Yes. It's not showing from each program how much will be affected to 30% or below. So that's what I'm looking for.
So if you can just get that before the end of the day.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Dr. Anthony Phillips and then Councilmember Kendra Brooks.
Thank you, Council President. I just want to say really quickly that I am really -- I really admire the work that the Mayor is doing right now to address something in housing. No slack to previous mayors, from Goode all the way up to our recent Mayor Kenney. But this is the first time a mayor has put this much attention on housing in a way that anyone that's led this City has. So I love the presentation, I love the effort and I think I can see that this is such a serious thing. I also want to make mention to the fact that a lot of this stuff I recognize that you all are doing is still being worked out, but the research and the things that you put together is impressive so far. I liken this back to the time when we had the situation with the Wellness Center, where people were concerned about how that was rolling out and look how well that's come in. So I know the housing thing is going to come together too so I admire the Mayor for that. Real quick questions I want to share with you, a few things. One, I was in the gym this morning -- (Applause.)
Mess around and I'm going to walk in here like Donovan West and Nicolas O'Rourke one day looking like them. But I just want to quickly say a resident cornered me. She said, you tell them I cornered you, Phillips, and said, have you all done research around social housing that you've seen in Europe and basically trying to make some levels of comparisons to the social housing? And I know Kendra Brooks also went to visit with Jamie Gauthier spaces like that. But how have you adopted some of your work to what we've seen in Europe?
Councilmember, thank you so much for that question. And I don't know if you saw the look between the two Brooks in the room, but this is something that we have been in ongoing conversation with Councilmember Brooks about. And I'll kick it over to Angela to talk more about that work.
Yes. My cousin over there brought this up in our briefing with her last week. And ironically, two of the cities she modeled were actually here in the U.S., Seattle my hometown and Chicago where I moved here from. And so, we are looking into that. And I just want to remind everybody that as we are working on this plan, we want it to be a living, breathing document that we continue to ebb and flow and introduce new things to as opposed to a lot of the plans that are this is the plan and we're not going to change it. And so, I think some people are looking at our housing plan and saying it is social housing, like that's how they read the plan that we're producing. And so, we're ebbing and flowing and looking at that. So we are looking at some of the social models that have been presented to us, particularly those that have been done in other states. We've got a big book here of best practices that we've seen, so we've been looking at those so that is in the works. We will be looking to address Councilmember Brooks' specific question on that as well in the very near future. It is something we're open to, and I would imagine that some of the programs that are proposed here would be certainly considered some implementation of those.
Thank you. So, Ms. Adrian, you got your question on record. That was who asked me. And also, I just want to go to quick questions on this. In the 9th District, they're loving as you said, Tiffany, the idea that now there's accessibility for people in our income bracket to get some housing. We've had dilapidated housing or houses not dilapidated, but needing construction repairs and now, they can potentially be eligible for these programs. So I just want to ask questions that could be helpful for them. Members of our community are going to ask, how can they get involved with the curbside appeal program and how is that going to be executed? What is the criteria? They're going to also ask more questions about how can they get on the list for the Basic Systems Repair program in terms of they want to know if there's going to be a quick timeline and turnaround for this with the new housing program, what new structures you all have? Yeah, they're going to ask how they love it, but how do they get involved. And so, just kudos to the Mayor and you all's work on this.
So I mean, we're going to lean heavily on our One Front Door module here for the programs that allow -- that mechanism is being stood up to allow for you to apply for these types of things and be able to understand what you're eligible for. The Curbside Appeal Program will be something we're looking into standing up. We're going to have those conversations about how to stand that program up. It will be something that is going to be administered inhouse. However, the approach of applying will be married with the One Front Door module. Basic Systems Repair will also be one of those programs that will be on there as well, so we would coordinate application opportunities through the One Front Door opportunity -- One Front Door module. Sorry.
Thank you. Thank you, Council President. And it's good to see you guys again, a couple days. I do have some continuing conversations from the things we had before and I'm going to start off with social housing. The H.O.M.E. proposal sets aside $160 million for affordable housing preservation or construction. This is much-needed funding that could be used to create social housing by preserving homes like those with UC Townhomes or Brith Sholom. Where in this city will this funding be spent? And how will this limited money be allocated between different neighborhoods and Council Districts? And I'm going to get this on record. Who will make the decisions about buildings that will be preserved or restored? And will City Council have a role in the decision-making process and will community members have a role in the decision-making process?
So we definitely want to remain engaged with Council about how we make those decisions going forward. I think that the partnership that we have in Council is understanding what's going on at a local neighborhood-by-neighborhood level as we look into how we preserve. And I think you were asking questions along the lines of how we approach demolition of things that could possibly be preserved. We would definitely be open to having that conversation about figuring out how our program in response to something like that --
And my next question is, many times public funds are used to help construct or preserve affordable housing and ownership of these buildings are given to private developers. Once the area gentrifies or it becomes unprofitable to maintain properties like Brith Sholom, the private developers back out and sell properties at market rates, forcing working-class tenants, seniors and families to move. Many other cities around the country have recognized that and decided to keep the buildings that are preserved using public dollars actually affordable to the public by holding a majority ownership of the land that the housing is built on. Will the buildings constructed or preserved with public dollars under the H.O.M.E. funding be at least 51% owned by the public? Will the private developers be able to control the properties that are built or preserved with our public dollars?
And a point of information I want to add to that. Will we consider engaging in public land trust as a part of this overall initiative and also -- (Applause.)
I'm going to just stick with the public land trust as a part of, you know, the proposal to take in consideration as well where we control our own land as well. And WCRP, which is the Women's Community Revitalization Program started by Nora Lichtash in Grays Ferry, specifically for women, right. And I gave her the land, city-owned land through the Land Bank, and rents are only about $300 right. But they control the land. And it's a sweet spot to help a low-income family get into the middle class. And so, I just want to add to that same line of questioning.
And so, where the programming we're proposing starts to speak to that, it speaks to it in a couple of different ways. There's the Acquisition Fund that we are earmarking for introduction that will give some capital to a public developer for acquiring multi- family homes or vacant properties or land for the most part in an effort to increase affordable housing so that public land developer, maybe PHA for the most part, they would have some sort of component that would require some affordability as well. We're also looking at the ability to do something called the 70/30 public-private partnership. We have a model at 13th and Bainbridge in your District which has allowed us to hold onto the land with a long-term lease mechanism. We're looking to mirror that kind of model throughout the city, mixing up income but at the same time, you know. 13th and Bainbridge was kind of the first one that we did, right. So we're taking pages out of that book, learning from that process and looking at investing in the ability to look at where that type of model can thrive throughout the city. Holding onto our land on a long-term basis does give that opportunity for us to control the affordability component.
I'm going to relay the time back to my member. But do we see the value of actually engaging a public land trust still in the future as a part of this billion dollar plan?
We see that there needs to be a discussion around how that type of thing works out. Right now I think that there are certain Council Districts I believe that have some sort of requirement there to engage with a potential land trust prior to an application. I'm talking about publicly-owned land. There's a requirement to engage whether or not a community land trust might be interested in purchasing something prior to. But we think that that is the start of a conversation that quite frankly I think we're willing to have to talk about how something like that is implemented within the realm of big and surplus land here.
And I thank Angela Brooks for saying this is a living, breathing document that is not set in stone. So thank you. Member Brooks.
Yes. And my next group of questions I'm going to just ask them all at once before my time run out. It's about One Philly Mortgage and the public bank. I would like to know about the One Philly Mortgage program, which department will oversee the proposed program? Will the City actually be the mortgage lender or will it be partner with another lender? What will be the interest rates? And finally, what enables the program to work without private mortgage insurance? And Part 2, as banks are problematic actors through predatory loans, through determining who gets loans, what oversight of credit institution exists and how does the City monitor the impact of financial institutions on neighborhood integrity?
So I'd like to call up our Interim Director of DHCD Mark Dodds. But in the interim, what I can say is that One Philly Mortgage is meant to have the City invest in parking funds in a pool with others so it'll be some commitment from investors and lenders. But we would like to see that program live at DPD. And in addition to Mark, maybe one of our consultants can talk about where they've seen similar programs. And we're in very early talks about those conversations. Our model is driven from one mass mortgage. And we have talked to the lenders that have done the work in one mass mortgage as well, and they can talk to -- Ira's pulling it up. Ira can talk to the status of those conversations as well. So Ira can talk to those conversations leading up to now as far as the status of evaluating something here. And then Mark can talk about how we at DHCD administer programs of that nature.
And, Jesse, can you also elaborate on -- and I know we talked about this but I still want to go on the record because we're both in line with the same type of thinking. In our briefing on this proposal, we talked about the possibility of engaging in the banks that we do business with as a city, right. We put millions of dollars in banks every single day, right. And how could they be a part of this process, right. And I think they should be a part of this process. And so, could you elaborate on that as well?
Yeah, sure. Before I hand it over, I'd like to just note the fact that similar to what you just described we've had existing conversations with a lot of these banks for Turn the Key, right. And their conversations have been along the lines of willingness to lend to a particular constituency where in kind of your typical traditional markets might not have the credit worthiness. So we would definitely continue that engagement in conversation. Those banks are lending toward a mortgage buy-down. This is evolving into a conversation about providing a loan product, right. So I think that you make a really good point in understanding that we have engaged in conversations with banks. We have a great significant amount of connections and relationships that we have the ability to harness here. So I'll hand it over to Ira to talk about the status of those conversations.
Thanks, Jesse. And as it relates to the One Philly Mortgage, to be clear the City of Philadelphia is not becoming a mortgage lender so we wouldn't be making those loans. It would be done through a private lending institution. In all likelihood, it would be lending institutions that do business with the City of Philadelphia. The One Philly Mortgage is modeled after a very successful longstanding Massachusetts program which marries up mortgage lending with housing counseling, both pre- and post-purchase. It includes a loan loss reserve, which in this instance the City would be putting up as loan loss reserve which allows the lending institution to make the loans without private mortgage insurance and under more liberalized terms. In this instance as well, the City would take an active role in figuring out what the particular underwriting criteria are for the beneficiaries of this program so that we could ensure that all those bad things that you mentioned don't take place with this program. And what I would say is that because there's such a longstanding history with the Massachusetts program, what we can say is if things operate in a similar way to the way they do there, that this program would experience no greater losses or delinquencies than their experience, which basically tracks the prime mortgage market. So it's an adaptation of an existing successful program. We would not be the lender and we would just be putting up the loan loss reserve. The last piece I would say is that in certain circumstances one of the plans for this product is that the City would pay discount points to reduce the interest rates where necessary to help somebody qualify in a way that does not stress their income and make them more vulnerable to a mortgage delinquency. So the City funds under the program would be loan loss reserve, some program administration and not paying of discount points.
And just to add before Mark goes into how we manage those types of programs, I want to be clear about the fact that we do have experience with setting underwriting criteria. We've done that in the past with Restore, Repair, Renew. It's a program that's been truly successful at this point. So we have that expertise. We have the ability to do that.
I mean, I can speak -- I can attest to the track record of helping individuals become first- time homebuyers with particular banks in this process. And so, hopefully we can ramp that up on steroids as a part of this particular proposal. So I definitely can attest to that. Member Brooks, you're wrapping up?
-- just add just a follow-up question so as they finish, you could just answer this as well. So my concern is that if we're going to use the City's budget as a de facto public bank, would the Mayor consider signing onto the still pending legislation enabling a public bank so that the City can utilize a financial institution with appropriate protections and guarantees in place to do the things like pay the percentage of down payments for low-income buyers? And that's my follow-up to that.
We can't respond to that question now, but we're happy to respond to that question in writing which we will do immediately. And then I'll kick it over to Mark to answer your first question.
Good afternoon. I think Ira did a great job of going through the details of what that program might look like. Mark Dodds, Director for DHCD. I would just say that in order to operationalize everything, we tend to draw on existing programs. So earlier we talked a little bit about Philly First Home, first-time homebuyer program. The infrastructure for that program contains a range of housing counseling agencies. It's a collaboration between DHCD, so our contract analysts are doing intake and processing applications and reviewing everything for accuracy, and PHDC, who's ultimately making the payment. So I think even though they're very different programs the goal is the same, to create a homeownership opportunity. And we'll be able to draw on the success of our current programs to implement that program.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Jim Harrity and then Councilmember Dr. Nina Ahmad.
Thank you, Council President. Good morning, everyone. How's everybody doing this morning. Just want to get right into it because of time. I guess this would probably be for Dubow. Why is the City choosing to borrow $800 million through unsecured bonds rather than secured ones, especially given that this approach not only increases borrowing costs significantly but also reduces transparency around how and where the funds will be used? Start with that I guess --
Yeah. I'm not sure what you mean by secured versus unsecured in this context. We're proposing to go to market in the way that we do for all of our bond issues. There's nothing different about this approach from a typical bond issue for us.
Do you mean why aren't we getting insurance; is that the question?
Excuse me, Rob. Just one second. Point of information, Member Young.
Thank you so much. Just for clarity, maybe my colleague is referring to tax exempt versus taxable bonds. I mean, those are something that --
And the rationale is that many of the programs that are part of this initiative don't qualify for tax-exempt borrowing. And because of that, we would issue taxable.
Okay. All right. I got that. How will the City ensure that the $800 million is spent at a pace that matches our borrowing schedule so we're not over or underutilizing our funds? And the goal of the plan is 30,000 affordable units. Can you give us a breakdown of number of units based on their affordability threshold? How many units for each income bracket?
So I'll take the first part and then hand it over to Jesse for the second part. So the pacing will drive the timing of our bond (inaudible). So we think that there is, as we've talked about, a great need so that the money will be spent quickly, which is why we wanted to borrow a substantial amount. The second borrowing is based on how quickly we think we will spend that money. If we spend it more quickly, that could be moved up. If we spend less quickly, it could be moved back.
Okay. So we won't be penalized if we're not spending it fast enough?
All right. Good. And then you could just get to the second part, which is the goal of the plan is 30,000 affordable units. Can you give us a breakdown of the number of units based on their affordability thresholds? How many units for each income bracket?
Sure, sure. So thank you, Councilman. What I can give you is on the production side for opportunities that are deeply affordable, that's 0 to 30% of AMI, we're earmarking 1800 units on the rental side. And I just want to be clear, one of the questions earlier was about whether or not this particular program is going to address the need at that particular AMI. We opened earlier to talk about how this is a strategy that is complementary of PHA's strategy, which is much more well-equipped to tackle that particular AMI. So I just want to reiterate that we can't do it alone, which is why PHA's program is far more complementary than it's ever been at this point and it allows us to focus on the expansive income opportunities as well. Just to continue, sir, on the affordable side which is 30% to 50% of AMI, we're looking at 1400 units of ownership and 2500 units for rental. For workforce housing, which is that income band between 50% to 80%, that is 2100 units for homeownership and 2900 units for rental. For workforce-plus, which is 80% to 120% of AMI, that is 1100 units on the ownership side. And the need for rental units at that particular level is 1400 units -- excuse me, 1400, yeah. On the market rate side, we do earmark that there is a need for 300 units above 120% of AMI. But I want to be clear about the fact that the programs that we're presenting are much more responsive to all the other rental units or the numbers that I've described for you. Moving to the preservation column, for deeply affordable units we estimate that there is a need for 7200 units to be preserved from 0% to 30% of AMI. For affordable opportunities 30% to 50% of AMI, we earmark 7900 units that need to be met for preservation. For workforce housing, the number is substantially lower, from 50% to 80% of AMI. That's 1200 units that need to be preserved. And for workforce housing-plus, we have 200 units above 80% of AMI that need to be preserved.
Yeah, that's very helpful. Thank you so much. Thank you, Council President.
Thank you. The Chair next recognizes Councilmember Dr. Nina Ahmad and then the leader of the Kensington Caucus, Councilwoman Quetcy Lozada.
Thank you, Council President. I just wanted to commend the Mayor and all of her team on this bold plan to grow Philadelphia. We really have to go back to our 2 million residents. Our city is built for that. And I think this plan will help us get there. I do want to make sure that we are using all the tools of government to make sure we are laser-focused that we're making good decisions, right. And the purchase of a home -- and I'm really focusing on homeownership here, the purchase of a home is one of the largest and most important investments and is critical that homeowners remain vigilant to protect this investment. Philadelphia's homeownership rate has, as Tiffany alluded, has dropped to 52.3% from 53.9%. That's a significant drop, and we are known in the country to be a homeownership-focused city. So similar to price fixing, if you recall the federal government, the Department of Justice is actually suing the real estate company RealPage that had engaged in collusion and price fixing. Similar to that, I am concerned about predatory investing. And I wanted to know, this is -- what I mean by predatory investing is investors are acquiring available single family homes which exacerbates the housing affordability crisis. So I wanted to know if you guys are keeping an eye on the data around the purchase of single family homes by these corporate entities? Will you be surveilling their home purchase activities, ensuring transparency in how these properties are being purchased by corporate entities versus individual buyers? We really have to stop predatory investing that is hurting our homeowners. I don't know if you recall that our former Vice- president had really championed the Stop Predatory Investing Act. I think it's still alive and it's just been reintroduced in Congress earlier this year. And really the question is the aim to level the playing field for everyday buyers who have the desire and means to purchase but are being outbid by these corporate entities. So it really is -- what are we doing to pave the way for a more equitable housing market? And sunshine is the best disinfectant, so I would love to see what are you doing to keep an eye on this. (Witness approached Witness table.)
Thank you, Councilmember. John Mondlak. I'm Deputy Director in Planning and Development. And you raise an excellent point. It's a challenging point that's a challenge for every city across the country, not just Philadelphia. And the solution -- part of the problem is the solution is what we all want is for these companies to stop buying, but it's not so easy to prevent somebody from buying, and that's where we get into, okay, what can we do. And I'm actually not familiar with the legislation that you mentioned, but I'm going to look into it because I would say we need more tools than we have. And so, what we are doing as a city is PhillyStat360 is a very data-driven part of our city. And one of the things that they have been digging in deeply is trying to figure out, okay, who are these people, how do we link them all up, because they buy an LLC that has a unique name, often named after the address and it's hard to figure out. So what they'll do is they'll dig deeper and they'll scan the documents, and sometimes AI is actually very helpful in this to figure out, okay, who are the officers, who are the people that are signing these to try to make links, and they have been able to do it. And there's actually -- we've also talked with services consultants that provide this service that depending on how much we can provide versus how much need we have, we may engage with them to provide this data. Because ultimately right now what we're looking at to try to help solve this problem is enforcement.
The price colluding is very difficult. That is something that we haven't gotten into suing people to -- it's one of the things that I would love for us to do. It's hard to prove. You have to have a lot of evidence. And a lot of those cases get dismissed. But if you can prove it, that would be excellent because that's ultimately what you're trying to stop. The other thing that we have a little more influence on is trying to stop the bad behavior because what they do, if you think back to the Brith Sholom and that was outright illegal what they did. They liquidated every piece of value out of that property and walked away. They were criminals. They were criminally charged in other jurisdictions. And so, in those situations you want to do criminal law remedies. In some of the situations, these investors that are just buying up all these properties and they've concentrated in one area, because ultimately they want to get to is collusion. They want to get to price fixing. And if you don't have a certain percentage of them, you can't do that. You have to be able to control the market. So they don't want to just scatter all over. They want to focus on different areas. And the key is to try to figure out what they're doing early. So I mentioned PhillyStat360. They've been successfully able to do that. They did a pilot in Kensington to see if they can determine that. And then what you have to do, what we have to do is step up enforcement and make sure that we are citing them for every bad thing that they do. And number one, you want to improve the conditions. But number two, you also want to be a thorn in their side. You want to make it difficult for them to be successful at their game of buying, not investing, jacking up rents and then ultimately sell at a higher price. That will be the exit strategy. So that's what we're doing. We're doing it through data and we're doing it through our L&I quality-of-life enforcement.
Thank you for that because the surveillance part is going to be critical to do what is downstream needed to do. And I think sharing that surveillance information with Philadelphia, with us, Council and our constituents would give a real eye on who are the bad actors. I think that has real value as we are figuring out how to hold them accountable. And that's where I think having a dashboard on the surveillance of these and who's buying what and cross-referencing that to give that data would be very powerful so that our constituents can actually see who's -- and then this brings up the whole issue of people selling at a much lower rate than they could and all of those. There's multiple other things that I'll put into writing that I think we could use as tools to inform our constituents about how they should negotiate in this space.
I agree and I appreciate the ground sourcing of information. I think that's an interesting point. And I also agree 100% folks that don't necessarily understand the resale of their property or don't have folks to talk to about it, they'll take the first offer they get and it's a crying shame because that's who's behind those offers. And they flood the market. Everybody that owns real estate probably in the city every single person probably gets those texts and those emails, and most of us know that they're a scam. But somebody that's desperate to sell their property for whatever reason may take advantage, sell at a much lower price. And I'm going to quote Octavia Howell who's our Deputy Director for Planning Development. She has a -- Planning Commission, she's Executive Director. She has a great story of her aunt who was in this situation. And she was fortunate to be able to step in and say, no, you don't need to do it, your house is not a tear-down, it's not a gut job, you don't need to sell it to an investor. This is a perfectly functioning home. It's a little dated because it was her great- aunts, I think her grandmother's, and it can serve a family. And that's what they did. She said, just be patient, put it on the market and somebody bought it, and they had a starter home that had an affordable price that paid more than the investor but didn't really have to do anything. And so, how do you get to that. That's what you want to achieve so that people aren't feeding into this and making it too easy for these investors.
Yeah. Exactly. So it has to be an information campaign that is underguarded by data so people can understand. We need to get our communities ready and educated around this. And I think you have the tools to do that.
And I think that's where that community engagement, it comes in that Councilmember Gauthier's been talking about that we agree with. It starts with the housing town halls, right. We had one last week in the 2nd District. We're going to do more. They're not scheduled yet so coming to a neighborhood near you, but that's part of that community engagement continuum. It's not just a one hit and then we're done with that section of the community. We absolutely agree there's an ongoing information campaign that the government can't do alone nor can Council. That's where executive or rather our external stakeholders come in. And one of the things that even Ira Goldstein, one of our consultants said earlier, this plan coupled with all of the work that's happening under Kelvin Jeremiah's leadership at PHA, it really holistically approaches and addresses the needs across all the income bands that we've talked about. So while Jesse gave that big breakdown, the notion that we're going to spur predatory lending or that we don't care about low-income people or that we're not prioritizing them enough, we're looking more for toward a middle income, well, that's absolutely not true. And both the data shows that throughout the report but also that's why we're here today to talk to that. So I appreciate that question and the opportunity to respond to it.
If I may add, Councilmember. The engagement piece is important because that's where we start to communicate these programs that we're putting out, right. One thing that would drive people away from selling so quickly is the access to the opportunities to improve their properties, right. So rental improvement funds, making sure that we're including things like that and continuing these types of things, it spears away the ability to say, look, I can't afford to do what I need to do and it's probably just a better option to sell. That should not be the case and that's what our program should be responding to on the preservation side.
All right. Thank you so much. Thank you, Council President.
Thank you, Dr. Ahmad. Councilmember Quetcy Lozada. Councilmember Nicholas O'Rourke next.
Thank you, Council President. Thank you for being with us today. I would ask Mr. Goldstein a question and then I want to put on the record two questions that were sent to our office from constituents that I'd like to ask. But prior to me coming into City Council, I know Mr. Goldstein did some research for an organization or a collective of organizations like Esperanza around the housing crisis in Districts like mine. And so, my question is does this initiative respond to the crisis in the housing market in Districts like the 7th? Have you shared those findings with your team? And if it doesn't respond to those crisis, what are some of the challenges or what are some of the changes that you'd like to see included in this initiative that would respond to that 20% to 50% AMI that we know we desperately need in places like the 7th? (Witness approached Witness table.)
I don't know if you're directing that to somebody else, but I can try to answer it and -- oh, I'm sorry.
Hi. Good to see you again. I think that the H.O.M.E. plan is aggressive, it's big and I don't think it meets every single need of every single person in every single circumstance, to be quite honest, but I think it's an amazingly --
-- large and multi-dimensional plan and strategy that's designed to hit a lot of different segments of the Philadelphia population. I did do that work on the Area Median Income, and I do know really well that those percentages are based on a four state, 11 county region that in some ways sort of overstates where Philadelphians are in terms of what the resident incomes are. And that's why by the way that we put in this table of all the needs, we put the actual income levels themselves so that you could see who was going to be touched by the different programs. So you'll see, for example, in that deeply affordable line of the table, that is 0 to 30% AMI, that's actually up to about $32,250. So those are actually people who are in the Philadelphia standard kind of modest income. But there are significant resources that are key to that population, that income band of population. And, in fact, 30% of the total plan is to that band alone. And then if you sort of move up a little more, you pick up another 40% of the plan, so 70% of the production and preservation that's planned under H.O.M.E. is for households targeted under 50% of AMI. So to your question does it solve every problem, in all honesty I couldn't say that it does. And were the City in a position to do $2 billion or $3 billion of borrowing, I think we would get closer to solving all those problems. But I do think it's a plan and a strategy that represents I think enough different kinds of strategies pointed at different income levels and tenure types that you will see benefit in each of the Council Districts, recognizing that they're all a little bit different in their makeup.
Can I jump in right here because I just want to make sure we say on the record that the H.O.M.E. plan isn't intended to be the ask-all be-all of solving the housing crisis. We've shown time and time and time again public investment always sparks private investment. So the 30,000 units that we're talking about aren't the only units we think will come from the improvements that come from the H.O.M.E. plan by process improvements. For instance, in DPD around permitting and ZBA, we'll see a lot of market rate developers and nonprofit developers able to better accomplish their unit delivery goals as well. And so, I just want to make sure we're very clear that we're not only saying that during this time frame these are the only units that will be developed. We are anticipating that the private market will also move and do things that are outside of this plan that we'll also be able to celebrate and will contribute to unit delivery and addressing the housing crisis in Philadelphia.
I just want to say a point of information just on that point. And I think that's why it's critically important with this billion dollar borrowing, is that we're doing as much as we can to invest and on the low- to moderate- income side, because the market is going to already take care of those individuals who want to really pretty much be well to do. And so, I think that's something to critically always keep in mind as we go through this process. Because, yeah, you're right our investment will spur more investment, but that's more than need for us to really, really double down on those most in need because the market will take care of itself based upon our development. (Applause.)
I didn't say that for the, you know. I'm just having legitimate conversation based upon me doing this work since I arrived here.
We wholeheartedly agree with that, Councilmember. Absolutely.
We agree and that's why it's really important that we continue the work that we do in support with PHA, and the two plans that are coming out together will be very great and collaborating in kind of touching all of the income brackets that are impacted.
Yes. But just one part I just want to clarify, and I'm glad that PHA is a part of this process, but we're talking about the $800 billion that we're just borrowing on behalf of the City of Philadelphia.
PHA is really going to take care itself irregardless if we weren't doing this plan. Kelvin Jeremiah would still be on steroids with federal money trying to PHA the whole city, right, which is cool. I grew up on PHA housing. But I also recognize that in terms of our responsibility with this borrowing that it's incumbent upon us to really do that deeper dive to making sure that we're critically addressing that population that's most in need. And that's from low income to also workers as well because we have workers who work in Council who had just purchased homes, first-time homebuyers. And I know when somebody said, well, it's not a housing crisis. And I remember going into my own house and it was a PPA worker who approached me and said, hey, I'm about to apply for Turn the Key. And I'm sure she's getting a reasonable paycheck at PPA, a nice salary, right. But she said, hey, I'm really struggling, I'm trying to purchase -- she didn't say struggling. Let me change that. I'm applying for Turn the Key and I'm going through the process. And so, when I'm like when folks say, well, there's no 24 housing crisis, and I'm walking into my house separate from me doing constituent service work, the young lady pulled me to the side and said, I'm going through the paperwork process and I hope I get in. And so, that's all, my point.
That's the point right there, Councilmember. We have staff in the Planning and Development Department that are helping to design these programs that can't afford to purchase a home and they have a desire to, that's not right. That's not right at all. So, yes, we want to make sure absolutely people that are low income they have that pathway to self-sufficiency, that we're thinking about that. But along that continuum is also the people within Planning and Development that can't afford housing right now that want to own a home.
Working class, working class moms I've seen that can't even purchase a home.
Councilmember Lozada, you want to wrap up with your line of questioning?
Thank you, Council President. One of the questions that was submitted to my office that they asked us to put on the record was would nonprofits and other organizations that offer transitional housing be eligible for funding or support under the H.O.M.E. Initiative's preservation efforts?
And is there any support within the initiative for wraparound services such as case management, employment support that are essential for transitional housing residents?
We will be putting funds toward programs that support those types of things in conjunction and collaboration with OHS for administering.
Awesome. And my last question is what is the process for nonprofit transitional housing providers to apply for funds under the H.O.M.E. Initiative? Has that been established yet?
Councilmember, I need you to repeat that question. That was pretty fast. But I heard that I think our Director Hill will be coming up from OHS. Could you repeat your question, please?
Sure. What is the process for nonprofit transitional housing providers to apply for funds under the H.O.M.E. Initiative? Has that process been established yet? (Witness approached Witness table.)
Thank you. Cheryl Hill, Executive Director of the Office of Homeless Services. We do have some programs currently that people can apply for as we have the RFPs out for them. We have currently RFPs out for supportive housing -- supportive services as well as some housing programs. We also partner with Jesse's team on different programs, including a pilot that's including renovations to rental programs in exchange for providing services and housing to people experiencing homelessness. So we do have that and part of the H.O.M.E. Initiative as well. But then we'll work with them continuously to see how we can expand those programs.
Awesome. And then my last question, since Council President is busy, does the preservation --
No, I'm always on point. I saw you. I'm doing the latitude. Go ahead.
Does the preservation component of the initiative include funding for substantial renovations such as updates to kitchens, bathrooms, common areas and bedrooms?
The answer is, yes, there will be funds. Once we get them they will be earmarked for programs that support those types of improvements.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nic O'Rourke, then Councilmember Cindy Bass and then we are officially going into our second round.
Oh, I'm sorry. Then we'll have Councilmember Jay Young and then the second round. Sorry, Member Young.
Thank you, Mr. President. I'm adding my voice to the chorus by expressing appreciation for the focus that this Administration has placed on this issue in the second year of the term. A functional north star that I've followed since joining my colleagues on this Council is to make law that materially and measurably improve the lives of our citizens and working people every single day, you can't get more material than housing. And as Madam Mayor points out often, if you want something done make it somebody's job. So I appreciate that this has been prioritized in Year 2. One of the H.O.M.E. Initiative's most important goals is to repair and preserve our affordable housing stock. This is a goal that we are deeply aligned on and which I'm also fighting for in my Safe Healthy Homes Campaign. One of the goals of that campaign is to fund enough L&I inspectors to create a full proactive inspection program that would make sure that all of our family's homes stay in good, habitable, safe, healthy condition. I think it was Ben Franklin who first said, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In this case, preventing housing falling into disrepair is much cheaper than fixing them and therefore I believe more prudent. At our March 18th Housing Committee hearing, L&I told us that in order to get a proactive inspection program up and running that could inspect all of our rental units, the department would need to hire people with a budget increase of around $6.2 million. A drop in the bucket as it relates to $800 million. Can you help me understand why we are not investing some of this $800 million into a proactive inspection system to prevent homes from falling into disrepair? And if we had done this many years ago, we may not need $800 million now. And if we do it now, we may not need to do it again later. (Applause.)
Our budget does invest extra funding in Licenses and Inspections and we can get the details on that investment.
Okay. Thank you. I'm excited to see the Basic Systems Repair Program receiving a sizable increase in funding. I'm also noticing that the income eligibility is increasing from 60% AMI to 100% AMI, framing that for folks again, we've talked about it a bit, but 100% AMI for a family of four is $114,007 while the actual median income of Philadelphia City is about $60,000. I understand the goal here is to extend this critical service to more families who are struggling. However, the total amount of new funding going to the Basic Systems Repair Program over the entire H.O.M.E. Initiative is only enough to slightly extend their current annual budget of $40 million by around 20 million a year, assuming as Mr. Lawrence said that this is being a four-year program or plan. Additionally, funding for our other repair program Built to Last is being slashed, we talked about that a bit, especially considering potential federal funding cuts that would decimate funding for both programs. We have serious concerns about whether we're putting in enough money to merit extending eligibility to help thousands more families. A few questions that I'd like to try to get on the record. We already know, and I thank you for answering this already, that there are 7054 families that are on the waitlist at current eligibility requirements. That's correct, yes? So I'll just say yeah. How many new families do we estimate will apply for the program under the new eligibility guidelines? Will there be preference given to families at the lower AMI requirements? And let me get this other one. I know that the largest source of funding for this program is federal CDBG dollars. Is there a plan to transition more funding to BSRP if that federal funding is cut?
The Chair recognizes Councilmember Jamie Gauthier.
I'm not sure that the FY26 number for BSRP is as high as was stated. I may be mistaken, but I wanted that to be specified. I'm not sure it is as high as $40 million.
Mr. Jesse, can you just clarify for the record that number?
The number for FY26 is not $40 million. Yeah, that number for FY26 is $9 million in addition to in addition to $13 million in CDBG and $551,000 from Housing Trust Fund. So those numbers do not include the H.O.M.E. bond commitment.
So sorry. It just makes the Councilmember's question more critical, but I just wanted to clarify that.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for clarifying that. That's very helpful to know. Thank you. Good point information. But, yes, can you answer those other questions?
So hopefully I recall everything because it was a lot. But what I can let you know is that the target that we're looking -- the funds that are being committed to Basic Systems Repair, that yields the ability to serve about 7500 households.
Okay. How many new families do we estimate will apply for the program under the new eligibility guidelines?
And will there be a preference given to families at the lower AMI requirements on that?
We understand that the need is deeply -- that need is at 60% and lower, right. But we also understand that we've taken the time to quantify the data that represents the need for repairs at levels that are higher than that 60% of AMI, right. So we totally want to prioritize. We want to prioritize the 60% of AMI because that obviously is the need and that's obviously where the waitlist has been quantified from. But we also don't want to cut out the many constituents of the 4th, the 6th, the 9th District, the 10th District who make slightly more than those income eligibility requirements limit you to, so we can get you the numbers as what we think that anticipated growth would be. But we certainly want to respond to the moment in time that says, look, just because you make over that 60% of AMI doesn't mean that you don't need the relief and access to the funds to make the repairs. In our opening statement, our Chief of Staff talked about how people have to figure out how they're going to buy eggs, how they're going to buy school supplies. And those are struggles that are felt at any particular AMI, right so --
-- as those costs go up, the disposable income goes down and we see how that's marginalizing people. So we'll do the research to figure out what exactly that opens up, but we certainly want to respond to the moment in time that clearly says that not only do those at 60% of AMI need to be provided with some relief in Basic Systems Repair. We also want to address that need above. And then talking about how the existing funding outside of H.O.M.E. responds to the income restrictions based on different funding sources, between Housing Trust Fund and between CDBG respectively 80% and 60% of AMI I think are the max numbers that both of those can actually go up to in providing services. So that particular portion of the funding committed to will have to be dedicated to those particular AMIs. It can't go above those particular AMIs. So there would be a certain portion of that if in fact we figure out how to amplify Basic Systems Repair Plus, at a certain minimum at most would have to go toward those particular AMI. So it in a sense is prioritizing the ability to respond to just those at that particular or the existing AMI.
Yes, and these are also very restrictive funding sources, so we have no 6 ability to wiggle out or exceed those particular targets for the constituency income levels.
Okay. Let me get one more. I heard the bell. I may have to come back with this to clarify later. But the previous 10-year tax abatement came under significant criticism for spurring gentrification and leading to unnecessary development in well-off neighborhoods. Since then the state passed Act 58 which grants the City the power to create a 10-year tax abatement to incentivize the development of deep, restricted, affordable housing below 60% AMI, which means the housing would be guaranteed as affordable for the full years, the abatement. When I asked about this in our briefing upstairs, we were told that the Administration was not planning on using Act 58 to ensure affordability. If our goal is to incentivize the development of affordable housing and not simply spur less redevelopment and gentrification, why are we not taking advantage of this new tool?
I'd like to call up my colleague John Mondlak to talk about the work that we're doing around the tax abatement and reviewing that.
Councilman, thank you for the great question. We did almost use that I think on North Broad and maybe in I want to say the 1st, 3rd -- in a couple districts. Now, I wasn't involved in it so I'm going to tell you what I understand and then hopefully somebody will raise their hand and maybe correct me if that's not correct. But my understanding was that it had to go to the School District for approval and did not get approval.
That's my understanding. I just know that it's not -- and it was hard to track it down. I went through a lot of sources because the bill was passed by City Council but it's not applicable. It's not being used. And I don't think we're --
Can somebody clarify that for a point of information --
Yeah, I think that would be very helpful. And certainly, we will follow up but it's not --
Excuse me, John Mondlak. Just give me a second, sir. Just for a point information. Could your team get clarity on it because I don't think the bill -- it was Clarke's bill. If I'm correct, it never made it out of Council.
I'm sure because it was a level of push back. Regardless if it was affordable housing or not, the public didn't have an appetite for the abatement. But if you can just get clarity on that, that would be helpful for the member.
Absolutely. But I think we can all agree that it's not being used today.
Act 58 passed. I'm talking about there was also a bill 11 sponsored by the former Council President specifically to provide tax abatements for the affordable housing projects that we're working on. And I know at that time that bill didn't advance for it. That's all.
So I don't think there's opposition to it. That bill allows for if you include 30% of your housing units at 60% AMI or lower, you can take advantage of the abatement. But again, for whatever reason we tried that, it didn't work and we'll get to the bottom of why it didn't work. We will at some point be engaging with Council to talk about an abatement program that maybe we could talk about that program. I don't think we're excluding that but also just about bringing back the abatement in areas that haven't been fully invested in so that it wouldn't necessarily apply to all the condos, the high-end condos downtown but other areas of the city that haven't received the same amount of investment. And again, it's going to have to be a discussion. But the idea would be that we do bring it back to 100% in certain parts of the city and not all of the city.
That'd be a great discussion to be a part of. Go ahead, Mr. President.
Yeah, just a point of information. Just clarify that in terms of the uniformity clause where we can pick certain areas to apply the abatement to, because my understanding is the uniformity clause limited us from doing that. But if something has changed, can you elaborate on that for me please?
Yeah. So I can't give you the definitive answer because that's going to have to come from Law. We are meeting with them next week to talk about that very issue, but there have been discussions. And my understanding is that if you can establish the reason for doing it in certain areas and not other areas and the reason we would do it in certain areas and not other areas would be based on the market value analysis that TRF does for a number of cities, including Philadelphia. So they analyze census block data to look at what is happening with investment and pricing. And they do a very pretty map that has seven different colors I think that shows where the investment is happening, where it isn't an investment. And what we would do is we would look to exclude the areas that have the significant investment and include the areas that didn't. Now, again I am no 18 longer in the Law Department. I'm not going to opine on that, but we've had initial conversations where the Law Department has kind of indicated that if you can establish it definitively how you came to this rational reason for coming up with a strategy that it should work. Now, if they look at it and say, no, it doesn't, then so be it. That's not going to be an avenue. But right now my understanding that it would be an avenue.
Okay. Great. Member O'Rourke, would you like to wrap up before we go to Councilmember Bass?
Sure. Thank you. The H.O.M.E. plan is pitching a list of pre-approved private developers that will receive preference for land distribution from the Land Bank to develop housing. While I understand the efficiency to this, it also raises some serious questions and concerns I'm sure that you've already heard from. Can you explain how this plan would not create any potential legal or ethical issues for the city preferencing some developers over others? And how will the newly-developed homes be guaranteed to actually increase the stock of affordable housing versus just building more empty luxury units that we have seen since COVID?
Thank you for the question, Councilmember. I'd like to step away from the word preference in this particular case. I think we're leaning more toward preauthorization, that of which because we're referring to the creation of a pool of developers that we know the Councilmembers are comfortable with proceeding in the development of housing here in Philadelphia, right. So the special disposition process that we are thinking about in relation to the greater plan looks to earmark at least 1000 properties out of the total public sector's inventory. That 1000 properties will be spread throughout every single Council District. It'd be citywide. And that conversation would be with each Councilmember to figure out exactly what properties make that list. When it comes to the developers, we are cognizant of the fact that not only does the public sector and the housing agencies have a sense of where the developers are able to deliver. We all know that you all have a sense of where you know that certain developers have developed the appropriate community relationships to get things done, right. So, the pre-authorization effort is really to streamline -- across the board we're trying to streamline process, right. So this particular pre-authorization approach is meant to streamline the approval process when it comes to developers. We would have to work very closely with the Councilmembers to figure out what that pool of applicant developers would be, right. And in the same way that we work as the housing agencies and the land-holding agencies to vet the applications on developers and their ability to qualify for development opportunities in terms of access to capital, capacity to do the work, ability to clear things like tax clearances and stuff like that, we would do that in concert with you all informing that authorized list. So we're looking to minimize the same risk that we would be looking to do as the approval agencies in getting through the development process.
So the process to create the pool would be basically in concert with the District member saying here's our list --
But also to the question around the legality of it, right, and how we would do that, we don't do anything without the express approval of our City Solicitor and our Law Department. So we're not in a -- we don't work with the Law Department -- I'm sorry, sir.
It's along those same lines. So giving us an overview if you pre-approving this land, right, what's the transparent process of putting together a pool of developers, right? What does that process look like, right? When we get into primarily District Members saying who gets to build and who don't, how does that process transparent when a person doesn't feel like because District member X is cool with Developer Y, I feel like as an outside developer I'm pushed to the side, right, in this whole process of pre-approving properties? And then also, if you pre-approve the properties, which basically says the Land Bank wants once you sign off on it has these thousand properties that they want to move forward with in concert with the District Councilmember, where is the community input in this process? Because it's similar to us doing by-right legislation. Well, once you do by-right we have no say-so whatsoever when a developer comes inside our community to build. And so, once this list is pre-approved, one, just give us an idea what that transparent process looks like for developers who may want to participate. And then, two, the process of the community having some level of say-so, because now they'll still come to the Land Bank and express either support or nonsupport hopefully in concert with the District member but sometimes against the District member, and if their needs aren't met there or concerns are met there, then they'll come to Council and say, we support or not support. So how would you ensure that that District member still has the opportunity to advocate on behalf of the voices of his constituents or her constituents that put them in office?
Sure. And while this is a new concept here, other cities do what we're talking about. And so, we have positive -- we have a landscape of how this could look. The first thing I'd like to do is to have Angela Brooks talk about what that landscape looked like in other cities that she worked in around land disposition, and then the methodology Jesse will take that question. While Angela is gearing up, I want to say that community engagement is going to be upfront and often. As a former RCO member, head of Zoning in my community for a short period of time, I know the importance of having that engagement early and often. I also know what happens and I see it in my community every day when I take my door to the school, what happens when that process is usurped in and we have developers that are building by-right against what the community is asking for, so that's what we're guarding against. But Angela can speak specifically to that, and then Jesse.
Great. Thank you for the question. And Councilmember Gauthier prepared us for this question when we briefed her earlier this week. So thank you. And so, I'll start with the kind of first part of your question in terms of how that process can look. When I was working in Chicago, specifically the Housing Authority, we had a pre-qualified developers pool. And so, it was a similar process to the longer process, but we just did it on the front end. And so, we did a pool of developers that went through a public procurement process, so anybody could have applied and they went through the process and they were vetted in the same way and they were selected through that process. So then with the development sites that we had we went within that pool to do the disposition for that. And the community engagement piece, and that's one of the things and I'm assuming that's part of the reason that I sit in the Mayor's Office, is so we can have a more proactive engagement on a lot of this in the first place. So, so often engagement is project by project, and we really have a vision of doing more engagement globally. And so, working with the District Councilmembers, particularly on the front end, we're going to work with the Councilmembers to figure out what those thousand parcels are. So we're going to know what those are long before there's any kind of work done. So working with them at the designation point and talk about what is the community vision, what is the District Councilmembers' vision for those properties on the front end. Because when you get to project by project, that's where it gets very defensive and it's not a global process. And we think that it will be more effective and I think it will work better with some of the visions of some of the District Councilmembers on what they want as well.
So that's the thinking behind it. But we also know that we have and what we've shared is the first thing that we want to do is to look at the full data set of properties that we're talking or proffering to be a part of this. We want to meet with each District Councilmember member my member and bring that data set to them, ensuring its accuracy, right, and that it's comprehensive. Once we have that information, then we're looking at a methodology that looks at everything from need, to ensuring that we're addressing the need but also that we're touching every District. Then once we do that we'll sit down with the Council and then look at how we prioritize that in an effective way. But nothing that we're going to do is going to be in a cone of silence or secrecy or not with transparency and not working with Council, particularly District Councilmembers but certainly Council.
Sorry. I just want to add there's a fact, you know, when it comes to the process we're just seeing benefit in being able to front load. I think Angela talked about the ability to bring certain steps to the forefront. In the experience in having worked with the community engagement piece when it comes to the Land Bank and the disposition part of everything, I'm of the mindset that certain Districts, certain constituencies probably didn't find out about what was coming down the pike as far as development until maybe a week before a project was on a particular agenda, right. So we're seeing benefit in being able to front load the approvals process so that you all as Councilmembers have the ability to be in front of that along with the community being able to or giving the community members the ability to react or be able to digest what's coming down the pike as far as potential development before a project is even conceived, applied for or even permitted or near considered at this point, because we want that to be in congruence with whatever the initiatives are. We want to be clear about those initiatives. We want to be clear about the fact that those initiatives are aligned with a particular set of selected properties, because if we're going to talk about an expedited process, we understand that we still need to receive all necessary approvals and repositioning that process in a way where again community engagement is not only just engaging on what prospective project would be, but just kind of the initiative of the H.O.M.E. plan period, what the H.O.M.E. plan looks to achieve in all of this. To be clear, we set up the parameters around certain design. The pre-authorization list would be more so aligned with Turn the Key opportunities, in-fill opportunities, scatter site opportunities. We're not talking about properties or development opportunities of economies of scale, things that really do need consistent and constant community input. That's not meant for this process.
Understood. I would just -- and I understand where you're coming from in terms of single family homes that are built under Turn the Key. Just as you go through this process I think before we even vote on it, at least for District Members, you probably want to have crystallized that framework if individuals are even comfortable participating from that aspect. But thank you for giving that overview. Councilmember O'Rourke, you got your answers so I can move on to Councilmember Bass before we get Member Young and then break?
Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon. How are you. So just a couple of questions and I want to start off finishing up on the Council President and Councilman O'Rourke's questions, particularly around participation and who's going to get to participate in these projects. And I know that this is a new Administration, y'all trying something new. But typically, this administration has done -- well, typically previous administrations have done a pretty horrible job of ensuring that there is participation among Black and Brown folks when it comes to these kinds of initiatives. And so, I want to make sure that we're not going to be supporting something that's going to continue that trend. And I know you both very well and I know that you know you're committed to this, but how are we going to be ensuring, how are we going to really make sure that Black and Brown people are really going to be building in their neighborhood? Nothing is worse for me as a District member as when I am near or at a public project, and I'm just going to use a project many years ago at Vernon Park in which it was a public works project and it was across the street from the Philadelphia Hair Company. And the guys are watching people who are not from their community, not from their ethnicity, from the suburbs, from New Jersey, doing a public works project. And they're like, Cin, what's up with this. And how do I possibly begin to explain these kinds of things that have continued to happen in our city for a very long time. So I'm just very hopeful that we'll be able to address this time in a meaningful way because it hasn't happened in the past and that would be transformative?
Thank you. And we truly appreciate that comment. I will say that this plan is taking steps toward that. I would say that this plan is also planning to capitalize off of some previous things that were put in place at PHDC, specifically around minority development programs and training through those particular cohorts that recognize that there needs to be a bit of a level playing field between developers that look like me and those that don't look like me, right. And this program that we're -- the plan that we're putting together or have put together includes a few programs that talk specifically to that giving access to bonding, which has been historically a barrier for developers that have been historically disadvantaged in this particular space. Also, looking at some sort of contracting training which is going to quarterback off of that minority developer program that I just described at PHDC. And also, I see my colleague John Mondlak prepared to talk to -- or I'm sorry, Camille, Camille sitting behind him, who could speak more toward the workforce training cohorts that we're looking at. But we do recognize that as a space that needs to be filled, and that is something that we prioritize in this Administration, giving that opportunity to Black and Brown developers.
And so, even when we're working with our partners at the trades union or working through our community, our City College for Municipal Employment, we're thinking holistically about who's on the job, who's doing the work but also ensuring that we're creating that pipeline. So to talk about that workforce development pipeline, I've asked Camille Duchaussee, our Chief Administrative Officer, to talk about what that looks like from a workforce preparedness perspective.
Okay. And I know I have limited time so you can give me the condensed version of it.
Okay. So good afternoon. Thank you for the question. Camille Duchaussee, Chief Administrative Officer. And then succinctly I will say that both from a procurement perspective and from a workforce development perspective the beauty of this plan is the convening. We are at the table as the plan is created and as we are forecasting the work is going to be done, so all of the opportunities, all of the techniques, all of the systems that we can bring to bear in terms of making sure that our workforce development programming outreach is targeted as well as our procurement practices are targeted.
Well, listen, I'm excited that you're at the table. I will say that one of the things I hear on the streets is we've had Black folks at the table for a long time now. This is not nothing new, and we haven't moved the goalpost at all. We've had, listen, Black mayors, Black everything. But we haven't been able to for whatever reason get in front of this issue. So I really hope that this Administration is going to be transformative in that manner.
Yeah. And they were at the table, but they weren't the key decision-makers and that's different now.
Well, I heard that. Well, thank you very much. My other question really quickly is around the programs themselves. And the question that was asked earlier was around the amount that's being invested in like BSRP and the other programs Built to Last and the amount that's being invested versus the overall effort that we're making, particularly around homeownership, how do we ensure that we're not setting people up for failure when we have these programs that are great programs but with very long waitlists. And so, if we're setting someone up for let's say a Turn the Key program or a similar program and I'll say the monthly mortgage is $1,500 and somebody's struggling to pay that $1,500 and then something breaks or something goes wrong or something happens -- and I know that on Turn the Key, these are new properties so it's not as much of an issue with them -- but on other programs with other properties we're just getting you in the door. And then it's like, all right, well, good luck. And any homeowner knows when you have that first major system malfunction, it becomes a state of panic, what do I do, how do I fix this, you know, I don't have an extra $3,000 laying around right now or 5000 for a heater or for this or for that, so how do I fix these items. I am concerned that with all that we're doing, which is great work to get people housed, that once they are housed that there's not going to be a sufficient funding in those programs to keep them supported. And I know we can't do everything, but I want to make sure that we're not again setting people up for failure with all that we're offering.
These numbers are a start, Councilmember Bass. And if this body chooses to add additional funds to it, we would gladly welcome that and accept that, so we agree.
Well, I'm going to make a motion -- no, just kidding. Mr. President, I make a motion that we increase --
Okay. Well, I'm glad to hear that and we'll be continuing to pay attention and to make sure that we're getting people off on the right foot as we get the economy going, things of that nature, to make sure people are housed, working, can afford the situation that we're putting them into, that it all works together.