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. settlement went through. It would probably take her about a year to 4 months to rehabilitate them. But I can't 5 do anything with this essential cloud 6 over the title. 7
She's not sure 10 whether she's going to do rental or 11 homeownership yet. 12
13 Mr. Koonce, I think this is one thing 14 that I've been looking into. When people 15 get permits it seems like in this City, 16 the permits could last forever before you 17 take action. I would like to know if in 18 fact these were taken off, when would the prospective buyer start rehabilitation on the three properties, when would they go to get the necessary permits. I think there should be a period of time that we give people to do that. Otherwise, somebody else will be here, say, ten years from now, the house is still 34 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. standing, it will be vacant and somebody will say, Well, I bought that in 2006. However, I did get a permit and we are going to be doing the necessary rehabilitation. I think there should be a deadline. I really do. Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't know if Mr. Koonce was going to answer, but there is a program that allows, I think it was, two years that could be entered into an agreement between the homeowner or the property owner and the Redevelopment Authority whereby it gives them, I think it was, two years or two years from the date that the redevelopment of the area begins. Is that --
Right, but even under that program, we would still have to start the process over again. If you do not pass the bill allowing us to acquire these properties now, it starts 35 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. all over again. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me, but I think you can pass it and include those properties in, if I'm not mistaken. I'm trying to remember from when we did MLK. We entered into an agreement, with the understanding that the properties had to be rehabbed within a certain period of time.
Agreed, but I don't believe any of -- my point is, if they aren't rehabbed, there is no 14 enforcement in that agreement, unless the owner is willing to put a deed in escrow and we can break escrow if he runs past the time limit. We would have to go to court and it would be a longer process than recondemning. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I was under the impression, as an example, if you pass this bill today that included these three properties that are in question, you keep them in that bill, they're part of the taking, and the 36 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. property owner then has two years to rehab those properties. If not, all bets are off, because you already have title.
That is absolutely correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Which means if the trigger gets pulled immediately upon the taking today and they have two years, I think it's two years, if I recall --
Well, actually, I think it was two years for that particular development. Actually, we can make it six months, we can make it two years. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You can make it anything you want.
But I think in this case -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's like a good-faith effort on the part of the property owner who is claiming that they are intending to rehab it. If they don't, it's done, because Council had 37 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. already done its job by passing the legislation. Does that make sense? Is that accurate?
But, Mr. Koonce, couldn't the Redevelopment Authority take the properties and select his client as the developer?
We could do that also. We could acquire the properties and then we could enter into a redeveloper's agreement with his clients, and if they met all -- if they gave us approved plans or permits, they have permits, and they showed us the necessary level of financing, then we would just convey the properties to them, subject to them finishing the either rehab or new construction.
It's difficult, 38 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. because essentially what you're doing, you're taking the properties and so he can't really sell the properties. That's the problem. Mr. McCrystal can't sell a property if the Redevelopment has already taken it today. It just makes things very complicated. If we could have a chance to talk about it maybe, but --
I think from his standpoint the issue is price. We can absolutely acquire the properties and we can pay you fair market value, but I don't know whether our ideas of fair market value would be the same, two different appraisers.
Well, we don't have any information on that yet, and that's the problem. You're taking the property now and then you're going to say, Well, we'll decide what we're going to pay you later. I mean, it's difficult to work like that.
Do you know what the value of the properties 39 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. are?
Currently he has them under agreement. I think the three of them are for 39,000 for the three of them.
I was trying to think if that was a fair valuation from our standpoint, and it just -- I don't remember properties in that area selling for 13,000 for vacant shells. I mean, I don't know the basis for saying that we could enter into negotiations that will be beneficial to our side. It seems much more expensive than we would normally pay in that area. We would agree to an appraisal. We would agree to let you review the appraisal. We would agree to let your 40 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. appraiser review our appraisal. We would discuss the valuation and make our best effort to come to some sort of terms to a resolution.
I could possibly talk to him and see if -- I hate sitting here negotiating in front of City Council, but possibly we choose an appraiser, you choose an appraiser, and they choose a neutral appraiser. That could be -- that's fair.
Or I will even agree -- we have quite a few appraisers. You could just look at our list and choose one of those, if you'd like.
Well, it has to be someone that's neutral. I mean, that's fair.
Okay. So then I think we can probably work this out. The bill could pass and we would start tomorrow to negotiate. Well, we would start tomorrow to get appraisers and negotiate. 41 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.
Let me ask you a question. Is the same person buying all three properties?
So now we do have speculators coming into the area, I am sure, and we don't even know what they're proposing to develop. They could hold onto these properties until they end up falling, and I am saying to you that I think, Mr. Koonce, six months to get permits and start building, I think that's only fair.
That's if she buys it. She may not buy it because of this issue right now. So if she bought it --
If she's not buying it, then -- who owns the property?
Yes. So my 42 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. understanding is, if she buys it, she would have six months to rehabilitate the properties or start rehabilitation?
She would have six months to pull permits and start construction.
Okay. I don't know what her intent is, whether it's going to be homeownership or rental. I don't know that.
Well, that's what this program has been all about, homeownership in that community.
That's something I can't promise right now, but, I mean, the best I can do is --
I think if your client were so interested, 43 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. she should have been here personally.
Well, she unfortunately didn't know about this until recently. The letter was only sent September 20th. But I will convey that to her and I will talk to --
But she knew enough to get in touch with you and she had ample time for you to come in.
Hi. How are you? Do you know the buyer? I mean, is she local? Is she in Philadelphia?
She's a Philadelphia buyer. She does own other real estate in the area. She's never been tax delinquent. She doesn't speculate on real estate. She has no 25 vacant units. 44 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.
Okay. Well, she has a six-month period to get the permit, but until then, will she comply with Property Maintenance Codes and keep -- I don't know the neighborhood at all. I'm not familiar with that section of Philadelphia, but if there's grass and weeds and trash, she'll do that, she'll comply with getting it cleaned?
Yeah. She'll take care of -- she wants to settle as soon as possible so she can take care of the outside of the building before it gets too cold. So it's in her best interest to settle right away.
Okay. And as a previous owner -- well, you're still the owner. You're going to sell, correct?
I'm not the owner. I'm a real estate broker. I'm not the owner.
You're 45 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. the broker.
Any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you, sir. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify? Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Flora Tillman. I am the sister of James L. Brooks. The house that is in concern is 2123 South Alden Street. We lived in it for years. The neighborhood had 25 become a little difficult for me. I was 46 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. going to work in a little car that my daughter gave me and I parked it on Woodland Avenue and went home and the next day I come out to go to work, they took the car and put it on a flat bed truck and went away. I come out to go to work another time and the lady told me, Ms. Flora, don't you see all that blood? I didn't see it. So when I came back from work -- I went on to work. When I came back from work, I seen it. She said, They shooting outside your door. So I was putting a new kitchen in, and the man advised me that we had outlived it. But I built a new kitchen anyway. It cost me $10,000. That's here or there. My brother died May the 19th. He left the property to my two daughters. In turn, we got the letter in September, too. They work. They asked me to come down here. Delinquent in tax. We were fixing up the house and someone broke out all the windows. So the City got in 47 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. contact with me and told me to board that up or I was going to, you know, get penalty for something. So I boarded it up. I was paying the taxes, but I didn't keep the receipts for it. But it is delinquent. But my daughters now told me to come and see what they can do to mend what they owe or what it was really about. So now I can go home and tell them what this is really about.
All right. In the event that you were not here for the previous testimony, and I don't mean to embarrass you in any way, but apparently your brother did not pay taxes for 12 years.
Well, we can give you the computer printout so that you could show it to your daughters. Further, how long was the house vacant? And now that your daughters have the property, what do they propose to do 48 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. with it?
That's what I need to go home and tell them what the lady told me so that they can tell me what they want to do.
All right. Do we have an extra copy of the computer printout?