COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:45 a.m. - - - BILLS 050421 AND 050660 PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660
Good morning, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Committee on Rules regarding Bill No. 050660. Mr. Wetzel is here. I would appreciate his coming up to the witness stand to testify. MR. McPHERSON: Should I read the title?
I beg your pardon? MR. McPHERSON: Should I read the title?
I would ask Mr. McPherson to first read the title, please. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 18 050660, an ordinance approving the third amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the 44th and Aspen Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Lancaster Avenue, Belmont Avenue, Pennsgrove Street, 42nd Street, Westminster Avenue, Holly Street, Aspen Street, 40th Street, Haverford Avenue, 3 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 44th Street, Fairmount Avenue and 47th Street.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Herbert Wetzel. I'm Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I am here to speak in support of Bill No. 050660, which is the third amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the third amendment of the Urban Renewal Plan for 44th and Aspen Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 377 properties, 239 vacant lots, 106 vacant structures and 32 occupied structures for residential and commercial development. With regards to residential development, 374 properties, which is 236 4 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 vacant lots, 106 vacant structures and 32 occupied structures, will be acquired to support the Mill Creek Hope VI Revitalization Project that proposes the development of 75 to 100 units of rental housing and a minimum of 50 home ownership units. The total estimated cost for the total Mill Creek Hope VI Revitalization Project is $163 million, of which 30 million will be used for the Mill Creek extension development that these properties would be used for. Construction is planned to commence in the fall of 2006. Regarding development for commercial, three vacant lots are proposed to be acquired. These properties are proposed for construction of a seafood take-out facility, including cold storage and off-street loading, that complements an existing seafood facility known as Bottom of the Sea located across the street from the vacant lots proposed 5 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 to be acquired. The properties to be acquired under this plan are within the existing project area footprint. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 8 050660 and would ask for a suspension of Council rules to allow a first reading on September 15, 2005. Thank you.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. With regard to the bills and to this legislation, we would like to say that our job is to try to develop land. If there are occupied owners or occupied properties where you've done a lot of renovations -- because most of the information we have formally in RDA is about five months old. If there are people that are occupied owners, we're 6 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 happy to work with them. If you just renovated your property, please see Alisa, who is in Xerox. Most of you know her. And we will visit those. What we really want to do is, all of those that are old and where we have a lot of lots or we have a lot of abandoned property that will never be fixed, please allow us the opportunity to develop it. Every now and then, we ask you to face the fact that you are compensated for your property and that I hope that some of you will be honest and know that if you've had a property or a vacant lot for years and you haven't been able to 18 do anything, then let us improve your 19 community, and give us the opportunity to 20 work with you and justly compensate you in that regard. Thank you, Madam President, and welcome back.
Welcome back to everybody. I hope 7 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 everybody had a nice summer vacation.
Thank you. Mr. Wetzel, when you testified on April 25th of this year on Bill No. 9 050215 regarding the approval of the second amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the 44th and Aspen Urban Renewal Area, you stated that the total project amount for the Mill Creek Hope VI Project was approximately $102 million. However, today your testimony is that the project will cost $163 million, of which $30 million will be used for the Mill Creek extension development. Would you be kind enough to explain what the Mill Creek extension development comprises? Is it the additional 75 to 100 rental units and the 50 or more home ownership units that you mentioned in your testimony?
Yeah. The Mill 8 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 Creek Project, essentially all of the land has been assembled for the original Mill Creek Hope VI. PHA, in the meantime, was able to develop an elderly project several blocks away from the original Mill Creek site and was able to get additional money to have an expansion of the Mill Creek Hope VI. So you are correct, it is the additional rental housing, the additional up to 50 home ownership units that will be built on the land that is in this ordinance. And the additional money that they're raising is through the sale of tax credits and additional money from HUD.
So what is the additional $31 million going to be used for?
It's going to be used for the development of the rental units and the home ownership units.
Would you please explain what the sources of 9 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 funding are for the total project? Are there any NTI funds? If so, if you can tell us and what amount.
There are no NTI funds being used in this. The land assembly is being paid for by PHA, and PHA is using both HUD money and low-income housing tax credits to develop this site.
Will all of the occupants of the occupied properties be relocated, and can you tell us how that is progressing?
That would not have commenced. It cannot commence until this ordinance would be approved by this Council and signed by the Mayor.
Well, I'm sure there had to be community meetings so that people who are living in these occupied properties would have some indication as to what would be forthcoming if in fact this ordinance 25 were approved. 10 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660
My understanding is that there's been communications between the Councilperson's office and staff and many of the residents in the neighborhood. VISITORS: No. No. 8
I was told that this hearing would take approximately five minutes. Today is our Council session day, and I'm going to be very willing to listen for as long as we can to the testimony, so I'm going to ask that everybody be courteous and please be brief. Mr. Wetzel, what is the projected completion date of the project?
Council President, I have Michael Johns here from the Philadelphia Housing Authority who can answer some of those questions you're asking.
Thank you. Sir, would you please identify 11 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 yourself for the record?
Good morning, Madam President. Michael Johns. I'm the General Manager for Program Development and Design for the Philadelphia Housing Authority. Your question was how long should the construction process take for this development. We're estimating approximately two and a half years to complete construction for the 150 or so properties.
With regard to the Bottom of the Sea, Inc. acquisition, who will pay the acquisition cost?
The acquisition cost of this one -- can you hold a second? NTI funding.
I 12 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 thought you said there was no NTI funds --
So how much of NTI money will be used for the acquisition of the Bottom of the Sea, Inc.?
Will condemnation be required for either of these projects?
Very well. I don't have a board, so any member that would like to ask a question, if he or she would just indicate by 13 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 raising their hand, I would be more than happy to recognize you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning. With respect to the relocatees or the potential relocatees in the Hope VI, is there a process or will there be a process in place if in fact individuals are relocated, they will be given an opportunity for first right of refusal for any of the new home ownership units or rental units that are built?
We will do everything in our power to offer any relocatees opportunities for the new housing units.
What are your powers? You said you'll do everything within your powers. What are your powers?
We have to follow 14 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 essentially the same procedure that the Redevelopment Authority has to do in terms of relocation. So in terms of -- all I can explain is what we did in our first phase when we did the relocations for approximately 400 and so properties. The residents who were relocated from the community did have the opportunity to return or to come back to the new development, and some persons did.
No. Some residents were PHA residents and some residents were private residents and that did come back as renters or did come back as homeowners.
Will you look at a similar process in this 15 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 instance?
Can you talk to me about how you do that? I know there's certain restrictions as it relates to opportunities for new housing. I think you're required to have open process.
But is there like a point system or you give some preferences to residents?
Yes. What we did was, for the Hope VI, public housing residents that were initially affected by the relocation had the first right, of course, to return, because it was a public housing site, and then we dealt with the residents in the community who also had the second sort of right to return and have the opportunity to go into the rental units or to the home ownership units. So that's the way that the process typically works. 16 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660
In terms of the timing of all of that, what's the timing? I understand once the ordinance 5 is passed, we essentially authorize the Redevelopment Authority to proceed with offer letters for taking. Does the relocation process start simultaneous with that or do you wait until everything is done on the condemnation end?
In essence, when we send out the offer letter, we also send out what's called the General Information Notice regarding relocation, and then we start following that up by contacting the individuals, taking down the data and their information, finding out whether it's a tenant or owner-occupied property and begin the process of relocation. If there's a possibility that in working with PHA and if it looks like there's a real possibility that someone would come back to that particular project site, we've worked with PHA in 17 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 the past to do temporary relocations or even PHA has provided units for individuals to live in until they can move back to the project site.
Some of the terms that you are using, like "possibilities" and "everything within my power," leave me a little unclear. Is there some sort of document or some sort of memorandum of understanding that's traditionally done in these cases where -- I know you both, and I, more often than not, trust you both, but when you're talking about individuals' lives and their homes, I think that the preference to have something a little stronger than the possibility or within my power, some sort of language, an official document or something that will ensure that if in fact this proceeds in this manner, there's a definite opportunity for people to have the chance of getting a new home in this immediate area. 18 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 Are you precluded by law to have such a document?
The regulations that we operate under -- and the unique thing here is, when we're dealing with both public housing regulations and the Uniform Relocation Act, which are not the same set of regulations, Michael Johns can correct me, but he has an obligation for any PHA tenants that are moved, to give them an opportunity to come back first, because they were displaced by this. Under the act and legislation that we operate under, persons displaced by government action are to be given first priority for the opportunities that are created as a result of their displacement. We have worked with PHA to work in that manner so that they can -- they have to offer their tenants first under their regulations, and then what we did is then worked with displaced individuals 19 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 once all the PHA tenants who wanted to come back came back. Michael can correct me if I'm wrong.
But we are required to offer those individuals displaced by the project --
Out of the proposed 39 relocatees, how many are PHA residents?
So you're only required to give first preference to three PHA residents, and the remaining 36 will then be in that second tier of priority?
Is that something that's going to be in writing or can you put it in writing?
It's our policy. 20 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 It's part of our standard policy for relocation for Hope VI. It's part of the HUD requirement.
Okay. Can we have, through the Chair, a copy of that document so people and Councilmembers will have an understanding of what that policy is as it relates to this?
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. What constitutes a person being a tenant of PHA? What is the proof that 21 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 they are a tenant? How do you determine that? Is it the existence of a lease?
Yes. They have a lease with the Philadelphia Housing Authority.
Will the individuals who are involved who are not PHA tenants, if you signed a lease with them, would they not become a PHA tenant and have first preference to the properties?
If they were on the public housing waiting list and they met the criteria and they became public housing residents, then they would be public housing residents.
Why can't you just figure out a way to get the other 36 people, if they are interested?
Who would be the potential complainant in the event that these people were given preference, 22 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 if they desired to take one of these units? I mean, is not their relocation hardship enough that they would be given at least the same priority as the existing three PHA tenants? I mean, if you're taking someone's home, that's pretty much making them homeless. The regulations would preclude those people from being given a special circumstance because of the hardship that they're facing as a result of government action?
But haven't we been able to give people preference, and understandably so, who we're intending to bring up from the Gulf Coast in public housing? I mean, I understand the disaster is of an amazing proportion, but losing your home in Philadelphia is no 24 different than losing your home anywhere else, and if -- 23 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 (Applause.)
All I'm saying is that we need to be a little more creative about guaranteeing these people the right of first refusal in the first go-around. I just think we can be creative if we try, because we've been creative in the past, and understandably so. When people are in a desperate situation, we reach out and try to help, and I think it was a terrific thing we tried to do, but if government is taking an action that's going to cause someone to lose their home, even though the overall good of the community is in mind, can't we at least guarantee them that they can take part in that improvement without having to be concerned about not being on the right list? I mean, I think you need to be more creative, that people who lived in the neighborhood for a long, long time, generations, are now going to experience 24 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 an improvement in their community, and that's a good thing, but for them to have to sit and wait to see whether or not they make the list to be eligible for one of these homes I think is not really the right thing, and I think we really need to be more creative in finding a way to legally guarantee them they have that option. Thank you, Madam President. (Applause.)
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Wetzel, I guess about a year and a half ago when we had hearings regarding relocation, some of the first relocations under the NTI program, there was a system there that needed to be revised or improved. Can you tell me what the process is and the time line in terms of notification to residents regarding their request to be relocated? 25 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660
And what changed? I mean, then there were some things clearly that needed to be changed, and what has improved?
What we essentially did was, the system of notification now is that, first of all, people are notified in advance of this hearing. In addition to that, we worked with Community Legal Services and a number of the legal providers in the City of Philadelphia so that in addition to when they received their first notice letter, they're also receiving information on free legal services that will be available to them. We send out what's called a General Information Notice that essentially says, Look, don't move, if we proceed, you'll be entitled to benefits, don't move, don't stop paying your rent, don't stop paying your mortgage, you're still the owner of the 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 property. Staff goes out and does interviews and takes down information. There could be two households sharing a house, so we may have two relocations at one site rather than just one. But we begin working with people and we begin explaining to them and providing to them the information both in brochures and explaining to individuals their rights under the Uniform Relocation Act. They have a right to a replacement -- first of all, they have a right to just compensation for their property. They have the right to a replacement dwelling unit, and if that replacement dwelling unit is more expensive than the house that we're acquiring, we have an obligation to pay the difference. So if the house is appraised for $30,000 and the replacement dwelling unit is $60,000, we have an obligation to not only pay the $30,000 27 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 for the home but the additional $30,000 to acquire the replacement house. We have an obligation to pay any additional closing costs that are incurred by the owner as a result of the acquisition of the replacement house. We're required to pay either a fixed moving payment or an actual moving payment. A fixed moving payment means if you've got seven rooms in the house, you get a $950 check and you move yourself or you can have a bonded insured mover come in, pack, move you and unpack you. We pay either way. Those are our obligations for a tenant-occupied property. We have an obligation to find a comparable rental unit for that individual. If the individual is currently paying $250 a month for a rental unit and the comparable dwelling unit is $450 a month, we have to pay that additional $200 difference for five years or 60 months. 28 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 Again, we also have the obligation to put down the deposit, the security deposit, for that particular unit and we have an obligation to provide the tenant with an actual or fixed moving payment. A little bit more complicated, and I'll try to be real brief with it, is, tenants can take their payment and become homeowners. In the example I gave you, 60 months times 200 is $12,000. We've had tenants take that money and put a down payment on a house and become a homeowner. That's their right under the Uniform Act. And on other occasions, we've had elderly individuals who basically have said, I don't need to own a home anymore, I'm going to become a tenant, I want to move into a senior complex. So you can be homeowner to homeowner, tenant to tenant, tenant to homeowner or homeowner to tenant. In all of those situations, we have specific 29 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 obligations under the federal regulations under what's called the Uniform Relocation Act.
And this whole process takes what in months? It's not something that just happens over night.
Nine to 12 12 months, okay. So nine to 12 months ago you started talking to residents in this area?
No. Nine to 12 months from when Council and the Mayor authorize an ordinance.
The ordinance is before the Council today. It has not been passed. 30 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660
All right. But people have been talked to, notified, what? VISITORS: No. No. No. 6
Are there any other members of the Committee that would like to ask any questions? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Just a moment, sir. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. I don't particularly want to put my nose in some other Councilperson's business, but, Mr. Wetzel, of the 32 occupied properties, how many of those 31 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 are homeowners versus renters?
I'll have to get the number for you. I don't have it right now. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: This sounds very similar to me, having gone through this on a number of occasions with the former Martin Luther King Housing Development, which ultimately became the Universal Homes, and then the Jefferson Square Project, which is coming to its completion. That, I think, is probably more similar to this situation than the others, where we were able to, as you know, work out some arrangements with some of the long-time residents who really didn't want to move out of the neighborhood where we made that arrangement where there's some equity -- or the relocation dollars were put into the CDC for the purpose of them then becoming homeowners of the new newly built home. Is there any discussion about that 32 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 or is it too early for that to happen?
What's different here, and Michael Johns is going to have to answer this, this is a federally financed public housing activity. And Mr. Johns is going to be in a position to answer that, because like I tried to explain a little bit earlier, you have two federal laws or set of regulations in operation right now. We're going to have to follow the Uniform Relocation Act. PHA is going to have to follow the Hope VI regulation. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So there's no adjustment to be made as we were able to do with Jefferson Square because it was a combination of federal and city, state and some private monies?
Right, but it was federal CDBG and HOME money rather than federal public housing dollars. But I think Mr. Johns indicated before that we have and will continue, or PHA will, to make every effort to anybody who is 33 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 displaced for this project to come back. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm sure you will. I just was curious as to what -- now I understand better why you can't mirror the same process we did at Jefferson Square. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. Do we have any other questions of these witnesses? (No response.)
Seeing none, do we have anyone else who would like to testify? Please approach the witness table, identify yourself, please. Mr. Wetzel, I ask that you remain behind. Good morning. Please identify yourself.
Good morning. My name is Rose Phillips and I am a homeowner. I don't presently live 34 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 in my house, but I have to move back because where I am, I have to move out of. Okay? But before --
Someone is there. But before you do anything, I would ask that you would have Michael Johns, Jannie Blackwell, and whoever else needs to be there, to come to our neighborhood and have a meeting so we can voice our opinions, what we want to do and how we want to do it, and not just let them dictate to us. That's all. Thank you.
My name is 35 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 Pastor Lavenia Bryant and I represent this group in the area from Haverford Avenue to Lancaster Avenue from 42nd on up, and I want to speak expressly to everyone involved in this situation. We're here to protest the eminent domain taking place in our Lancaster Avenue community impacting our properties. Eminent domain, the definition for it is, the power of the state to demand the compulsory purchase of private property for its own use without the owner's consent. Governments have used eminent domain to acquire real property for the completion of a public project, such as a road, where the owner is unwilling to negotiate a price for its sale. Nationally, across the United States, we are seeing an increasing abuse by state and local government of eminent domain powers. Instead of dislocating property owners for public projects, 36 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 primarily low income and elderly owners are displaced for the project of private developers, shopping malls, condominiums and upscale housing, which we have not a problem, you know. Change is good all the time, as long as everybody that's included in this change is coming out on top. Amen. Across the United States, we're seeing an increasing amount of abuse in that area. Amen. The low income or the elderly or those that have had their properties for years have to be uprooted and pushed aside and just have no voice. And this is the United States of America. Amen. And we are residents and we are people of America. We're not from foreign countries coming in to do something. We're people that have been born in this country and established and have lived here for years. Amen. Instead of dislocating property owners for public projects, primarily low income and elderly owners are displaced 37 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 for the project of private developers, as I said before. Amen. And we are tired of it. Amen. And then you want to give us a little money, root up our businesses that we worked for all of our lives. Our businesses were established when we were children. (Applause.)
I was working in a store at 4219 Aspen Street when I came home from school so we could pay for that building. We took turns jumping rope in front of the store and waiting on the customers, amen, so that we could pay for those buildings that we own today. Amen. And we bought it with hard-earned money. Amen. We worked for it. Nobody gave us a grant. Amen. And even in the last five years or more, I put in for two grants to even give improvement to the two business properties that I had and was denied. Yet we have, like the man said earlier, people coming out of the 38 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 country and getting the monies and the fundings to redevelop and to do whatever they want on our property. Amen. And we have a problem with that. The problem of eminent domain abuse was highlighted by the Supreme Court decision in June 2005, Kelo versus City of New London. This decision gives government the green light to take your home or business and give it to a politically connected private developer because that developer might be able to produce more taxes and more jobs off of your land. In response to this abuse, more than 30 states have passed or have introduced legislation offering protection to property owners, which is a good thing. State Senator Jeffrey Piccola introduced legislation, 2005 PA, HB 1835 on July 1st, 2005. This legislation has been sponsored by State Representative Thomas Yewcic. The legislation has been 39 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 sent to the Committee on State Government, and public hearings are currently being held. If passed, the legislation will amend the Pennsylvania statute to read, A municipality has no 7 power or right to appropriate a property by eminent domain to turn it over to a non-public interest or to add or increase the tax base of the municipality, to take land by condemnation without a reverter clause in the declaration of taking which clause assures that the property will revert back to the condemnee or its heirs should the property ever be used for a non-public purpose. And we believe that if you're going to take our property, amen, to make money for yourself or your vision that you have, then you are to put us back in our properties, give it back to us after you redevelop it so it won't stick out like a sore thumb and mess up your plan. (Applause.)
2005 HB 1836 40 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 was also introduced by Representative Yewcic. It amends all the preliminary languages on objections of the above House bill. If our own state government in our states are recognizing that there is an abuse of eminent domain going on across the country, why are we still seeing this happen in Philadelphia, amen, the City of Brotherly Love, amen, the first state? Okay? If our own government and our states are not recognizing the abuse, then who do we have fighting for us? Who have we elected and who have we put in place to fight for us? Why aren't you doing your jobs? Amen. We very seldom get this opportunity to speak such as I'm speaking today. So we have you for our mouth piece, and we want you to stand up for us and fight for our rights. And I'm going to tell you something, minority people don't have a problem with redeveloping. 41 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 We don't have a problem with that. We like upgrading. We like to see things look better, but why tear our houses down and give us nothing, and our businesses? I have two businesses. Why tear them down and give us nothing for it when we have worked and struggled so hard way back to the proclamation of emancipation, amen, all the way back to Abraham Lincoln? Let's go all the way back to when the Americans came in and took the property from the Indians. Okay? Let's go all the way back there. Amen. Same scenario, and you're still doing the same things. Nothing has changed. Amen. Nothing has changed, and it's time for change. It's time for change. Amen. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. If you could conclude your remarks, I would really appreciate it, because we do have Council sessions.
Two minutes, 42 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 because I'm speaking for all the people behind me, so there won't be a whole lot more people speaking, so I'm going to finish this. It's only going to take me a couple of minutes. Amen. Eminent domain was never intended to displace low-income property owners to raise more tax money for the City. I think the City is getting a whole lot of taxes now. Amen. Everybody's car is in the pound. Amen. We are getting a whole lot of money from that. We got other avenues, the parking tickets. We got to fold up our cars and put them in our pocket when we go downtown. Amen. So I believe the City is getting enough money to do some things that need to be done. Amen. The poor people, and especially the minority poor people in this City, have been the victims of displacement for more than 50 years. We have seen urban renewal slum clearance and university expansion 43 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 disrupt entire communities. As I discussed, I discussed it with a friend of mine and a neighbor concerning this eminent domain, and she told me about her grandmother who at the age of 73 had been displaced four times, four times in less than five years in North Central Philadelphia during the '50s as a result of urban renewal. She owned a property on North Warwick Street for more than 35 years. She was forced to move from a stable block because of the Housing Authority's plans to erect Harrison Plaza. This block consisted primarily of homeowners who maintained their properties and kept their blocks clean. She wanted to stay in her long-term community and move to North 11th Street -- she had to move to North 11th Street as a renter, not a homeowner anymore but a renter, amen, in the Temple University expansion plan. When she moved to 13th and 44 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 Girard Avenue, she was displaced by the development of the Yorktown community. She finally relented and moved out of the community to North 16th Street. So, see, more than once and more than twice, amen, she was uprooted from her home. Now, this is America. Amen. There used to be a time they only asked for 40 acres and a mule. We know now that we've gone further than that. Only the farmers need the mule now. Okay? But we still yet need our stabilized position in life like everybody else. Amen. We don't want to be uprooted, but we don't mind you fixing up our properties and giving it back.
I don't want to be rude. I think your testimony has been excellent.
However, we are pressured for time. We 45 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 do have our Council session today and we do have another bill to be considered. And I just feel very confident that --
Excuse me. I just feel very confident that you will have another opportunity to express your views. Our next witness --
I want to thank you for your time, you and everybody that heard.
You're welcome, I'm sure. Thank you for coming in. Our next witness is a representative from St. Ignatius Church.
I said I don't want to be rude, but I was sitting up 46 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 here before anyone else came up, and I did want to speak. I'm a homeowner.
I said I was here before whoever you're speaking with, unless you're cutting off the homeowners to stop speaking. My name is Lisa Jones. I'm a homeowner on the 600 Preston Street. I more so had questions I just wanted to throw out to you, because I got my letter yesterday. I did find out about this two weeks ago because other neighbors got their letters two weeks ago, but I got my letter yesterday, because I called. But I wanted to put these questions out, because I'm a homeowner and I'm a low-income homeowner, a working low-income homeowner, a wife, a mother, and I have watched that area -- I don't want to lose focus. That's why I wrote my questions. In any event, I want to put 47 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 this out here. One, I wanted to know who are all these shareholders for this project? Just food for thought for my own needs. And what are the specific areas allocated for the locations of relocating people? Have you considered the overall well-being, physically, mentally, spiritually, of the homeowners? And how our seniors, like the Reverend just was speaking about, specifically our seniors, is going to be -- what service is going to be allocated for them? What is the complete criteria that's going to be offered for these changes that's going to be taking place? What information is going to be given back out to the community? And is anything in writing about the obligation that's being offered? That's the last thing I wanted to say. Thank you.
I recognize this is a very difficult process, and it always will be, but the fact that this witness who just testified said that she got her letter yesterday, to me it doesn't seem as if this is really ready. And the one thing I would like to see, and I know we've had some discussion on the Committee, is that I would like to see the RDA and the PHA take a week and maybe try to figure out a way to, in a document, to guarantee people who have lived there for generations, that they have first shot at the houses. I just think it's fair. I mean, again, as I said earlier, everyone wants to see the improvement in the neighborhood, including the people that are here, but really they should not suffer as a result of it. I know the timetable and the tax 49 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 credits are critical, but I think our discussion on schedule allows us six, seven days to try to come up with something that gives people some level of comfort that they're going to be taken care of. I just think getting a letter the day before is really -- and I recognize the size of the bureaucracy, and I'm not criticizing, because things do happen, but I can't imagine going to the mail slot and getting a letter that tomorrow the future of my home is going to be decided on. I just don't think it's a fair way to do things. And I think we have time to at least try to give them some legal assurances that they'll have the first crack at the new homes.
Thank you, Councilman. Father, kindly identify yourself for the record. Thank you again for your patience. 50 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660
My name is Father Joseph Okonski. I'm Pastor of Our Mother of Sorrows Church at 48th and Girard and St. Ignatius Church at 43rd and Wallace. We're directly impacted because several weeks ago we received a letter also stating that a piece of our property, which is used for the playground for our day care and also as a prayer garden, would be assumed by eminent domain. Certainly that was the only notice that we have received. Immediately we contacted Councilwoman Blackwell's office. We sent them a letter, we notified them, and gratefully, we have found out that through Alisa, who has been working with us, that that 646 property has been removed from the eminent domain list, and we are very, very grateful, and we thank you, Councilwoman Blackwell.
But we have to listen very carefully. Pastor Bryant spoke so very, very well, as did so many of these people here. There's a lot of hurt. There are many people who feel that they're very much out alone. We, along with everyone here, we have not been notified. There have been no public meetings to let us know what is happening in our neighborhood. We are very grateful for redevelopment. We are very grateful for all that is happening, but the people that are still living there have lived there for years and have lived through a lot of difficulties. They've endured crime. They've endured the drugs. They've endured all the abandoned homes, and it is their neighborhood. And we have been there well over 150 years ourselves. So we would just ask that talk to us, communicate with us, let us know what is happening in our neighborhood, 52 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 and please ensure that those who do live there will be properly and justly taken care of. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Thank you, Father, and thank you, Pastor, who testified and all who are here. All the visitors here are concerned. Again, I'll ask Alisa to raise her hand. All of you who are an owner-occupied property, please see her. As you know, Madam President, whenever there's been a meeting where we talk about this issue in the community, I attend. I absolutely don't know why people feel that they don't know what's going on and that they're left out of the loop. Having said that, there is a process, and I agree that people should 53 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 know and should have in writing, and we've already talked with Michael Johns and we'll talk with Carl Greene about them seeing it again in writing and bringing it back, if you will agree to continue this hearing, so that they're not afraid of what is happening and so that people don't feel disenfranchised. Certainly it is not the intent of the City. For the Pastor who asked about who earns money, it's all government money. It's tax money, whether it's on a federal or local level, and so there is no private entity earning money, and it is all -- I don't believe of those who need fighting those who don't have. It just doesn't make sense, because we're all the same community. So certainly we are happy to meet with them, and those of you with specific issues who are in properties that you own, please see Alisa. And any other meetings that are called, we're 54 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050660 always happy to go. I regret, Madam President, that we're here and that there is a debate, but certainly we hear the concerns of the community and are happy to ask you if you would continue this for a week so that we may have a chance to get together and see what we can work out with PHA.
At the request of the sponsor of this bill, we're going to continue the public hearing until Wednesday, September 21st at 10:00 a.m. Any of you that would like to come back to testify are certainly more than welcome to, and I feel very confident that there will be a meeting scheduled with the community, the Redevelopment Authority, PHA and Councilwoman Blackwell to address any and all of your concerns. 55 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050421 So, as I said, at the request of the sponsor, we will continue this hearing until Wednesday, September 21st at 10:00 a.m., and I'm certain that all of your concerns can be addressed between now and then. Thank you all very much for coming in. We do have another bill to be heard, so if you feel that you would like to leave, you can do so, and please do so in a very, very quiet manner. Thank you very much. The next bill to be considered is Bill No. 050421, and I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of the bill. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps --
I'm sorry. We're trying to conduct business. Please leave very orderly and very quietly. Thank you. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by 56 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050421 changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Bluegrass Road, Grant Avenue, Ashton Road and Willits Road.
Who do we have to testify on this? Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President, members of the Rules Committee. My name is Martin Gregorski. I'm a Zoning Planner --
Excuse me, sir. The noise level is much too high. As I said, we are trying to conduct business. Thank you.
Good morning, Madam President, members of the Rules Committee. My name is Martin Gregorski. I'm a Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on 57 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050421 Bill No. 050421. Bill No. 050421 was introduced by Councilmember O'Neill on May 12th of this year. This bill rezones an area bounded by Bluegrass Road, Grant Avenue, Ashton Road and Willits Road. The purpose of this bill is to rezone approximately acres of land from a 10 zoning designation of L-2 limited 11 industrial to a designation of R-1A 12 residential in order to allow the 13 development of 71 detached single-family 14 dwellings on proposed new City streets. 15 The proposed development will 16 have an area above the underground 17 stormwater management system dedicated 18 for a community park. 19 The Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 10, 2005, considered and approved this item as a preliminary plat. Accordingly, this bill is consistent with previous policy of the Planning Commission and we recommend that it be approved. 58 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050421 I'll be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank you. Are there any L-2 uses on this property presently? If so, can you tell us what they are?
There are no 14 relocations on this property. It's currently vacant industrial land.
Councilman O'Neill, since you know who the developers are, would you make note 59 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050421 for the record, please?
Yes. There are two different developments, side by side almost, on two separate parcels that will be somewhat identical, but two different developers bought each parcel and have met with the Ashton Civic Association and worked out the parameters of new single homes in this area. Bienenfeld and Company -- I'm not exactly sure of the proper title of the company, but Bienenfeld Corporation is one of the developers and I believe the other developer is a gentleman named Azafran.
And they have had many community meetings and it's been worked out. They will still have to go to the Zoning Board after this, because they won't meet all the metes and bounds of these districts, but they kind of fall between two districts and this is the 60 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050421 stricter of the two. And because there are industrial properties nearby, they have agreed to put in the documents of each of the homeowners that they are living next to existing industrial, so the industrial owners in the area, particularly one building, will not have what often happens happen to them, which is people complaining about noise or trucks coming by, because they were there first. But it would be an improvement to the neighborhood and the surrounding row home areas. A lot of apartments in this area are happy to see the single homes being built. Thank you.
Thank you. If this is approved, when do you anticipate that the project will be completed?
This project still has to go for a final plat approval 61 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050421 after the rezoning of this property. That could take place as early as next month. After that, they could go to the Zoning Board. Roughly take eight weeks or so. Right after that, building permits and construction.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, do we have anyone that would like to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Is there a request for a suspension of the rules?
So we'll just let it go. Okay. This will conclude the public hearing of the Committee on Rules. 62 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050421 The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 050421. We will now go into our public meeting.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move that Bill No. 050421 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation.
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 15 050421 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the bill will be reported out of Committee with a 63 9/15/05 - RULES - BILL 050421 favorable recommendation. I would like to reiterate that Bill No. 050660 will be continued until Wednesday, September 21st at 10:00 a.m. I would ask my colleagues to please go immediately into the caucus so that we can in fact get started with our caucus and then come into our Council session. And for our visitors, we should not be more than minutes. Thank you. 13 (Committee on Rules concluded 14 at 10:50 a.m.) 15 - - - 64 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on September 15, 2005, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)