Well, I'm going to tell you and I'm going to tell you on the record: It's about squatters. Originally when this was written -- and the person that had my Council seat's deceased so I can actually tell you there was certain areas where he did this bill, he probably didn't want in this bill 'cause I think it was perceived as a bill that gave squatters more rights, okay? Now, we're all laughing and smiling and trying to do this politically right, but there are certain District Councilpeople that are not present here now and they may not want you to read that, I don't know. I'm okay with the 7th Council District -- we do what we got to do there. Now, we can do the whole city or --
I'd like to know whether the ward of which I'm the ward leader is included currently or whether it's --
And you have that right and so does he. 40 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369
No one's ever spoken to me either about inclusion or exclusion.
Well, looking at the proposed, I guess, amendment to this bill, it looks like the 17th Ward is --
Is that the 18th Ward, Councilman? Is that the 18th Ward you're --
Looking at a draft of the ordinance in front of me, Councilman, it looks like the 17th Ward is included. It's listed as number 33 on the ordinance.
Councilman, again, I think what happened was, when the original people that constructed this bill left things out, and as the Council District changed through redistricting, it still may have said the 8th Council District, but there may have been some wards that were originally 41 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 not on there and they were technically never put into the bill. And I think that's what this bill is doing. It's adding -- we should do the whole thing, but for whatever reason, we're not. They asked the District Councilpeople to look at it and see what was missing 'cause I had forgotten about it and I was just scrambling with Hughie when we started. Is the 42nd Ward in there, divisions I have, the 43rd? I wanted to make sure they're all in there.
And I think that's what the rest of the District Councilpeople -- the only thing one I can't speak for is Councilman O'Neill, who's not here. Councilwoman Krajewski's here and her whole district's in it.
I don't understand the difficulty in the people testifying giving us specific information.
Well, that was me, Councilman, and I just went into a sidebar with Councilman DiCicco. I was concerned about other District Councilpeople that weren't here and for 42 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 whatever reason might not have wanted that in there, but I don't think there's a problem now.
With respects to the bill before us, three years ago when we had suggested this particular program, we had initially requested a bill to deal specifically with vacant lots, calling it "a nuisance abatement bill." In discussions with the Administration at the time, it was felt that it made more sense to simply amend 1202-A, which was a similar bill.
Do you know when that was around from, Councilman? I mean, we're talking about the --
Right. And we made a decision to amend the existing 1202-A. When we did that, it only included those particular wards that were in the original bill. Subsequently, when the discussion about the vacant lot program came 43 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 about, people understood the significance of having the vacant lot aspect of that bill in there but not necessarily were in agreement of the vacant property portion of that bill. I would like to ask, though, for clarification standpoint 'cause I'm not sure that all Councilmembers know that by placing these particular wards in this particular bill, it's my understanding that now vacant properties will in fact be subject to the original 1202 bill. So I think that point of clarification needs to be understood before members place those particular wards in their areas. Is that correct?
In order to enforce any provisions of the bill, the people enforcing it have to know in what parts of the City they have the power currently -- I'm talking prior to the amendment. And, therefore, it would seem to me that you would have readily accessible to you those wards where you have the power.
Okay, I have no idea why it was not included originally. I raise it, Mr. Chairman, because just before this meeting --
The Mayor nabbed me outside the building to urge me and other District Councilpersons and Councilmembers-at-large to come Saturday when the City is beginning its campaign to clean up the lots, and there's going to be some kind of a tour. And he urged upon me the important role of the 8th Councilmatic District and the 17th Ward, so I'd like to know what is the status of the 17th Ward. You say it was not included originally but it would be included with this amendment.
Thank you for the 45 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 information.
I'd just like to offer some other information. The Neighborhood Program Coordination Unit at Office of Housing has been working with the Administration to implement the Small Vacant Lot Abatement Program. We currently have 778 applications that we're processing to this program. These are people who have stepped forward and who have agreed to take the responsibility to clean and maintain these lots while the City attempts to acquire them. We've also gotten support from Home Depot in that Home Depot was providing $100 vouchers to people who come forward and volunteer to abate the violations and nuisance on those lots. It's an opportunity and effort for community residents to be able to take over vacant lots in a legal way that they've been maintaining illegally over the years. It also helps people access those lots while waiting to get into the Gift Property Program or for the City to take the lots to sheriff's sale. So what we're doing here is, we're trying to make sure that in areas of the City where 46 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 there are vacant lots and there are citizens who are willing to step forward and take care of those lots have the opportunity to do so.
Thank you. Anybody else have any other questions for these witnesses? Councilman Nutter?
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Pursuant to a request from Council, we would like to offer two amendments to the bill. I think you have those in front of you.
Yeah. Could you give them to the clerk. Councilman Nutter, go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple questions with regard to where we are and what the process is. First, I don't have any issue about the wards of the 4th Councilmatic District. The other five that were never in the 1202-A Program have been added in and I don't have any issue with that. I told the Council President that a long time ago. This issue came up at a briefing. At the time, I'm not even sure that NTI 47 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 had necessarily been created as an acronym. I think we were still dealing with the blight elimination program back last year at the briefing at the University of Pennsylvania for Councilmembers. And it was at that time that this discussion came up about expanding this particular program, I think, more specifically around the vacant lots to a citywide program. As I understand it, the Council President then asked, I believe, District Councilmembers to let her know of their interest in this, and I responded to the President. From a process standpoint, one, it's clear to me that because of what our calendar is and given the date that we're having this hearing, we're not going to be able to vote on this bill before we go out of session; is that your understanding?
Okay. So even if the bill came out of committee, and I know that there's some confusion about what wards are in and not in, and it appears that there's a disagreement about some of the parameters of the larger scope of this section of the code and how it impacts or may impact certain areas. 48 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 What, if any, benefit is it to you to have this bill come out of committee? And I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't, but I'm just trying to understand, given our timing here, what do you get as a result of a bill coming out that we can't vote on?
A point on that before you answer that, and I would say this to the Councilman. I think we've been hearing something, and maybe you can answer that. We can process these actual applications if it comes out of committee. Is that what we're looking at?
Well, currently I guess, Councilman, if I can answer your question. Right now, I guess as Belinda Mayo testified, we have currently 778 applications currently in-house. Approximately half of those residents requested lots that were not eligible for this program. So we had not processed those applications.
And why weren't they eligible, because of something we need to do legislatively?
Because they were not located in wards that were eligible to participate in this 49 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 program.
But on Councilman Nutter's point, if we vote this out of committee -- I'm not saying we're -- it's still not through the Council as a whole, does that help these people?
That will at least give us some authorization to go ahead and put in the time and the effort over the summer to prepare those applications so that once you do return to Council in the fall and, you know, if it comes out of Council, then they are ready to be processed and those applicants are ready to participate in the program.
I understand. Let me assure you that I understood that that was the answer that you were going to give. It just needed to be placed on the record.
Let me, though, ask this question: With the significant increase, it seems like about almost the other half of the City gets added into the provisions of this particular section of the code. Does it also mean that those 50 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 areas are then eligible for all of the other components of what was the 1202-A Program, which maybe its name, for the most part, now has been changed or more officially become the Emergency Nuisance Abatement Program, which is more encompassing than just vacant lots. Isn't that correct?
Okay, so why don't you tell us about the other components of this particular section of the code that expands beyond just vacant lots. Because, I mean, you have to understand, and I think even the testimony is primarily geared toward the small vacant lot program. I'm just seeing the testimony here this morning. I don't get the impression that the testimony lays out with particulars what the other components of this particular section are and what it allows people to do beyond small vacant lots.
I'm sorry, Councilman. What was the question? You want to know the impact of the --
The section of the 51 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 code under the Emergency Nuisance Abatement Program has actually two components today. It used to just be, before it got its new name, the 1202-A Program, which only dealt with vacant properties, a property that actually had a structure on it.
At a subsequent point in time, that section of the code was amended and then we created this new property maintenance section of the code, but it added in this new vacant lot component, all under the same section. The testimony in front of us today, which I, again, say for the record, because I'm just seeing it this morning, I have not read it with a fine-toothed comb, but my impression is, the testimony is primarily, if not solely, about the small vacant lot program. In reality, by adding all of these wards to this section of the code, they are also eligible for all of the other components of the Emergency Nuisance Abatement Program, which is not just about vacant lots.
It also makes those wards or subjects those wards or makes those wards 52 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 eligible for people to participate in what was or still is the 1202-A Program, which is about vacant property structures that are still on the lot.
Okay. And so, having said that, we started the hearing with the impression -- I'm not saying anybody's trying to mislead anybody, but I was coming with the impression that we were only talking about vacant lots, and I thought that the bill that was being introduced was about a small vacant lot program that was being taken citywide. Now, you're not responsible for what I thought. That was just -- based on the information that I was getting, that was my belief or assumption. And I know assumptions are a bad thing to make.
My testimony pretty much said buildings and lots and -- 53 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369
I understand that. I never saw your testimony; I only saw Miss Mayo's testimony. So the question comes back, you're primarily concerned about small vacant lots at the moment; is that correct?
Are you necessarily trying to expand the parameters of the 1202-A Program, which dealt with the vacant structure component that is now a part of the property maintenance doe?
And now that that's been raised as a concern, we'll have to go back and brief Council further and talk to them about how that impacts the bill that we're offering and the amendments that we're offering.
So now going to the last point, if the bill does come out -- and I'm not saying that there isn't a way to try to fix it. If I had to glance at the code, I might even have an 54 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 idea or two. But if the bill were to come out of the committee in line with what your earlier testimony was about if the bill comes out of committee, what you're able true, is it not true that just as you're able to process applications for what your intention is, which is a small vacant lot program, doesn't a person at the same time have a right to try to access whatever their rights are under the 1202-A Program dealing with vacant structures in these same areas?
All right. Well, I don't think that was necessarily any of our collective intentions at the time. And, again, it was my belief or assumption -- it's my fault -- that you were bringing us soley a small vacant lot program, expanding it citywide because everyone cares about vacant lots, and I don't think that we were necessarily trying at the moment, at least without good information, to expand the 1202-A Program as it related to vacant structures. 55 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369
Yes. You should just know that 1202-A (NTI) under the part of the bill that deals with vacant structures has not been active for quite some time now.
I understand that, but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't have a right to access it.
Could you tell us what that is? 'Cause, you know, the suspension's killing everybody here.
What the Councilman's alluded to, 1202-A, which is, what does it do if they decide to act on it? I have a general idea, but let's say it for the record so we're not growing mushrooms in the dark here.
As it's related to the lots 56 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 or the structures?
As a person who, way back in my history, was an inspector who used to inspect for the 1202-A Program, I can explain to you exactly how we handled it in L&I way back in the early '80s, mid-'80s. The Redevelopment Authority primarily administered the program over at 1234 Market Street. We would get a listing of properties to go out and inspect. We would inspect those properties to determine whether or not the properties were viable for persons to take over the properties for rehab purposes. If we made our determination that the properties were structurally viable and viable for the program, then we would send our report back to the Redevelopment Authority, and the Redevelopment Authority in turn would go through the process of acquiring the property through proper sheriff's sale. If they were to acquire the property, then they would turn that property over to the 57 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 person who made application for it, and the person who made application for it would be given a specific amount of time to bring the property up to code requirements. And if they were successful in doing that, in meeting all of the other parameters of the program, that's what was explained to me back in those days. This was back in the early '80s.
Why don't we have a veteran -- not that you're not, 'cause you're a veteran of many, many things. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
If not a qualified expert, and the 1202-A Program sits with us now at the table.
It's not quite accurate. The program -- it wasn't administered by OHCD. The program called for the applicant to be an agent on behalf of the City of Philadelphia to abate a nuisance. That individual as an agent was allowed to gain access to the property and abate the 58 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 nuisance. In the interim period, they were able to spend whatever dollar amount it took to bring that building up to code and some additional activities. Each portion of the activity was placed as a lien on that property, and subsequently, the liens were built up to the point where people felt comfortable that the City would initially bid on sheriff's sale, as you said, and acquire that property. So it wasn't a lot of interim use, it wasn't -- kind of what we do now is just go out and give the person the time. That property was not conveyed until that person actually abated the nuisances on that property.
And I thank you, Councilman, because you filled in all of the gaps from my inspectional part of that to the actual behind-the-scenes part of it, but I'm just giving it to you from the inspectional part of it.
Yeah. And I just want to say that in response to Councilman Nutter's question, this whole issue came up, I believe, maybe a year and a half, closer to two years ago, when there was a discussion about the 1202-A Program and the 1202 Vacant Lot Nuisance Abatement Program, and 59 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 the Councilpeople initiated the request to have those areas included. And as I can remember in the testimony, people did not understand why they were not included in the vacant lot portion of this bill. At that time, it was explained that, in fact, this was an addendum to the original 1202-A, and it did speak of the 1202-A Program as originally intended, including vacant properties, but there was not a question asked such as was asked today earlier about this particular aspect of the amendment and would it in fact include vacant properties. So it was driven by Council, not by the Office of Housing or the Redevelopment Authority or the Licenses and Inspections.
Mr. Chairman and other members of the committee, if I may, we can certainly offer an amendment that will specifically address your concern, Councilman Nutter. We can limit the wards that we are wishing to include in this program strictly toward the vacant lot program, and we can offer that to you.
I'm sorry, say the last part that you said again. I'm sorry, I got distracted. 60 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369
We can limit the amendment that's before you today, we can limit the inclusion of these additional wards and separate the Vacant Lot Abatement Program separate and apart from the 1202-A portion that deals with structures.
That's what I wanted to explore, and as I was looking in the code --
We can do that for you. If you would like to recess for five minutes, we can have that.
Well, that's a great idea, 'cause I can't find it real quick. What section of the code specifically deals with vacant lots as distinguished from vacant properties? I'm looking in 309, which is the only place that we would be able to amend today since that's in the title of the bill, but I can't find lots. Would you bring the supplement, Hugh?
Yeah. It bothers me, just the very concept of it, that we're excluding part -- I think that any legislation that we approve should be approved for the whole city. It smacks of 61 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 a certain type of legislation that occurred in previous years, and that is redlining almost. And it's -- I'm voting no if this bill 5 remains. I think we should approve citywide bills for citywide policies, and I think every neighborhood, every part of the City comes under it and should be part of any strategy that we have. All right, just to get down to the very philosophical aspect if one considers why we're here.
Thank you, Councilman. I'm going to take a five-minute recess. It's 10 after 11. Nobody leave the room, please. (Short recess taken.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)
The committee session is back in order. We're going to skip over this bill and we're going to come back to it and we're going to go right on to Bill 010 -- I'll first let Councilman Nutter ask this operational question, then we'll go to the next bill.
Thanks. 62 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 Back to 010369. Let's say we fix what we propose to fix today and the bill comes out of committee. You now have -- what was the information, 700-some applications?
The thing I did see in the testimony, you're talking about processing 250? What's the -- how --
The goal was to process -- originally when we launched the program, the goal was to process 250 applications originally.
That was the current capacity that the various departments could accommodate.
And what is that based on and what do you mean by -- I mean, know the definition of the word "capacity," but tell me the context in which you mean --
The staff time, the administrative time, the sheriff's sale process, current staff that they have available both at OHCD and the RDA and Licenses and Inspections.
Okay, let's talk a 63 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 little bit about those particulars. As I can best understand the scenario, a person comes along, they say they want to do whatever they want to do, and we can have a discussion about what they do with the vacant car that might be on it or something like that later. The person signs whatever they sign, they agree that -- what is it, a nuisance abatement agreement, I think, with the City, they go on, they spend their money, they're doing whatever they're doing. You know hopefully --
I don't mean to interrupt you, Councilman, but they cannot make any kind of permanent improvements until they actually --
Well, I understand. I mean, they can clean up and -- I mean, can they put a fence on it?
What do you mean, not really? What's not really? I mean, it's like 64 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 the Hertz commercial. I mean, you know, not really?
I mean, we cannot say to people that they cannot install a fence on a lot without the proper permits from the Department of Licenses and Inspections. And in order to apply for those permits, you have to be the owner of the lot, and they just have a license agreement.
Okay, let's go from today and give me the short version of -- let's say the bill comes out today, you've got 750 applications, let's say the property's not in the tax lien sale portfolio 'cause that's a whole 'nother discussion and we can get into that as well. Let's just say somehow they slipped under the radar, nobody's been paying attention to this particular property, and the person says, I'd like to get it. Say it's a recently demolished next-door neighbor lot. All right, tell me what they document.
They would complete an application to the Small Vacant Lot Abatement Program and return the application to the Office of Housing and Community Development. 65 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369
Miss Mayo, as you're doing this, if you can add some timelines to -- let's say the house came down last week, let's say the person's really been paying attention to what we do down here -- it would be one, like, one of the five people in the City that actually pays attention to what we do -- and they read in the paper tomorrow that this bill has come out of committee and there's a nice reporter that writes a story and says, you know, stuff's available. They call Friday, after the thing gets a first reading, and they say, I got this property next door, I think it's a prime candidate for this program. Take me on a timeline scenario of what's going on at what points in time.
It's going to be difficult to attach a period of time to the process, but what happens is that the person completes an application, returns it to the Office of Housing and Community Development. The application is reviewed for accuracy in terms of the information and whether or not the information included in the application meets the program guidelines. Once that clearance is done, the next step is to determine whether or not the applicant is current in their own property 66 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 taxes.
If they are current in their property taxes, then we check the status the of the lot in that they're requesting to make sure that the lot is in close proximity to where they live, that the it doesn't exceed 2500 square feet. And if it meets that test, the next step is to determine whether or not the lot is tax delinquent. If the lot is not tax delinquent --
I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you. The determination about the square footage, are we just doing that for my records or does somebody have to go out and take a look at it?
Well, I mean, basically, the footprint of a rowhouse in Philadelphia is about 900 square feet.
So a person can technically apply for up to three of those vacant lots, as long as they're in close proximity to where they live -- either they abut the property, they're adjacent to the property, or they're across the street from the 67 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 property of the applicant.
And once we've determined that the property is in fact tax delinquent, then the next step is to have the applicant come in to our office -- and we do that in groups -- to review the abatement agreement and the guidelines of the program to make sure that they understand, and if in fact they do understand how the program operates and what their limitations are until they actually own the lot -- and we do that in a briefing session at OHCD.
Then the application -- once the abatement agreement is signed, the vacant lot is sent over to the Law Department for certification for sheriff's sale, and then it goes on the list for sheriff's sale.
Now, what's going on with the lot during all of that period of time and is it -- I mean, in our worst nightmare, does all that stuff out there and all that and they're just kind of sitting there looking at it, what are they 68 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 doing?
Councilman, because the acquisition and disposition systems of the City -- currently, you know, the sheriff's sale process takes anywhere from nine to twelve months to do.
This program was designed to allow people to enter onto this property within four to six weeks of applying for the program.
What we do is, we encourage people to do keep the lot clean and maintain the lot within the code.
I thought you said something earlier about how they couldn't do anything with it until they own it.
What people do when they 69 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 submit an abatement is they also submit an abatement plan, that they're proposing to use this lot for purpose once the City's successful in acquiring it --
In the interim, what we're asking them to do keep is to maintain the lot, keep it clean, keep the weeds cut down. A lot of people do install fences. We can't say that they can do that but for their own whatever, they decide to install a fence to keep the lot from becoming trash-strewn again.
Right. That's like, don't ask me permission for something I can't grant you but I can't do anything about it if you do?
Councilman, if I can, when we had the original discussion, we were told that that person can place a fence up because 70 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 that was an abatement of a nuisance. They could not place any furniture or any other permanent -- any other permanent activity on that lot, but we were told that they could put a fence up, similar to what we in the City have done over the years in some instances where we demolish a property or there was a community organization and we had put a fence up on privately owned property to keep the property clean. So to think that, you know, we --
And that was after -- and I'm just telling you what I was told. In that activity, meaning the fence, in addition to the cleaning of the lot was supposed to be placed as a lien towards the ultimate purchase of that lot by the City of Philadelphia.
We can't advise residents to violate the City code. As a matter of fact, in signing the abatement agreement, what they're agreeing to do is to maintain the lot within compliance of City codes.
Yeah, but they are 71 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 an agent of the City. And what we attempted to do under this legislation was to allow this individual to have similar powers of the Department of Licenses and Inspections, which is why we have designated that person as the agent of the City, and Licenses and Inspections, from my understanding, has the authority to place a fence around a vacant lot to help abate a nuisance.
Well, they definitely do now, Councilman, as we all know.
Again, we can't advise people that they should move forward in that manner. The fact of the matter is that --
-- if the person is an agent for the City and subsequently given the powers of Licenses and Inspections for that particular lot?
We've been advised by the Law Department. 72 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369
Mr. Haigler, do you know anything about that? I mean, this is the first that I'm hearing of this, 'cause I was told when we did the bill that it was the purpose of making that person an agent for the City, to give them the authority to put a fence around a vacant lot so they can continue to abate the nuisance. And that information was forwarded to the people who applied. And I do not believe that the average person, if they thought they had no way of securing the lot, would apply for this program.
So far, we've had a briefing session for applicants who have signed abatement 15 agreements. We reviewed the program with them, 16 explained to them what the limitations are, but 17 people have chosen to take whatever steps they can 18 to secure the lot after they've cleaned it. And 19 what we've asked them to do is to maintain any 20 receipts for any amounts over $500 that they spend 21 to maintain the lot. 22 I am implementing the program as has 23 been dictated by the Law Department and the 24 Administration, and I've been told that in order for 25 someone to erect a fence on a vacant lot that they 73 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369 have to have a permit from L&I and they can only obtain a permit if they're the owner of the lot. So if there's something else that we should be doing --
Well, the fact that people -- that applicants are placing fences on a vacant lot should tell you that you probably need to come up with a strategy to allow them to do that legally, which I always believed they had the wherewithal to do.
And we are attempting to do that. So far, out of the 778 applications that we've received since December, we've processed 236 applications. That -- we've almost met our 250 application goal in a pilot phase. Now that we've gone through 236 applicants, we've identified new problems and new obstacles in the program. We have an intergovernmental coordinating group that meets on a regular basis, including the Department of Licenses and Inspections and the Law Department, and as these issues and concerns are being raised, we're trying to address them.
Who from the Law Department told you you couldn't put a fence up? 'Cause this is the first I'm hearing of that. 74 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369
No, who from the -- you said the Law Department told you --
So what is the purpose of that person being an agent for the City? I mean, what's different than what they're doing currently? Right now if a person has a vacant lot next to the their property and they're interested in keeping it clean, they do that now without this particular program or bill. So if they can't place the fence, what's the purpose of them being an agent for the City if they can't do that?
Well, this program allows them to go -- they are going onto the property currently. This program allows them to go onto even privately owned property. And once they do --
Are you saying the people are not going on the vacant lot next to them now and cleaning it off?
So, I mean, what's different? If we're not going to allow that person to secure the lot, what's the point of having this program?
I heard your comment that the Law Department said that they would need a permit. Has anyone asked the question, could the permit be waived under these circumstances? I mean, the object here is to encourage people do something, which, in effect, reduces the cost to the City from cleaning the lot. So I think it would make sense from a perspective of cost to waive the fee for the permit.
Or if the person is an agent on behalf of L&I, and if L&I has the wherewithal to put a fence up on a lot, why should that person -- 76 6/12/01 L&I - BILL 010369
No, but I'm saying, it hasn't always been the practice -- or it has been the practice for a number of years where L&I, when they abated a property, they would eventually fence it. Why wouldn't we afford the --