COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Weds., 12/1/99, 10:10 a.m. - - - BILL 990716 - Redevelopment of the South Central Urban Renewal Area. BILL 990642 - Amending Title of Philadelphia 8 Code relating to zoning and planning by amending Chapter 14-1600, entitled "Miscellaneous," by 9 adding a new chapter, entitled "East Falls Special District Controls," under certain terms and 10 conditions. 11 BILL 990643 - Amending Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing zoning designations of areas located 12 within area bonded by Weightman St., Ridge Ave., a line approximately 77 feet northwest of Calumet 13 St., Cresson St., Indian Queen Lane, Krail St., Roosevelt Blvd., Ridge Ave., a certain railroad 14 right-of-way, and the Schuylkill River. BILL 990723 - For the redevelopment of the Center City Redevelopment Area, Franklin Urban Renewal Area. (Full text of all bills in body of transcript.) PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 /99 COMMITTEE ON RULES I N D E X Page BILL 990716 Noel Eisenstat, Redevelopment Authority . . . Doug Norman, Executive Director, SOSNA. . . . 23 Rahim Islam, Universal Community Homes. . . . 15 6 Gary Reisner, President Regis Group . . . . . 32 Jack Kmetz, Director of Public Affairs. . . . 35 Graduate Hospital Ted Lee, Private Citizen. . . . . . . . . . . 37 Jessie Frisby, South St. West Business Assoc. 41 Helena Speller, President . . . . . . . . . . 43 Josephine Solomon Ellis Foundation David Bauman, Private Citizen . . . . . . . . 44 Alan Mandel, Private Citizen. . . . . . . . . 49 Barney Richardson, Private Citizen. . . . . . 53 Valeria McGriff, Private Citizen. . . . . . . 57 Lynn Juarez, Apartment Building Owner . . . . 68 George Fields, Private Citizen. . . . . . . . 91 Wayne Williams, Private Citizen . . . . . . . 104 Mary Graves, Private Citizen. . . . . . . . . 105 Georgette Fields, SOSNA . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Geraldine Mayo, Private Citizen . . . . . . . 111 BILL 990642 and 990643 Richard Lombardo, Planning Commission . . . . 115 Hansel Minyard, East Falls Resident . . . . . 123 Member, East Falls Community Association Leon Silvestro, East Falls Business Owner . . 124 Marilyn Shaffer, East Falls Development Corp. 131 BILL 990723 Noel Eisenstat, Redevelopment Authority . . . 138 - - - 3 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Rules. I would ask the clerk to please read the title of Bill No. 990716.
An ordinance amending an ordinance approved December 14, 1971, as amended, which approved the redevelopment proposal, the urban renewal plan, and the relocation plan of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the South Central Urban Renewal Area, by approving the 11th amendment of the redevelopment proposal, the 11th amendment to the urban renewal plan, and an amendment to the relocation plan, which provide, inter alia, for certain additional land acquisition west of Broad Street, provision of certain relocation services as required by law for the individuals, families, and business concerns which will be displaced, all as contained in the 11th amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the 11th amendment to the urban renewal plan; and authorizing a funding agreement between the City and the Philadelphia Housing Authority to provide 4 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 the necessary funding for implementing said redevelopment proposal, urban renewal plan, and relocation plan, under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. Our first witness is Mr. Noel Eisenstat. (Noel Eisenstat comes forward.)
Good morning. My name is Noel Eisenstat Executive. I'm the Executive Director of the City's Redevelopment Authority. I'm here to provide testimony on the bill that has already read into the record. You have received -- as of yesterday, not today -- my testimony, and let me refer to it for moment and then depart from it as well. We, as the Redevelopment Authority, were before City Council last spring and again in the fall concerning acquisitions on the east side of Broad Street surrounding the HOPE VI development that is being undertaken by the Housing Authority with its developer, Uni-Penn a joint venture of Penrose 5 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 Properties and Universal Community Homes. The uniqueness of this HOPE VI has been, in part, the ability to think in a broader scope to the west side of Broad Street, and that's what brings us before you here today. We're here to talk about the consideration of acquiring up to approximately 285 properties. The bulk of those properties are vacant. Of these properties, 155 properties will be utilized by the Uni-Penn Development to construct a series of housing units, 60 percent of which will be for home ownership units, 40 percent for rental units, and it will be a mix of housing. In addition before you today, there's an additional acquisition of approximately another 130 properties. Those properties come to you in a series of projects and activities to be undertaken directly and indirectly ventures with a group that you know well as SOSNA. You have a series of individuals who are here to testify on the project's behalf. I also understand that at this late date, there may be some requests by you, Council President, or by the community, to delete certain properties from 6 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 the list. I think you'd like to hear testimony of that from the community. And considering the number of other witnesses here, I'd really -- if you have more questions for me now, I'm happy to answer them, but you may want to go straight to your witnesses.
All right. I do notice that we do have many people from the community present. So, for the record, Mr. Eisenstat, can you please explain the definition of an "urban renewal area" so that everybody understands what we're about to do.
For the purposes of this bill and the actions considered today, the Redevelopment Authority is the designated-by-State law entity that has the legal powers with the consent and authority that's granted by City Council to acquire land for urban renewal or urban redevelopment purposes. The nature of what has occurred here is, there are a series of development requests that require the acquisition of privately-owned properties, and those acquisitions will be 7 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 undertaken by the Redevelopment Authority. And from that is the definition of an "urban renewal plan." By State statute, in order for the Authority to acquire property, it must go through -- it must develop an urban renewal plan, it must adopted -- the first scenario proceeding that is that the area must be termed blighted. That has occurred by the Philadelphia Planning Commission. And the steps of creating an urban renewal plan and the authorization of an acquisition is an action by the Redevelopment Authority Board, action by the Planning Commission and the ordinance which you are considering. The plan itself provides the legal authority for the acquisition and the reuse of properties. And, in fact, in light of my last visit here with Councilman Nutter, I actually did get a copy of the actual bill today. Usually I don't have one. And considering this is my last time here, at least I finally got it right. But the urban renewal designation allows the acquisition of various types of properties. And that's why we're here today. 8 12/1/99 RULES - 990716
All right. And can you also explain for the record how the condemnation process works in an urban renewal area.
Yes. There is the approval processes, which we're in today and which, as I explained, it requires actions by the Planning Commission, by the Redevelopment Authority Board, by City Council by ordinance, and by approval by the Mayor. Once those approvals occur, the acquisition process may then begin, and that is a process that requires the Redevelopment Authority to first basically engage a certified appraiser. That appraiser must contact the property owners, and the property owners will be given an opportunity to tour and view their property with the appraiser. Once appraisals are submitted back to the Redevelopment Authority and accepted, offers then may be made. And then, to the extent that offers are not accepted, the Authority then can take the action by its board to acquire the land via using its powers of eminent domain, which then 9 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 would require the Authority to act by resolution 3 and then file with the Court of Common Pleas its action, which vests title to the Redevelopment Authority. In doing so, properties owners then may have a period to object -- those are known as "preliminary objections." That is the process which generally concerns vacant properties, properties where relocation is not an issue. Where there are properties where there is either commercial or residential relocation, in addition to that process I've just explained, the Authority is also governed by federal and State relocation guidelines and regulations. And in doing so, the Authority has a staff of both commercial and residential relocation specialists. Early on in the process, before the appraisals are completed, there is an intake process of meeting with individuals and contacting families. Before an offer letter is made and before anyone asks anyone to move, a letter is addressed to each property owner saying that we're starting this process and this should not be taken 10 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 as request to move or do anything, but we wish to meet with you and discuss with you the intentions to follow the urban renewal process and follow the law. And that is done when dealing with all of our properties, whether they're commercial or residential occupied. That process requires the Authority to pay relocation benefits and other relocation benefits far above the appraised value to make the difference between what their property may be worth and the true costs of finding a decent, safe, and sanitary replacement home. Often those relocation benefits may be an additional to $25 above the fair market 16 value of the home. Commercial properties are a 17 little more difficult to evaluate on a 18 case-by-case basis. 19
Thank you. 20 Are there any questions from members of the committee? Councilman Nutter?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Eisenstat, good morning. In your 11 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 testimony, you talk about 285 predominantly vacant, vandalized buildings and lots. How predominant is "predominant?"
As it relates to. . . The last paragraph of my testimony, first sentence, speaks to that. Specifically if we want to get to the heart of the matter, nine of the buildings are occupied, with ten residential occupants. But I would also indicate to you that it --
Nine of the buildings are occupied with ten residential occupants -- occupants being families, not individuals, I believe. However, saying that, Councilman Nutter, as I said earlier, there may be some movement today before this Council session that would delete certain properties, which may further modify those numbers.
But as originally planned, that's what was submitted to Council. 12 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 But not unusual, the Authority has the ability, as the Council may direct at this time, to delete certain properties at this stage. Properties cannot be added; they may only be deleted. And Councilman DiCicco could explain this process after living through this for the last six months in his own district.
I believe he is the resident expert in that aspect of the process. Last quick question. The 285 properties -- further down in your testimony, you talk about 155 buildings on the west side of South Broad Street and vacant lots to be developed into 110 new housing units. So does that mean we are, to some extent, shrinking the density, going from 285 either buildings and lots, down to 110 actual residential units? Or what happens when --
No, we're going from -- this bill, although it's in one urban renewal area, we're generally dealing with two developments. The first development is the Uni-Penn HOPE VI development, and that is taking 155 parcels and transforming those 155 parcels to 110 new housing units, through either new 13 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 construction or rehab.
And those 130 properties, as we can discuss with the help of testimony from SOSNA today, will be then undertaken into a series of activities. Some of them will not just be housing; some of them will be some recreational and open space, community activity space as well.
There will be an overall reduction. However, this is a neighborhood that has a certain density and context that you're not going to -- although there is some lowering of density, it's not the lowering of density that you will, say, have seen in other parts of Philadelphia. This is a much more -- this has been much more a process of identifying the houses on a block that are in need of rehabilitation or demolition and addressing them. This is not a -- 14 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 although the sheer number of parcels is rather large as a taking, we're not taking blocks here, we're taking units on a block to save a block, versus taking the whole block.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from other members of the committee? (No further questions.)
And, Mr. Eisenstat, I would invite you to stay with us till the conclusion of this hearing, please.
Yes, I will be here through the conclusion of this hearing.
Thank you. Rahim Islam, Kenny Gamble, and Doug Norman. (Witnesses come forward.)
Who's going 15 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 to testify first?
I will. I'm Rahim Islam. I'm with Universal Community Homes. We're a community development corporation in South Philadelphia, the south central area. And our primary responsibility with this development is the development of the Martin Luther King Plaza, a revitalization of the Martin Luther King Plaza, which will extend from -- roughly from 11th Street to 17th Street, from South to Washington Avenue. It includes the development of roughly about 350 townhouses, both rental and for home ownership. These sites will be -- which 100 percent are vacant lots or vacant properties, will be used to be rehabbed or for building new construction for the development of those units.
Mr. Islam, I think that it's important for the members of this committee to know how we got to this hearing today. Can you please tell us the history of this project, where we were, where we are today, and how we got here.
Yeah. We -- this has been a process that we've been working on for about four years. In the planning of basically just trying to eliminate the blight that exists in the area, we've done roughly about 110 units in that area, and we just wanted to continue moving the progress and just taking those vacant properties and abandoned lots and doing something with them. In that four-year period, we started the planning of the revitalization of Martin Luther King Plaza, which is at 13th and Catherine, Fitzwater, a 6-1/2-acre site, with 560 units. During that planning, we knew that development had to be treated. As part of that planning, we were able to get a planning grant -- well, the Philadelphia Housing Authority was able to get a planning grant that actually detailed a plan for that development. We then were -- competed to be selected as developers of that development, and we extended that plan because we knew that in order for to us 17 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 adequately deal with that development and the blight that had existed and the concentration of poverty that existed, we had to extend the development. So we extended it from the actual site, proper site, the treatment of it to, actually dealing with -- which was a requirement of the HOPE VI program, which we made application to, was a requirement that we actually deal with the things that caused the blight that surrounds the site itself. We took an area of roughly two blocks on the east and west of this site to deal with and roughly two blocks in the north and south of this site to deal with. And approximately then, we wanted to treat every vacant property in that area. We went through a process some time ago here on the east side of Broad Street. And the combination of roughly 300 or so vacant properties, some were occupied. That number was narrowed down roughly to about 181. And basically this here is a complement to that east-taking, where we will have enough parcels now to deal with the entire blight that surrounds the MLK development and also surrounds also the Avenue of 18 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 the Arts entails. And it entails both, again, from 11th Street to 17th Street from South to Washington Avenue. There was a lot of planning and a lot of community planning and a lot of community meetings. And the bottom line is that this here development will allow for us, given the site control of these units, will allow us to take these properties and turn 'em back over and put people back in 'em and/or beautify them and rebuild this community in part of our rebuilding efforts. I don't know how much other detail that you want, Madam President, but I think, again, that this here development is a significant development for this area, for the city. It represents a major, major revitalization. And, again, I think it's being done with the consideration of everybody involved, and we're not dealing with any -- we're not dealing with any occupied properties. These are all vacant properties, they're all dilapidated properties. And basically this gives us an opportunity to take those properties and to rehab them and to put 19 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 people back into those properties.
Can you explain to the committee how you determined what properties you requested to be placed on the list for condemnation?
Sure. It was very easy. We took over an area that -- again, in that area, we just looked at every vacant and dilapidated property that was in the area. Many of those properties where we were able to do concentration development or a large tract, we were able to do significant development, we were able to -- we put those properties on the list. So where there was an ability to come in and treat a block, put the block back on track or even take large parcels because there were a lot of vacant properties, then we were able to do that also. But the bottom line is, I think the 100 or so properties that we're asking for, other than MLK, represent vacant properties and vacant lots that exist in that area that I defined. And on the west sides of that area is between Broad and 17th and South and Washington Avenue. It does not take into consideration every vacant property. 20 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 And the distinction is, we believe that if we're able to treat the two predominant streets, which are 15th Street and 16th Street, if we're able to treat those two street, that represents 70 of the 100 or so that we requested. If we're able to treat those two streets, we believe that the market will be able to take care of some of the other hidden streets, some of the other smaller streets. But the visibility was required because these are two well-traveled streets that if people see that the progress is taking place -- for example, we just completed a development on the 800 block of South 16th Street. That was once a crime-infested street. It's a well-traveled street, and everyone who comes through that street, you definitely knew you better, if it's the summer time, roll your windows up if you had your windows down. But now that street is taken care of. So we believed that if we dealt with 15th and 16th Street, as the real visible streets, it would lend itself to the other market activity that's already started in the area and will 21 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 continue. So that was a distinction between taking one property versus another, what we believed that would be marketable and also would give us the highest visibility.
Thank you. I believe that you have a slide show that you have put together at a considerable cost to show the committee the conditions of the properties in question. Can we see some of the slide show? Is it very lengthy?
Well, I didn't know -- it's -- it really represents roughly about 120-something properties. You have a copy of -- you should have -- you should have -- I made four copies -- I think three copies or four copies. You should have a copy of every property that's being requested.
And the Council, you can take a look at it. We could do the presentation and I could show you some of those properties, but they're all vacant properties and vacant lots. And our -- 22 12/1/99 RULES - 990716
So are you saying that we don't have to see the slide show?
I don't think you do. And I don't want you to put us on the spot here because our technical staff here leaves a lot to be desired. We're not -- we're not -- we tried to do this, but we had a backup and --
It's not a problem. We do have the photographs here. And I believe the committee saw them.
Would you please detail what properties you are asking to be removed from the condemnation list, and why you have made this request?
Yes. Myself and Doug Norman and other members of the community have basically requested that -- Doug, you could do that. I requested -- there was approximately six properties on our list that are occupied.
Now, you're saying six, and it's my -- I think I understood Mr. Eisenstat to say that there were nine? 23 12/1/99 RULES - 990716
My name is Doug Norman, Executive Director of South to South Neighborhood Association, and we're a CDC and funded by OHCD. We originally put in, at the request of John Kromer, a very large condemnation package, and it was not mentioned whether it should be occupied buildings or not. Some of the properties we had been surveying for years through OHCD with Scott Wilds, especially in the Carpenter Street area and Kimball Street. If you refer to my report, there's a letter to you, Mrs. Verna.
I have it, but it I'd like you to say it aloud so that it will be on the record and have the stenographer take it down.
I will. I will name the properties. It's: 722 South 15th Street, 24 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 1520 Bainbridge Street, 2105 Kimball Street, 2115 Kimball Street, 2114 Carpenter Street, 2125 Carpenter Street, 760 South 16th Street, 616 South 16th Street, 618 South 16th Street, 749 South 15th Street
I'm sorry, excuse me. Isn't that 749 South 16th?
Yes. 755 South 16th Street, 766 South 16th Street, 907 South 167th Street, and 931 South 22nd Street.
Could I make one correction to your list? Your 760 South 16th Street should be 760 South 15th Street. That's an error, so if we could correct that, that's 760 South 16th Street, as indicated by Doug Norman is really 716 South 15th Street.
Every other property on the list is an unoccupied building or a lot, and we request that these properties be taken off the list.
I know that both of you gentlemen have been longtime members of this community. On the average, can you tell us the length of time that these properties have been abandoned and have not been redeveloped? I'm sure it's been many, many years.
Well, Doug has been here much longer than I have. I've been in the area for seven years, working the area. And these properties have been vacant for at least the seven years that I've been here.
I would guess the average is to years. 4 And we have a problem of people in that 5 particular area, of finding owners. Many of them 6 are heirs that have since left Philadelphia. We 7 have particularly targeted these properties and 8 researched them. We've been working on this for 9 about four years. This isn't something we did 10 overnight, because we simply can't do anything 11 about these buildings. We have a fencing problem, 12 we can't even find the owners. 13 And SOSNA also included PHA lots and 14 buildings that they told us they had no immediate 15 plans in the next twenty years, and we included 16 all of the City properties -- PHDC and 17 (unintelligible) properties on all of these 18 lists. And those have been -- we have PHA 19 buildings in our neighborhood vacant for twenty 20 years and vacant lots.
How many vacant lots are in this package; do you know?
How many vacant lots are in this package? 27 12/1/99 RULES - 990716
Actually, I didn't count them. I think we do -- we have this. . .
Jeff Brown has indicated it's 146. I was just going to do it off the top of my head. I thought there were more vacant lots than vacant properties.
I would like to comment, though, that on both of our lists, many of these properties have to be demolished. They are not rehabable because of fires or whatever, and I would say that would amount to about percent of 15 our properties. 16
Thank you, Madam 19 Chair. 20 Mr. Norman, just a quick question on something that you touched on. When you were talking about these properties and the condition of them, you started talking about the vacant lots and then you made reference to some fencing problems. Could you elaborate on that? What did 28 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 you mean by that?
Well, we have lots that may not be a problem for the neighborhood, as 99 percent of these are, and some of them we did not put on the list. So if an owner has taken care of it, sometimes an owner may own the adjacent lot. Our big problem in our neighborhood is -- and SOSNA has actually, and so has Universal Homes, had to fence in these lots at our expense because they turn into city dumps and drug havens. And when we did a neighborhood plan in 1993 and in 1994, we were rather shocked that these vacant lots came up to be the number-one priority problem in the neighborhood, and we had about twenty categories, and I wouldn't have thought vacant lots would have been number one, but it was number one overwhelmingly. The owners -- and I'm never sure what the law is, and I know that the City can't take everyone to court. The owners in that area had been very negligent and so we particularly picked these lots so we can either -- there will be three categories of what we want to do, and we will be making this much less dense from your previous 29 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 question to Mr. Eisenstat. I'd say it's going to be at least one-third less dense.
It will either be open-space parking or new construction. And we've had so much demolition in our neighborhood that without this happening, I don't think our neighborhood stands much of a chance of rehab. And the fencing is there for the crucial. And if I may, I have a letter for you. I believe you have a hearing today on another matter, and I would like to give that to you before you leave.
Councilman, can I add one other thing to that? Many of those vacant lots are the result of houses being demolished because of the structure.
If Doug is as close to being right as being an average age of 15 years 30 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 that these properties have been uninhabitable and not being well maintained, the likelihood of these properties that we're talking about now being in that same situation over the next couple years is very significant. So that problem will just continue. And this is an opportunity for us to arrest that situation and actually put this thing back on track to prevent that type of thing happening.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Mr. Kromer, are you here to testify on this bill? (Mr. Kromer comes to the witness table.)
Good morning. I'm John Kromer, the Director of the City's Office of Housing and Community Development. I have no formal presentation to make today, but I just wanted to say that on behalf OHCD that we, of course, are strongly in support of this bill. OHCD, in collaboration with the Philadelphia Housing Authority, will be providing the financing that will support the eminent domain taking that has been described to you. And I'll be available for any questions that may arise during the course of the hearing.
Thank you. Is City Planning prepared to testify on this? (No response.)
Okay, the next witnesses will be Gary Reisner and Brad Akerman (ph.). (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. 32 12/1/99 RULES - 990716
My name is Gary Reisner, and I am President of the Regis Group and Regis Development Corporation. Our company is partnering with SOSNA, the South of South Neighborhood Association, to develop seven affordable home-ownership properties on the 700 block of South 15th Street, to be called the Emerson Homes. Should I continue with my testimony?
Okay. The development is named after Emerson's Bar and Grill, at the corner of 15th and Bainbridge, a famous blues and jazz venue where Billy Holiday performed, which was demolished several years ago. This development originated several years ago when residents from 15th Street attended a SOSNA general meeting and complained about the large number of shells and the drug activity on 15th Street. Council President Verna attended the meeting, listened to the complaints of residents, and has supported this development program. Regis has had the good fortune to work with SOSNA previously on developments in the area. 33 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 We developed Artists Village, at 17th and Bainbridge Streets, a 36-unit affordable rental development. We also served as the general contractor for Doctors Row, on the 1600 block of Christian Street. And we are currently working with SOSNA on St. Anthony's Senior Residences, a 38-unit renovation of a historic school at 23rd and Carpenter. In addition to the Senior Residences, we are renovating or newly constructing affordable rental townhomes on 12 blocks adjacent to St. Anthony's. In addition, we 13 have also renovated and now rent and operate 17 14 market-rate properties in the area, including 15 apartments, townhomes, and community-based day care center. In all our development and construction activity, we adhered to HUD Section 3 requirements and to the Mayor's Executive Order 2-95, which seeks to maximize the hiring of low-income persons residing in the area and spending for purchases and supplies from project-area firms. We also adhere to Chapter 17-500 of the Philadelphia Code and Executive Order 1-93 for participation of minority, women's, and disabled- owned 34 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 businesses. SOSNA will undertake the marketing meetings for the Emerson Homes. These properties can be purchased by income-eligible applicants who make no more than 80 percent of the median income in Philadelphia. In 1999, those income limits ranged from $31,150 for a family of 1, to $58,700 for a family of 8. These limits are adjusted each year and will probably rise in February of 2000 to account for inflation. All homes will be marketed on a nondiscriminatory basis, pursuant to the fair housing laws. We in the Regis Group are excited by this opportunity and look forward to this development. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Thank you very much. Betty McGurk? Is Betty McGurk here? (No response.)
Jack Kmetz? 35 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 (Jack Kmetz comes forward.)
Good morning. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to appear today in support of this condemnation proposal. I am Jack Kmetz, the Director of Public Affairs at Graduate Hospital, and a resident at 620 South 19th Street. As most of you know, when the hospital revitalized in 1997, significant and much-needed market-driven renovation and revitalization began in the area to the south of the hospital. Much of this continued during the 1980s, but the 1990s saw a decline in the number of housing starts in the community south of South Street and adjacent to Graduate Hospital. As you're also aware, market-driven renovation frequently leaves behind middle-class and low-income residents. It is important at this time to provide for stabilization of the South Street west area by enhancing low-income and middle-income housing revitalization in this neighborhood. And that is why Graduate Hospital wholeheartedly supports this proposal. Because of significant vacancies in 36 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 this area since the 1960s, widespread market-driven private redevelopment and investment will only result from infusions of public funds which provide general improvements in the housing stock. Graduate Hospital's mission can only be enhanced by improving the housing stock of this community. Our eventual long-term success, as one of the largest employers in the city and as the largest employer in the South Street west community, depends upon the vitality of the South Street west area. Additionally, I think it's important to note that the South Street west area has a long tradition of more than a century of multicultural and multiracial harmony, which continues today. It is one of the city's truly diverse communities, where people of race, creed, national origin, and background live in cooperation and in mutual respect. Every religious group and economic group is represented in this community. If any area of the city represents hope for our city's future and our city's future success as a melting pot, where all people can live and work with respect for each other and in 37 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 harmony, South Street west represents the best of the future, which we should seek for every area of our city. It is an area where people understand that we may not have come here in the same boats, but we're all in the same boat now. I'd ask Council to support this proposal and to help us float our community boat. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any questions of Mr. Kmetz? (No questions.)
Good morning, everyone. I didn't really have a statement or anything prepared.
I don't have a statement prepared so I don't want to be up here that long. 38 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 I just wanted to say that I'm --
Mr. Lee, just pull the microphone closer to you because we're having difficulty hearing you, and the stenographer is having the same difficulty.
All right. I've been a resident of this neighborhood now ten years. And as Jack stated, it is a very diverse and a very (unintelligible) community. I'm in support of this program if you want to condemn property because it seems that's the only way that we can get things down there, like sidewalks and new homes built. It's been my experience since I've lived down there that any new construction that takes place in the community, homes are usually sold down there, newly constructed homes are usually sold down there before the bricks are laid. And this is a neighborhood -- this is a neighborhood that is truly deserving, you know, of a second chance. So I would support this program and I hope that you could implement it as soon as 39 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 possible. I would like to think that -- I would like to think that this neighborhood will be a showplace, you know, if the city and the powers that be were to spend a little bit of time and effort up to come down and, you know give us a play. I'm certainly in favor of looking at the 2100 block of Carpenter Street and the 900 block of 22nd Street. These are properties I've been trying to get town down for the last four or five years now. And so I would like to know, how soon can you guys get this program implemented? (Laughter.)
You were ready yesterday, huh? I'm sure that we'll work on this as quickly as possible.
Thank you. Are there any questions of Mr. Lee? (No questions.)
Our next witness is Mitch Ripkin. Is Mr. Ripkin here? 40 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 (No response.)
We're requesting -- may I do this? We're requesting a development agreement to the RDA with Mr. Ripkin. I've met with him, and Kathy Murray has been talking to him. He owns several of these lots, and he does have plans, if that is possible, and I included that in the letter that we took, where we requested some properties be taken off. And he understands this only happened last Thursday and there was no time to do this ahead of time, and he trusts the City and the RDA and us to follow up on that after, if that is okay with the committee.
Thank you. Priscilla Blackman Johnson. Is Miss Johnson here? (No response.)
Jessie Frisby? 41 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 (Jessie Frisby comes forward.)
Good morning. My name is Jessie Frisby. I come representing South Street West Business Association as well as Jessie's Ladies' Shop, located at 1537 South Street for 31 years. I'm in support of this condemnation because we have been struggling in this area for over 30 -- from my knowledge, it's over 47 years. But since the '60s, this area has been allowed to go down. We have speculators that has come into this area who has abandoned the properties. We have vacant lots. It has been very, very difficult for us. Any community needs a viable business street or section for a community. We have not been able to attract people. Our community has been left abandoned. I don't know how long I can make it. I believe in South Street west, I was there when it was viable. I don't understand how we are allowing people to come in and not pay their fair share of taxes and let our community go down as it 42 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 is. That community has a wealth of history. And I'm in support of it, I want to see it done yesterday. I certainly want to see it done in my lifetime because it's been a struggle for us. This city needs money, the area needs to be very advised, and we want a decent neighborhood, that's the bottom line. So I'm here to make this testimony on that behalf. I want my business to live, I want the community to live, and I don't understand why it's allowed to go down the way it is. Get rid of these folks. Or these properties.
Thank you very much for coming in to testify. Are there any questions of Miss Frisby? The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
I'm in favor of it, I'm in favor of it. We've been living with a war-torn area all these years.
Good morning. My name is Helena Speller. I am the President of the Josephine Solomon Ellis Foundation. I am from First Tabernacle Church in this community, and I am here in support of this proposal 100 percent. Our church, we just celebrated 100 years. And we, the Speller family, represent six generations of this immediate community until this very day. And in the 1600 block of Fitzwater and the 700 block of South Chadwick, we have been donated some property in that area. The 700 block of South Chadwick is a eyesore. It's also on your list roll number 3, vacant lots and shelled buildings that we have a concern about condemnation, and that is the purpose of why I'm here today, to give a testimony in support of having condemnation in our immediate community. And thank you for your time. 44 12/1/99 RULES - 990716
Thank you so much. Are any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning. My name is David Bauman. Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee, I purchased my house at 623 South 17th Street in April of '97. Let me just preface this by saying that I'm in general favor of the redevelopment proposal, but this is a matter 45 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 regarding the lot next to my property. I was told by the neighbors that the adjacent lot, 621, had been vacant for about five years, since the City tore down the house that was standing there. In May of '97, I went to the Redevelopment Authority to apply for the lot in their vacant lot program. I was notified that the City did not own the lot and that I should try to acquire it through sheriff's sale. After further inquiry, I was told by both the City Revenue Department and the Redevelopment Authority that the lot had been put in lien sale inventory and was not eligible for sheriff's sale. From '97 till '99, I have periodically queried lien sale personnel about the status of the lot, only learning that the lot would be in lien sale too. During the spring and summer of '97, I cleaned the lot of garbage, household trash, appliances, tires, human and animal waste, and drug paraphernalia. I cut the weeds and planted trees. I stuccoed the side of my wall on the side adjacent to the lot a soft-yellow color in anticipation of putting up a ceramic tile mural. 46 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 I also fenced-off the lot to keep out trash and vagrant activities. From 1997 to the present, I have maintained the lot, cutting weeds as well as adding a flower garden. Less than two weeks ago, a neighbor informed me that this lot was listed in a newspaper ad by the Redevelopment Authority as one of the 285 properties to be condemned as part of the South Central redevelopment program. I went back to the Redevelopment Authority and was again told that the lot would be in a lien sale too. Only this past Monday, when I went back again to the Redevelopment Authority and persisted in asking to see a copy of the redevelopment proposal, did they confirm that 621 South 17th was indeed one of the properties cited for condemnation in the redevelopment program. The bureaucratic confusion over the status of 621 has deprived me the opportunity of obtaining the lot. Out of a normal sense of civic responsibility and the appreciation of an attractive living space, I have made improvements to 621 at my own experience and effort and with the unanimous moral support of the neighborhood. 47 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 I believe efforts like this constitute a commitment, a significant part in this city's effort to eliminate blight and deterioration. I would like to be awarded the lot so that I can continue developing a green space with a colorful mural on the side of my house. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony. The Chair, and Council President, is returning. So I don't know if there's any questions. Hold on one second.
Mm-hmm. I would like to put probably the front feet for parking and the 18 back 45 feet as a garden. 19
I believe 20 what is presently being proposed is that this property be developed into modern townhouses rather than a garden. And that, you would oppose?
You would 48 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 oppose this lot being made part of townhouses, modern townhouses rather than a garden?
I don't think there's really -- yes, I would. It's a single lot. There is a parking lot owned by some developer in the neighborhood, a paved double lot next to it. And then next to that is property owned by the University of -- or the hospital, the Graduate Hospital, which will be developed, I assume, at some point. But there's just a single lot there, and I don't think it -- I think it would be more significant to make it a green space, a garden.
Can either somebody from SOSNA or Universal approach the table, please? (Mr. Norman comes forward.)
Mr. Norman, please identify yourself for the record.
Doug Norman, Executive Director. The history of this building goes back about 18 years. It used to be a drug house that we had torn down. 49 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 There's two objectives to taking this lot. One of them is to get rid of a very recalcitrant owner that, I understand, owes 30-plus thousand dollars to the City. The other objective is, in order to do the two home ownership package in the 15th Street-Bainbridge Street, we actually might need that lot. I can't say that today. We are not opposed to having a garden there, and I live across the street. However, the real objective is -- the owner lives in Virginia. We have not been able to contact him for these many, many years. The City has -- I'm sure he ran into the same problem that we have for years, 16 and I really recommend that the RDA take it. It 17 doesn't mean it can't be a garden, but we really 18 need to get it away from this owner. Thank you. (Alan Mandel comes forward.)
I'm Alan Mandel. I live at 618 South 17th Street, just about directly across from the subject lot. We really needed an additional house on 50 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 that street. It's a very interesting block. You've got -- between South and Bainbridge, you've got really the side of a Graduate Hospital garage, you've got a church. You really -- you've got a large community garden. You really only have four occupied buildings that front onto 17th Street. I have been mugged twice on that street in front of my house, and we could use the development of an additional building at that site to provide eyes on the street and to add to safety at that site. There really is too much vacant space and also with the church and the garage institutional space, which might not have traffic at many hours of the day and night.
Thank you. In any event, we could never get this lot unless we go through this process. And if, in fact, it is not needed for a townhouse, then this gentleman could be considered for having it as a garden, right?
I understand that. And I'm sure you understand that too, sir? 51 12/1/99 RULES - 990716
I appreciate Mr. Mandel's concern about that. I have the same concern since I live right next to this lot, and it is a problem. I think that, though, over time, this double-wide community garden that's there, that's owned by Graduate Hospital, is going to be developed, and it won't be a garden any longer, nor will the space that's now a paved parking lot -- I think that's going to -- these fellows that own it are being very active in the South Street corridor in developing properties.
And I'm assuming that it's in this package here? I was just flipping here trying to. . .
We don't have a photograph of it, do we? 52 12/1/99 RULES - 990716
I can bring you in a photograph, but unfortunately, that's not going to help you now.
I don't think that's necessary. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
No, I was just saying, apparently, it's -- the final decision is, neither of the two gentlemen can be satisfied unless ownership is taken away from the person that presently owns it.
And that's all we're doing today, is giving the RDA the opportunity to acquire the lot under condemnation.
Actually, I believe owner died some time ago. I tried to trace -- I went back and tried to trace relatives and next of the kin, and I just got second cousins on Christian Street who didn't want anything to do with it, so 53 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 I think that's the best --
Perhaps in the meantime, the two gentlemen can be discussing together the problem of the lighting and seeing what can be done, and maybe you can both be satisfied ultimately.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments by members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. (Witness comes forward.)
Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Barney Richardson, and I have a property at 730 South 15th Street. The property I have there has been -- well, I've been in the neighborhood since I was about five years old. It used to be a candy 54 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 store. It was very active. It was Goode's headquarters when he first ran. It was Charlie Hunter's place of headquarters. But what my problem is, I was in the area there before Southwest Center City became Southwest Center City. I was there when (unintelligible) was 20th and Dickinson. I also was very active in the neighborhood. I have a property -- I think it's in the 700 block -- not in, but it is the 700 block of South 15th Street. It's probably not -- (unintelligible) that I worked for in '71, before anyone, I imagine, that's involved here today can remember, it was redlined. And the properties in that area just didn't go down because people didn't care. It was owners who was renting properties, they had tenants that walked away, they couldn't get any rent. They was getting six months extension. Nobody had any money to do repairs, and yet, still, the owners was very old. And then we had the other problem of the southwest cross-town expressway. But I stayed there, and I would like to be an independent developer. And we didn't have 55 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 the opportunity to say, Well, let's go here and get money. And many, many people -- there's a lady here who's been in the neighborhood in the 700 block of 15th Street for 60 or maybe 75 years. Her father was a doctor. So I'm asking that my property come off that list, which is 730 South 15th Street.
Did you say that you live at 730 South 15th Street?
It's occupied by me as a storage place, as a electrical contractor.
I don't believe that 730 South 15th Street is on the list for condemnation.
There's a gentleman coming to the table. Our lists don't indicate that we have any South 15th Street properties. 56 12/1/99 RULES - 990716
It doesn't? You just mentioned the Emerson Development. (Doug Norman returns to witness table.)
I am Doug Norman. It was on the original list and we took that off months ago. And if I did not alert Mr. Richardson, I do apologize.
We took this property -- it was on the original list that was submitted many months ago, but we have since taken it off. And if I did not alert Mr. Richardson, I do apologize. But it wasn't published in the RDA list, and it's not on there.
So, Mr. Richardson, you understand that 730 South 15th Street is not on the list.
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? 57 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 Please approach the witness table.
Madam Chair, just to clear the record, I misspoke earlier. There are some 15th Street properties, but that gentleman's property is not one of them. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yes. Good morning, Madam President and City Council. My name is Valeria McGriff. While I have been sitting here, I have lived in my neighborhood for 49 years. What I have heard is someplace that I can't relate to. We have blight in our neighborhood, but it isn't as bad as everyone has said here. (Audience member addresses Ms. McGriff off mike.)
I am sorry. On behalf of the neighbors that I have spoken to, I've come here with concerns and a proposal. We are concerned that our neighborhood is being exploited and that public housing, along 58 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 with this responsibility, is being contracted out. We propose that all City-owned buildings be rehabbed under the Home Start Program. Medium to large lots become HUD-developed rental units. Large lots should be leased to businesses, such as a badly-needed market, supermarket. Also, we propose that City loans be made available to residents to repair their properties. Our neighborhood has been redlined, has been slum lord, has been speculated, and now, it's being used for other groups' concerns. It's not for the residents that are there. Thank you. And I am against the condemnation, because it's done by people that have not asked the neighbors in the neighborhood. We have no 18 information. We didn't even know about this meeting. And these people do not represent the neighborhood from Broad Street to Seventh Street.
You forgot to indicate where you live. You don't have to give us your exact address, but if you could --
I have brought -- I live at 710 South Smedley Street. That's between the 59 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 area that we are talking about, from Broad Street to 17th Street, from South Street to Washington Avenue. Also, it's been said that it seems like they're connecting my neighborhood to the neighborhood across Broad Street, 13th Street. That's where the blight and crime was. We are hard-working people in my neighborhood. My whole street goes to work. I have raised two kids with master degrees. Yes, we have had drugs. We have abandoned buildings because of slum lords, because of redlining. So I think you should consider seriously who -- about the condemnation and who you are giving this responsibility to.
Well, I think you've heard most of the testimony here this morning, and it has been said that 60 percent of these properties that will be built will be for home ownership. Why would you have a problem with that?
I don't have a problem with them being built for home ownership. I think that all the buildings should be home ownership, 60 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 we shouldn't even have to have any rentals. In my area, we haven't had PHA homes. I can count on one hand maybe five PHA homes. We haven't had projects in my area. Most of the homes have been home ownership. But the people that propose to turn these buildings, we have these buildings and turn them into home ownership, I don't think has the neighborhood or the neighborhood people in mind. I think it's just business as usual.
Well, let me ask you something. You've seen much of the development going on in your community by Universal Court, Kenny Gamble's group. Wouldn't you say that that has been a vast improvement for that entire community?
It has been a vast improvement, but the neighbors, the people, the residents have been neglected, have not been informed of what was -- what is going on. They have been ignored. We have had people coming into our neighborhood doing things that we don't even know that they are doing.
Well, I know 61 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 that there have been many, many meetings regarding this issue. Why you did not know about it is --
We are not informed of it. For four years they have been developing this. When those homes went up, when Community Homes first put up their homes, I worked right across the street. We never knew about 'em until they went up. We have had --
Weren't you aware of any community meetings regarding this issue?
We went to one community meeting that we found -- and how we found out about that community meeting, we were given pamphlets. Pamphlets were stuck in our door saying the projects is coming west. They were very racist pamphlets. That's when we first found out about the projects being torn down.
Thank you, Madam 62 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 Chair. Ma'am, I'm sorry. I didn't catch your name. What is your name?
McGriff. Now, Miss McGriff, you said you're on Smedley Street, did you say?
Okay. I have to admit that I haven't completely become an expert on all of the streets in South Philadelphia. I know many of the major ones. Where are you in relationship to this area?
Okay. Now, do you own a property that is on the list of --
Okay. And you're concerned about who is doing this development and maybe some informational issues? You said you haven't received enough information. 63 12/1/99 RULES - 990716
But you've indicated that you've been here all morning and there are, obviously, from what I can tell, a number of neighborhood people who are here in the audience. Would you agree with that?
Okay. So, apparently, somebody's been getting information about this, right?
No. Most of the people -- I told about five or six people about this meeting today.
Okay. Well -- and I understand your concern about any aspersions that might possibly be cast on your neighborhood, and I'm glad everybody on the block is a homeowner and goes to work every day. We need you to be here and to stay and keep doing those kind of things. On the other hand, the testimony is 64 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 that we have 285 predominantly vacant, vandalized buildings and lots in this community. And I think you and I might agree that that is a problem, right?
I disagree with the number, and I'm talking about between Broad Street to 17th Street.
Well, ma'am, again, not being an expert in South Philadelphia, but I mean, have you seen the pictures displayed?
We have, you know, a half-inch thick package here of pictures of abandoned buildings and vacant lots. I think they tell a story, and they have addresses that go with them. So I don't know if the number 285 or 585 or 50, but 50 -- even if it was 50, it's a lot.
I propose -- I propose that the City, that the City rehab these homes under the Homestead Program, where people will be 65 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 -- where each person will have even a fair way of attaining these houses.
In 1989, SOSNA was 9 supposed to market these homes. They did market 10 'em. No one in my neighborhood knew about these 11 homes. 12
Thirteen homes were done, and the area residents did not know, did not have -- was not able to acquire these homes.
Well, I regret that tremendously, but I wasn't here in 1989, but I am now here in 1999.
We're really not in the rehab business. We support it financially, and it seems to me that you have one of the premiere developers partnering with your 66 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 neighborhood organization. I don't know if SOSNA covers your area or not. But I think, as the Council President indicated, we know the quality of the work from Universal or trading under the name of Uni-Penn. There's an opportunity here for the City to at least support this activity financially and deal with 285 vacant buildings and lots. I mean, I don't see how that can be a bad thing.
Where the residents that live there now that have been living there can acquire these homes and are not pushed outside of their neighborhood.
Okay, I understand your concern, and I appreciate that.
And I also must say that on my block, yes, we all get up and work. Most of the homes on my block were Realtor-owned, they were shacks.
They, in the last ten 67 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 years, the corporation came through, bought up the homes, bought 'em from old people that would sell, and they rehabbed them, and now they're nothing but Section 8s. Because it seems like someone is waiting for later on that they could sell 'em at a higher price.
Now we're having Section 10 8 people, the majority of people on my block are Section 8, they come from all over. And the Realtors that own these homes do not care who they give them to. So it's not like it's this rosy picture that this is working and we're fixing up and we're making it great. Yes, we're fixing up for our own.
Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify? Kindly approach the witness. Please 68 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 approach the witness table. (Witness comes forward.)
Hello, yes. Good morning. My name is Lynn Juarez. And I'm here to check the status of my property. I've been told we have an apartment building in the vicinity that you are referring to, and I was told by a real estate agent that it is on the list and that I should be down here today. However, the two people that I have asked claim it's not on their list. Can you check it and let me know what the status is?
The address is 1423 to 31 Pemberton Street Pemberton and 1424 to 32 Kennilworth Street.
23 to 31 Pemberton. And 24 to 32 Kennilworth. It's near 15th and Bainbridge. 69 12/1/99 RULES - 990716
They are occupied, and we had received a notice that one of them was vacant, and it's not true. And I did call up to protest, and they said, Okay, we'll take it off the list. But now I understand that I'm on some kind of a list, and that's what I need to know.
1423 to 1431 Pemberton. They're not owner-occupied. You have them rented? Are they rented?
They're rented, yes. I have a real estate agent who manages them. We just spent $6,000 in fire systems and a new roof. And this is the first I knew about this. And we rent to low-income people 70 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 affordable apartments. It's not abandoned or vacant.
The list that we have before us indicates that 1423 Pemberton is a vacant lot.
Mr. Islam? (Mr. Islam returns to witness table.)
I'm sorry, there's a chair right there. There's no need for you to be bending over like that.
I think there's some mistake about the actual addresses. I am familiar with Pemberton Street, but I'm not sure exactly which side is which, the vacant lots versus the properties on Pemberton Street. But I can say that that block is one of the most, I think, blighted blocks that we have in the area. It is a security risk and a high zone 71 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 for a tremendous amount of drug activity. And it is a very derelict-looking block. The properties on that block are very derelict. And, in fact, the entire block was a part of our process in it and our planning was to remove those type of houses off that block. They're considered pretty much trinities (sic). Basically, these are not marketable housing, and they're just a really, really bad situation as far as the type of houses that were built on that block and also the existing look of the block and what the block is being used for right now. So I hate to be against or in opposition to an owner of a property, but I can honestly say to you that that block is in a very, very bad condition and that I would be in agreement to anything that would allow the individual owner to rehab those properties, but they would definitely need to be rehabbed.
We invite you 72 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 to join us.
Mr. Eisenstat, let me just ask a technical question. I mean, from the pictures -- I mean, we've been able to locate the property, although, I mean, again, there's always the possibility that we could have an incorrect address. There appear to be properties on both the odd and even side of the street from these pictures in the 1400 block of Pemberton. What I need to know from you, from a technical standpoint is, if in fact the address, as listed in our documents, is incorrect, if the lady is right and our documents have an incorrect address, and if the bill passes, what are your -- what is your authority to make a correction post passage of the bill because you have a possible wrong address?
If you could give me a moment and just let me confer with my staff of what our understanding is for one second. Let me do that first. But let me first explain what the legal mechanics are and address and the bill 7 refers to a specific legal description.
We do not actually appraise properties or get a title insurance until after we've gone through the passage, this approval process. So that in the narrowest sense or the very specific sense, specifics, because in this situation, we're acquiring a series of vacant properties that are scattered, the property in the bill -- the property in the bill, the address, will correspond to a title report. That title report will be the legal authority we will have to take.
I understand that. But, again, just for today's discussion, let's say that the lady is correct and that we have listed on a list a property that is occupied, and we're showing it as an address on the site by way of pictures as vacant. What situation does that put 74 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 her in if the bill is passed and that address is listed and possibly we have a property that we wanted to get because of this address confusion that is not on the list? Do you understand what I'm saying? And what situation does that leave the owner in?
To the extent that our intent today is to acquire a lot that is vacant and we've identified it as a vacant lot and the address we have identified for that lot is in fact the lot that we're taking, it's valid. I don't believe that if the -- I don't believe -- I think that's about as far as I can say. If it is what we say it is, then we should be able to take it. If it's something other than what it is, I don't believe that we have that authority. Excuse me for just one second.
With all due respect to Mr. Eisenstat's opinion, I would believe that it would place the property in jeopardy. We would 75 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 be authorizing the address, and that would authorize the RDA, whether the property were vacant or occupied. It would authorize the RDA to proceed with condemnation. So from a technical point of view, I think it would be important to clear it up.
How many units do we have in this buildings 1423 to 31 Pemberton?
Six units in that one and six units in the other side. I don't know if the Kennilworth is even on the list or not. But they're back to back. And they're managed by Allen Brothers Real Estate, and he can verify this. I can give you his phone number. James Allen, 735-7643, for the record.
And do we know if Kennilworth is on the list, Mr. Eisenstat? What address is that again?
Okay, 'cause the one on Pemberton, I did get a notice about that, that it was vacant and it's going to need some of our attention. And I called up and I was assured that it would be removed from the list because I told them it is not vacant, and they said, No problem, we'll take it off. And then I just found out that I'm still on the vacant list, which is not the case. And they showed me pictures here of properties that are not mine; they're like next to it. And he's right, some of the properties in that block, you know, were bad, and some had fires and everything. But as far as I know, ours is intact and it's all in one total building.
No, they're not always all rented, but they're rentable. We just don't always get tenants for all of them.
Again, I'll 77 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 ask you, are they all occupied?
Wait a minute. You said you had six units. We're just talking about 1423 to 31 Pemberton now.
I am not sure at this point. I get a statement, but I'm not sure exactly. About three, probably. But we have them for rent. They're ready to rent, but we just can't get any people that want to rent them. I don't know why, because the rent is reasonable. They just don't. . . They just don't rent them. The real estate is in charge of, you know, getting tenants for them, but they don't advertise them or anything.
Well, when you say 78 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 as far as you know, when was the last time you were at the property?
Well, my husband is the one that goes in there, and unfortunately, he didn't come down here. But as far as I know, it's the same that it was last -- when I drive by there, from the outside, it looks okay to me. It's an all-brick building, it's solid.
When was the last time your husband was at the building?
Did you want to add something, sir? (Audience member addresses the committee off-mike.) I'm sorry, you're going to have to approach the witness table.
My name is Barney Richardson again. 79 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 She has a property building that was built around '47, and it's kept pretty nice, and I know the people that's living in there. And they have fair rent and they have -- Kennilworth Street was back to back, built at the same time. And the development at the time was called black and white, and they always look decent. In fact, that's the only thing that looked decent in the street. In Pemberton Street are front houses and in Kennilworth. And if it wasn't for that, it would be really a bad block.
Mr. Richardson, is there a possibility that the three units that are occupied are in the rear of the property and the units that are not occupied are in the front, and it would appear as though they're a condemned property?
I think they're all in the front, but it's three people that live downstairs 'cause I know the three of them, and they've been there, I guess, about 30 years. One girl's name is Betty and she has two children. And the friends in the back's name is Gardner, one of the people I've been knowing, and he's been 80 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 there for about years. 3
We have no problem with 8 selling the property, but, you know, at a fair, 9 reasonable price. 10
I say it's not that we 13 have any problem if someone wants to buy our 14 property, but at a reasonable price. They claim 15 it's not marketable, but I would not agree to 16 that. 17
Yes, between 200 a month, 220, up to about 275, 280. I don't think --
Well, at those prices, wouldn't you think that there's a 81 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 reason why not renting? And it's probably because of the surrounding areas?
I have no idea. But the people that come to this real estate office come from Center City, and he says they're looking for something like Center City, and they don't want to go down in those little streets, I don't know. But as far as the condition of our building, our building is okay. Maybe the surrounding, you know, buildings might be blighted and, you know, what's the word. . . I can't think of the word that they use.
Could I, on a friendly basis, try to explain this confusion the best way I can, having conferred with both Redevelopment Authority staff and representatives of the developer. This is a very narrow block. The bulk of the properties, as we've identified, as we indicated earlier, are vacant lots. We do not have a -- and, therefore, there is some discrepancy, and it's very hard to describe what 82 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 one might read off a sand board map and a city record as what an address is when you've had so much demolition. I would suggest for the record if we could, that if in fact, there's a true -- there's a true mix-up and we're verifying this in the field right now, if the property really is in fine standards, as represented today, that shouldn't be a problem. If, in fact, the building is substantially derelict or it's in need of rehabilitation, we would suggest that the condemnation proceed, subject to a redeveloper's agreement in lieu of condemnation, a rehab agreement that would require if the property is in fact substantially not meeting code compliance, that the Redevelopment Authority be given the ability to acquire the property if the building is not brought up to code within two years. And that is a standard that this Council has considered in the past, and we could do that. And I know that Rahim and others are directing field work, and we could bring this back to you later today. But it would be my recommendation at 83 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 this time that if, in fact, the title reports that will come back from the bill include this property and if it's in need of rehabilitation, that the authority be given to the agency to carry on, with the caveat that they would be given time to rehabilitate the building.
Well, I'm not sure. I mean, I'd have to know exactly what they come up with. But it sounds fair. I mean, I just want to be on a list saying that we're abandoned and unmarketable and so forth.
I believe there's someone looking at this property as we speak.
And hopefully, within about 20 minutes, we'll know what the outcome is.
I just had a staff member at Universal take a look at these properties, and it's very confusing. He said to me that the only address he seen was 1427. It looked like they combined -- 1425 and are combined. He says 11 that it's clear that 1425 is vacant, partially 12 vacant. It looks like 23 is partially vacant and 13 partially occupied. 14 So it looks like the 23, 25, and 27 are 15 a combined unit. 16
Okay. Well, it is not 85 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 clear -- it's no question that they he told me that there is someone living in the unit, but it's not completely occupied. Parts of the building, it looks like it's definitely unoccupied, and parts of it look like it is occupied. But, again, our position was, we weren't prepared -- Universal was not prepared to put units back on this block. We were trying to attempt to arrest this block. This block is a very, very strong drug hold for a lot of drug and prostitute activity. So our -- and the condition of the units were such that we felt that it was necessary to remove these properties off the block. We are in agreement with what Noel had just basically said. If the owners were to take some leadership and correct the problems of their property and we'd continue to remove the rest of the properties or acquire vacant lots on that block, we could still make some do with that block. But as it stands now, it is a very devastated block.
Mr. Islam, is 1431 a vacant lot? Or can't you tell or couldn't 86 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 the individual that went out there --
Well, the reason why it's very hard is it's a very tiny block. It's not a traditional block. It looks like the back of another street. It's really hard to say. So the question probably is, is the vacant lot part of another block or is the property part of another block? And that's probably the limit that we have in determining. Actually, the vacant lot is assigned to that property address that we've given it. I hope I'm not confusing you more, but the bottom line is, it's very hard to determine what is on that block versus the addresses we've been given. At least the way it was on the maps that we were given.
So with all of that being said, what are you suggesting?
I'm suggesting that we're in favor of the owner taking the time to rehab those units because they are not marketable as we see it right now. And they -- again, they contribute to -- if this area is not treated, it contributes to a lot of blight that goes on. It's 87 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 a pocket for blight and drugs and prostitution. So our position, the reason why we have these properties on the list, is to remove anything off that block, is to really kind of make that block either for parking or for a park or a beautified area, but not to have -- if you've seen this block, you would know. And this is not like any other blocks we've talked about. This is truly a very, very tiny block. This is not like some of the other blocks that we've discussed previously.
Just briefly, Mr. Islam. Given the description that you have laid out on the block, and I thought I heard you say earlier you had not planned housing for this street. Now, I see from the pictures that a number of these properties are vacant lots, but a couple at the end -- it looks like and 28 and 23 30 are full buildings, vacant buildings, but they 24 look to be at least two-story, possibly three. 25 Were you going to acquire those and knock them 88 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 down as well?
Well, just a quick question. Given what you described as some of the activity on the block, if you go with either open space or parking, how does that either stop what's been going on, or what other measures can be put into place -- either additional lighting or -- I mean, I appreciate the building's coming down under the circumstances, I understand that, but what's going to stop all the other activities?.
Well, it's not just the buildings coming down. It's just the buildings coming down, you beautify, you treat the block, you treat the street. But you also put in -- on 15th Street, the blocks that are adjacent, which is a major street that this block adjacents (sic) is roughly almost 45 or 50 vacant properties that will be put back into some type of a --
So that is able to exist because the vacancy on 15th Street exists. Once you're able to put -- when we're proposing home ownership on 15th Street, once we have these 89 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 homeowners, we will give this block an option for either parking, additional parking for off-street parking, but the bottom line is that you have a much more better presence there. It's not just that there --
'Cause there will be people nearby and there's that activity and they're either parking their cars or they're playing in the open space and field and all of that.
All right. I understand. (Audience member addresses committee off-mike.)
I'm sorry, you're going to have to approach the witness table.
Now that he's responded to that, I just want to clear up exactly what the property is. It's five addresses, which is 1423, 90 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 25, 27, 29, 31, all alongside of the building. On each side, there may be vacant lots or vacant buildings. And across the street, there are, I'm sure. But that is not connected with our property and. If they want it rehabilitated, I would like to know exactly what it is they want done to it. It's a brick building and you don't paint bricks, you know. What else -- you know, everything else is in good condition. And, you know, if someone tells us exactly what they want done, I think we would be agreeable to, you know, working with that, if that's what they want done. But I just don't want it to be considered as unmarketable.
There would be a redevelopment agreement that would tell you all that had to be done to improve the property.
Okay? And improvements should be made within two years.
I'm sorry, I 91 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 didn't hear you.
There's not a vacant. They're showing me pictures of vacant lots; I think that's on the other side.
My name is George Fields. I just purchased a property on Pemberton Street, 1430 Pemberton. And we -- me and another man is in the process of rejuvenating the properties on 15th Street and 1430 Pemberton, 1433. We've put up a fence around the corner property on Pemberton Street, put poles along the sides of the street there to stop the people from parking on the sidewalks. And as of now, that is one of the most quiet blocks in the neighborhood. It's a very historical block, and I can foresee in the future 92 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 that it's going to be a very asset to the community. I don't feel as though we need to tear down everything in that community because you have to save some of the history.
Mr. Fields, when did you purchase 1430 and 33 Pemberton?
About four or five months ago. I don't believe they're on the list now. But I'm saying as far as Pemberton Street is concerned --
You're saying 1430 is not on the list? There is a picture of it someplace.
Well, that house has new windows in it, new roof on it, all that now. Some of the blight that was there is not existing as of this moment. Prior to that, the pictures may have 93 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 been taken. But if you look at the property now, you'll see that that block could be a real asset to that community. I don't think that we need to tear down everything, you know.
No, it's not. But as far as the drug activity and the dereliction and the prostitution, I'm there every day, and that's one of the quietest streets on the block now. You know, if you want to go around there and look at it in the evening, it's a good block. All it needs is somebody to come there and just put a little care in it, and it doesn't need to be demolished.
I've had it about six months now. But I also want to do ask this question also. Now, all the friends in the community that have concerns about losing their property, they are members of this community for generations, not just for a certain amount of years. And then they come to a meeting or they look in the newspaper and find that their property is on the list. And what I would like to know is, if we as a community begin the process of rejuvenating and renovating these properties and we get 'em up to a standard that would be an asset to the community and they are condemned today, are they still in danger of being demolished after the people who do have --
Mr. Fields, I don't know if you were here earlier.
Okay. It was stated that none of the properties in question are owner-occupied.
Okay? Many of these properties have been vacant for 15, 4 years. For the most part, they are vacant lots. 5 Now, if people have had the properties for as long 6 as they have been vacant, why wouldn't they have 7 done something with them? And our not taking them 8 doesn't guarantee that somebody's going to 9 purchase them and rehab them. 10
Right, I'm not saying 11 that. I'm saying that supposing the property, 12 when they're ready to be demolished, is a asset to 13 the community at that time? They're not going to 14 be demolished tomorrow. 15 But I also have a friend that has a 16 concern. He has 753 South Hicks Street. He got a 17 citation from the City. He acquired the proper 18 architectural plans and went to L&I and got the 19 permits and is in the process of putting new 20 windows in, new doors, having a masonry working, having all the violations corrected that's on the citation. Will his renovating this property allow him to keep his property, or is he still going to be one of the guys that's going to lose because he's on the list? 96 12/1/99 RULES - 990716
Rahim Islam, Universal Community Homes. To address this gentleman's concerns and issues, I think that was the point of this whole process. If this individual is rehabbing that unit, then I think he should be extended a two-year agreement to get his unit into compliance. And if that's the case -- that's the whole purpose for this whole situation. It's not to put a disconvenience (sic) on anyone, but also at the same time, it's to begin to address the situation, and these properties have been vacant for a long period of time. So if this individual -- I don't know -- remember if it's 1430 Pemberton?
If that's the case, I would think the extension of the redevelopment agreement should be extended. I had talked to the gentleman for 753 South Hicks Street. And, yes, he -- Hicks Street is a street that if we could take, I think, the 97 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 five or six properties that's on that block, we will restore that block back to its beauty and make it a livable block. If he's taking that property, 753, and he's fixing that property up, that's what we wanted done. So if that individual is doing that and can demonstrate that, I would think that the extension of the development agreement would be recommended by us as the developers of this site.
How do you acquire this agreement? How would you acquire this agreement?
We will make that all a part of the record, also. (Mr. Eisenstat comes forward.)
My name is Noel Eisenstat, and I'm from the Redevelopment Authority. The question at hand is, what is the procedure by which you would be contacted as it relates to entering this agreement? Your actions today would proceed as any other with the necessary actions by the governing body of signing 98 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 the ordinance by the Mayor. Your property would be within the urban renewal taking and identified as such. Your property would be appraised as if it were to be acquired. In lieu of condemnation, you will receive a document, which is an agreement, which you would otherwise know as a contract. That contract would spell out that you would have a date certain period of time to bring your building into code compliance and that it would be in safe sanitary, standards. In absence of that contracting being met within the timeframe, which we have agreed upon here is two years, the Authority, after that two years, would have the legal authority to acquire the property as if it was a vacant lot that was not being rehabbed today. But you would be contacted by the Authority -- the property owner will be contacted by the Authority, and an agreement or contract would be provided with some negotiation about term. You know, there may be an attachment of what's the nature of the rehab so that there's no 25 disagreement once it was done, that it is what it 99 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 was said to be. And from there, things would proceed.
Okay. I have just one other closing thing. These properties in this area strategically are very valuable. And my feeling is that a lot of people don't have the resources to renovate properties or to do it or the knowledge to even begin to stop a leak, and a lot of times a leak is what causes the demise of these properties because we just don't have the skills in our community to do it. Why can't the poor people that have been living there for generations acquire a reasonable sum of money for their properties instead of just being taken? I mean, that's like -- you know, it's almost like Nazi Germany: I want your place 'cause it's worth $100,000 now. You know, I'm coming in and I'm taking it from you. And the bottom line is that, today, is that we as a community really don't have anything, the black community. We don't have the money and the resources to do it. Why shouldn't these 100 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 people be paid? I mean, I'm not in danger and I'm not in jeopardy; I'm just concerned that these senior citizens and these people who have inherited these properties are just going to take a loss, whereas some of the people that come in the community -- and I know of some properties that were bought that are in worse shape than this for 70, $80,000, as a shell.
My name is Noel Eisenstat. Let me first help with some clarification here. When the Redevelopment Authority speaks of acquiring properties, it sometimes uses the word "taking," and that is probably not an appropriate term. The Authority, by law, must have the property appraised. The Authority does that with an appraiser. You or anyone else will be asked to join the appraiser upon inspection. If you or anyone else is unhappy with the value that we have offered you, you're given the full right to question this or challenge this in what is known 101 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 as Board of Reviewers hearing. Recently, there was an article about how the Board of Reviewers works in the Inquirer this week. And it's an entity that meets and settles -- the attempts to provide an independent judgment for these issues. If, for some reason, the Board Reviewers makes a determination that the property owner's not happy with, they are automatically provided an automatic appeal known as an appeal de novo to the Court of Common Pleas, and a jury trial can be set, and the property owner can make his or her claim in front of a Common Pleas Court judge and jury in the County and City of Philadelphia to challenge the value. And even before we -- let me also go back. Even before we would get to the Board of U hearing, if the Authority makes an offer and you think it's wrong or that you've made improvements, the Authority has an obligation to negotiate with you and exchange appraisals. And if you have an appraisal, before having to go through the expense and time of these hearings, the Authority will sit down with you and if you have an lawyer or an appraiser and negotiate with you in good faith to 102 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 see if there's a way to compromise the claim. But people will be compensated for the value of their property based on an appraisal. However, I would also remind you that back taxes are something the City, I believe, in most cases plans on receiving first.
Yes, it's no doubt about that. Okay, when you go to get a loan and they evaluate your property, or you go to sell the property, you get comps. You know, like on the next block, this house went for $75,000, and this house, as a shell, sold for $80,000. Is that the type of appraisals you're going to be doing? Are you going to get comps around the neighborhood to see how much the other shells went for and give these people the fair market value that way? Or is it going to be like my partner Norman was told. Norman, Norman? He was told that his property was wanted and that he would receive $3,000 for a property that he just spent $40,000 for. Is that right? That you would receive $3,000 for --
Wait a 103 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 minute, wait a minute, we can't have this. Excuse me, Mr. Fields. We can't have this conversation across the room.
Council President, let me reiterate. I can't speak to you about any particular property today which is worth 70,000 or 50,000 or $150,000. I can tell you that our appraisals are conducted based on comparable -- there are a series of approaches. The primary approach for residential real estate is, in fact, a comparable approach, looking at similarly-situated real estate physically located and of similar size and in a similar area. And that is the approach that's used, and that provides the standard by which appraisals are made. And property owners are given the opportunity to undertake their own appraisals. There have been no determinations made as to the particular values at all in the situation.
Mr. 104 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 Eisenstat, thank you. Mr. Fields, if you have any further questions, maybe you could talk to Mr. Eisenstat personally.
Thank you. Our next witness. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Wayne Williams, and I'm here on behalf of Miss Marielle Graves. She's one of the oldest property owners in the southwest of the city. She's -- her father was a doctor down there. Her whole entire family was a doctor down there. I just want to say one thing on behalf myself too. The redline situation came up earlier in this meeting. I was a committeeman back in 1980, and the only person who really helped us out -- and I'm not just saying this off the cuff as they say in the street, but the only person who really helped us out with redlining in that situation was Miss Verna. She came to the meetings and she was responsible for League Street, Kimball Street straight through getting 105 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 fixed up. I was the bad guy. Couldn't get a job nowhere 'cause I was the bad guy. We were fighting HUD then. And the only person that would come to our meetings and help us out with the redlining situation was Miss Verna. Now, on behalf of Miss Graves, she's interested in -- she's going to be talking and trying to talk to some people at Universal Homes, and I'm going to try to guide her through some things, but she's interested in 763, Miss Graves?
It was next door to her property that she owned. The property wasn't fixed properly. I think the contractors that tore the property down didn't come back, you know, and fixed the sides of her house, and she's concerned about that right now. 106 12/1/99 RULES - 990716
She's concerned about the contractors fixing up her house, the sides of her house that was torn down.
Oh, so they demolished the property adjacent to her, and they have not stuccoed your property?
We'll get that information and contact L&I for you.
Do you want to add anything to this bill. Are you in favor of it?
You know, I'm like the old rabble-rouser down in the community. And I think that it's -- I really like the bill, I really do. I mean, it's time for us to clean the community up. I know there's a lot of bitter feelings over the years. I can now point out to the individual people who contributed a lot, like 107 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 Barney, people who came in after that. But I mean, you was always there for us, you was always there for us, and I think you are there for us now. And I'm in favor of the bill. I like what Rahim is doing. I mean, it's something that we tried to get done a long time ago. But, Miss Graves, do you have anything you want to say on behalf other than that?
I had a contractor to fix up a home at 772 South 15th Street and he was stopped on the job.
He didn't say who, but he left the job because I was out of town at the time, and I thought my house was ready to be rented. And he said no, someone came and stopped him and said he didn't have --
She say he didn't have 108 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 the permits, Miss Graves.
We'll take care of that. We'll take care of that, Miss Verna. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning. My name is Georgette Fields. I'm here as a representative of our neighborhood group, South of South Neighborhood Association. And we've been here quite a while and most of us are not young. We haven't had our breakfast. I'm just here to speak for the organization, and I'd like to ask for those that are here from SOSNA to stand, please. (SOSNA associates stand).
And inasmuch as we're now going to go into the individual situations, I'm going to ask your permission for us to leave, but 109 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 I'd like it to go on record that we're here in support of the plans.
Thank you very much. And the record will reflect that there were approximately people from SOSNA present 7 since early this morning. 8 Thank you very much. 9
Hello. My name is David 10 Bauman. I just wanted to add a caveat about the 11 redevelopment proposal. 12 It seems like I share some of the concerns that Miss Valerie Harris had, the woman on Smedley Street, who wasn't really notified about a number of these meetings and so forth. And I'm also somewhat concerned of if there's a kind of a thorough-going demolition that -- because I feel like a lot of these houses still can be saved and the opportunity to do kind of rehabbing these houses for the people who own them or people of low-income to retain the character of these places, because a lot of the places that go up have a kind of tract-house look that just looks like it's going to get deteriorated quickly. In fact, some of those houses at 16th and Catharine 110 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 that were just constructed are already getting graffitied. And my concern is that -- and as a matter of fact, I even volunteered at Neighbors in Action in your office on Wharton Street to help people who wanted to rehab houses because I have some skills in rehabbing houses. And I was -- I was wondering if it's possible for the Council to have an oversight committee for the specific purpose of kind of keeping track of things, about how things get rehabbed and what gets torn down so that there's not a rush to just tear things down. Because I think a lot of these --
Excuse me, sir. I think the Redevelopment Authority already does that.
And they will -- is there someone that you could tell me that I can contact?
Mr. Eisenstat is in the room, and I think before you leave --
Mr. Eisenstat is the person to contact? 111 12/1/99 RULES - 990716
Thank you. All right. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. My name is Geraldine Mayo, M-A-Y-O. And I own the lot at 1522 Bainbridge and the adjoining home of 1524 Bainbridge. My thoughts about this matter are split. The reason being, I was mysteriously paged two nights ago by a resident of Bainbridge who informed me of this meeting and also offered me a sum of money for both the lot and the adjacent property and told me to get back to him. I have paid my taxes on both the lot and the home. It started out seven years ago when I purchased both homes by different Realtors. I spent $15,000 of my own money, cash, to demolish, through the Thorn Equipment Company, the property 112 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 of Bainbridge and Lowell, which is a small alleyway street. I spent more thousand dollars 4 erecting a 12-foot fence with razor barbed wire to house that lot. As far as the development of the City goes, I was told eight years ago that there was a plan. This was before the Avenue of the Arts took effect. And they said that in the next ten years, this area was going to be developed and that it was going to be very beneficial for investors. In the area, I see residents that have been there for generations. I also see the new Yuppies and the Buppies who maybe cannot afford the Society Hill yet, but have nestled into that Graduate Hospital area. This area, this square does need to be developed. Upon placing $5,000 worth of vinyl windows behind boards and doing the structural work on the adjacent house, the remaining house, through contractor Randazzo, the door was kicked in, the front and back doors were stolen, the marble steps, three outside the residence, were removed, and the electrical system was also removed. This was four years ago. 113 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 As a lover of Philadelphia as far as the cultural activity goes in the city -- and I'm still awaiting those glass fixtures that were promised on Broad by, let's say, near the automobile, I guess, sales area near the Academy of the Arts, it was promised ten years ago that a sculptor was supposed to make glass fixtures on each side of the corner there, and those plans were abandoned. The frustration is this: as we put in thousands of dollars into these properties only to see them walk out the back door, some of the young developers have ceased. So going on to the last conclusionary (sic) point of my thought process, which is in favor of the development of the area, I feel as though if some townhouses were erected, that maybe the inclusion of other faction factors in the area would stabilize it so that the young investors and some of the residences that are already there might keep the vinyl windows that they placed in the slots instead of seeing them walk down the street. So my -- my -- I guess my thought 114 12/1/99 RULES - 990716 process is split. Yes, I'm in favor for it because I think so that it's a positive situation to revitalize the area and it also gives us more stability in the area. And maybe knowing that I would like the community to be informed, we received our tax statements in the mail, but I did not receive a formal letter of this forum. I was paged anonymously. And the offer of the money for the properties, I guess, is still on my mind. Thank you for listening to me.
Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
I want to really thank everyone for their patience. The next bill to be considered is Bill 20 No. 990642. I would ask the clerk to please read the title of that bill.
An ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code relating to zoning and planning by amending Chapter 14-1600, entitled "Miscellaneous," by adding a new Section 14-1616, 115 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 entitled "East Falls Special District Controls," under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning. Is it morning? No, it's not. It's afternoon.
Good afternoon, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Richard Lombardo of the Planning Commission. And I'm here today to speak on behalf of Bill 990642 and Bill 990643.
Would the clerk will please read the title of Bill 990643.
An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bonded by Weightman Street, Ridge Avenue, a line approximately 77 feet northwest of Calumet Street, Cresson Street, Indian Queen Lane, 116 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 Krail Street, Roosevelt Boulevard, Ridge Avenue, a certain railroad right-of-way, and the Schuylkill River.
Good afternoon again. I'm Richard Lombardo of the Planning Commission, and I'm here today to speak on behalf of Bills 990642 and 990643. We're here today as a sort of culmination of a process that began over a year ago, which, in my many years of doing this type of zoning work for Planning Commission, was probably the most inclusive, thorough participatory process, beginning with the subcommittee meetings that made recommendation to the larger group, right through the final adoption of these bills at general membership meetings, several general membership meetings which were held in the community. This bill sort of tried to reach out, through the good efforts of Councilman Nutter, to reach out and make sure that everyone in the community was informed about what was going on and 117 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 was participating in the process. And there are representatives here from the community, and we have letters from the four major stakeholders in the community, which, very quickly, is the East Falls Community Council, the East Falls Development Corporation, the East Falls Business Association, and the Schuylkill Falls Tenants Council, all of whom have sent letters to us and to Councilman Nutter, endorsing the passage of both of these pieces of legislation.
Do you have extra copies of those letters to be made a part of the record for the stenographer?
Yes, we'll make sure you have copies. These bills, as I said, are companion bills, and they do two separate things. And first I'll talk about the goal here. The goal here was to try to have the East Falls community reestablish Ridge Avenue and Midvale Avenue through the East Falls community as a commercial area to serve the larger East Falls community. Presently, the area is zoned as a mixture of residential and commercial and 118 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 industrial buildings. A lot of commercial -- those commercials are inappropriate and doesn't lend to be developed as commercial. It's office commercial, which envisions strictly office building type of use. It's been zoned that way for 20, 30 years. There obviously is not a market for office development, and that property has never been developed. But the underlying zoning, for example, doesn't allow retail. It only is limited to office type of use. A lot of the property are zoned heavy industrial and are not no longer industrial -- they're not industrial, they're rowhouses and store fronts. They're not industrial properties. But the purpose of this effort was to reestablish these two streets as retail areas to serve the larger community, as well as, looking at the success of Main Street and Manayunk, to try to recreate in East Falls a similar type of retail area as Main Street in Manayunk. So the first of these bills -- the second of these bills, 990643, is the bill that changes the zoning of various properties along 119 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 Ridge Avenue and along Midvale Avenue to C2 commercial. The only blocks that aren't being changed to C2 commercial is the block of Ridge Avenue between the Boulevard and the railroad right-of-way, as you can see on the map, and that's being changed from G2 to L4 limited industrial. I'd like to add here that in the original -- somehow in the original draft of the map that was put -- that was introduced, it showed two of the blocks remaining as office commercial. We have an amendment which we've talked to the clerk's office about, and we will hand 'em up, to replace the map with a map that shows the block between Calumet Street and Weightman Street, Ridge Avenue to River Drive, all being changed to C2 commercial. And we would recommend at the end of this testimony that the bill be amended to show that C2 commercial. So let's say the purpose of this bill 22 is to rezone all of these properties from various noncommercial classifications to a single C2 classification. Now, C2 allows a broad spectrum of 120 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 commercial uses, some of which are not necessarily appropriate to a commercial strip, neighborhood commercial strip. So the second of these bills, 990642, establishes a zoning overlay which limits the types of uses, the hours of operation, the size of buildings, it establishes both use restrictions and zoning controls, which this committee is probably familiar with 'cause we've been before you a number of times with various community and business associations to establish zoning overlays, and will be with you in the future, at the next Rules hearing, to talk about zoning overlay from Manayunk. But, basically, this is a method of reining in the underlying zoning to make it more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In this particular instance, the overlay would limit -- restrict uses or take out uses out of the C2, which is thought to be inappropriate for the type of commercial area the community is trying to establish.
Basically, these uses are large assembly-type uses, athletic and drill hall, automobile-related uses, automobile repair shop, automobile sales lot, drive-through restaurants, 121 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 drive-through sale windows, sale of live poultry, live fish or live animals for human consumption, radio and television carriers, penal and correctional institutions, various utility type of uses, water booster, sewer substations, telephone exchange building, electric transforming. It also limits the size of other uses. It doesn't say they're inappropriate, but one of the (unintelligible) was the large blocks, some of the large blocks that are in this area. I know it's late and I don't want to take a long time so I'll try to run through this. The large blocks of property involved here, they did not want to have one single user come in and put up a big hardware store or a big appliance store -- not to disparage American Appliance or Circuit City, but that type of big, single-box type of retail establishment. So they're limiting the size to 1500 square feet of gross floor area for certain types of commercial uses. And those would be electrical appliances, floor coverings, furniture, garden supplies, hardware, household appliances, office equipment and supplies. You get a flavor, of the big Office 122 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 Max, the Staples, the big type of freestanding retail, radio and TV sets. So that's the two -- the purpose of the two bills. The two bills are to reestablish the area as a commercial area and put limitations to make sure it develops as a sort of neighborhood services type of retail area. And as I said, this was a very participatory, inclusive process. Tom Chapman and myself attended a number of meetings spanning over a year, and the Councilman's staff attended a number of these meetings. For the record, the Planning Commission, at the meeting of December 1, 1999, recommends approval of both bills.
Why would I expect you to have said that? (Laughter.)
Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (Witnesses come forward.) 123 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43
Madam President Verna, thank you very much. Councilman Nutter, Councilman Kenney, Councilman DiCicco. I'm Hansel Minyard. I'm a resident of East Falls and a member of the East Falls Community Association and the Development Corporation. Rich gave a pretty thorough account of what we went through to get before you today, and it's been a long morning and I know you want to leave, so I'm going to be real quick. Actually, this process is more like three years old. We did a master plan for the area, we did a marketing study. The meetings encompassed everyone in the community. We mailed lists, we found out who all the owners of the properties were and invited them to attend. I can't tell you how many nights we did meet. We did the initial draft, it was reviewed, we revised it, and it is now submitted to you. What I want to add is that Councilman Nutter and his staff was extremely helpful to us, and the people from City Planning, particularly 124 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 these two gentlemen, spent at least hours in meetings where I was in attendance in the evenings, helping us out, getting us through the process, showing us what could be done. And that's one area of city government that our newspapers don't write about. And I just, for the record, want to say how appreciative I am and how much help these folks were. The gentleman to my right, whose name I forgotten, and the lady's here are my colleagues. The gentleman to my right recently bought a property in the industrial section when it was -- what was it, G2? G2. Which permitted a certain use that we aren't certain is consistent with the L1. He has a concern, and I think my colleagues and I are willing to address that in any way that we possibly can. Thank you very much for your time.
My name is Leon Silvestro. I was born and raised in East Falls. For the last 20 years, I've been living in 125 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 Roxborough, which is the next neighborhood over. I purchased a property down at the 4000 block of Ridge Avenue about five years ago with a partner, to develop that property. Since then, my partner has changed his mind, I bought him out, but my intentions on the property was to put in a cabinet shop. I'm also a (unintelligible) fabricator, high-end cabinetry. I can reproduce these desks here in the room. My concern is with the change in the zoning there, that it would limit me in my fabrication of, you know, these products that I've been doing most of my life. I've been a general contractor and cabinetmaker my entire life, which is close to 30 years in the business. I'm really not sure of what zoning is what, other than when I purchased it, my architect had said that I was capable of doing everything that I wanted to do. And recently, I got notice that they wanted to change that, and I've made an investment to this property, I've started developing the back of it. I've done a lot of work to the inside of it. And now they're telling me that they're going to limit me to what I 126 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 intended to do with it.
Mr. Lombardo? (Richard Lombardo returns to the witness table.)
I don't believe he's gotten a permit yet, have you? Have you applied for permits?
I was under the understanding that I didn't need a permit to start a business there.
Well, you would -- your architect would have needed to get a use registration permit for any kind of a use. When you change your use from whatever. Say you go from a grocery store to a barbershop, you need to get a use registration permit.
He said that the zoning that it was at the time that I purchased it, that I didn't need to do anything, that I could open up tomorrow without notifying anybody.
Well, he gave you some 127 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 misinformation. I mean you do have to get a permit. I mean, it's not -- it's a -- you go in and you apply for it and you get it right across the counter, but you have to get a permit. But as the question of grandfathering, it's whether or not he has a permit. I don't think it's necessary. I can't give him a permit, but I don't think it's necessary to issue. L4 allows the manufacturer of furniture, manufacturer of shelving, I believe carpentry are all permitted uses in the L4 district, so he should be okay. I hate doing this because he could go over to L&I and an examiner could deny him a permit. I can't give permit. My reading of the code is that he should be okay under L4 to do what he wants to do. He'd have been better if had gotten correct advice from his architect and had gotten a use and registration permit because then, to answer your, he would have been grandfathered in, and it wouldn't matter whether we changed the zoning or not.
Mr. Lombardo, I mean, it sounds to me like there are a couple of 128 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 potential solutions to this situation. One, he could, in fact, go over to L&I today, tomorrow -- it's not like we're going to pass the bill 5 immediately -- and get whatever permits he needs. He can get, hopefully, better advice, if he got bad advice from the architect, but also talk to the examiners over at L&I. That's one route that he can go. Two, if for some reason he doesn't do that now and the bill passes, I think with his working with the community, I don't get the impression that there's opposition to his business. And even with the overlay, anyone has still the opportunity to go to the Zoning Board to get a variance. And it would seem to me that under the current circumstances, you would more than likely have support from the four groups that are supporting the overlay to support you to get your variance. I mean, obviously, no one's trying to put you out of business. Your quickest route, naturally, is to just go and get a permit for whatever it is that you need immediately.
But my concern was that 129 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 the rezoning was going to limit me to my hours and the noise that would come out of my shop.
No, L4 does not impose those types of limitations. There's a limitation that -- do you make anything that weighs more than a ton, 2,000 pounds? The only limitation is the limitation of how big a thing you can make.
TV sets are getting bigger and bigger, so I make cabinets for 'em and I can't say that it wouldn't --
It's just no heavy manufacturing of things that weigh a ton, but that's the only limitation. There's no noise limitation; it's a limitation on the total weight of what you produce. The other thing is that, in fact, the community is going in this direction to L4 to open up more possibilities for reuse of these properties. Right now, they're limited to industrial use, and L4 would allow both industrial uses and commercial uses. So it's expanding the use. So I think the community is in a mode of trying to get these buildings rehabbed and 130 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 reoccupied and used, not in a mode of stopping people from doing that.
Again, let me just make this suggestion. You can talk to the Planning Commission and work with my office, and we can help you through the L&I process. But the testimony today seems to indicate that you should be fine.
We understand that and want to get you through the process. I think, most importantly, you just need to get your permit from the change in use from what it was to what you're doing today. It's an across-the-counter sort of item.
Is that the ground floor of MSB still? If you would talk to --
Right. Just talk to those guys right there. They'll help you out. 131 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 And you can touch base back with my office either today or tomorrow or whenever you decide to go over there, and we'll help to walk you through the process.
Although if there's a line, you will have to stand in line 'cause I don't do expediting services. (Laughter.)
Madam President and members of the committee, thank you for not breaking for lunch before you heard us. I would like to speak to the need for these -- my name is Marilyn Shaffer and I'm on the Development Corporation. I'm also on the Business Association. I'm a tree-tender, I'm a founder of Saving the Lost Arboretum. But more importantly, 132 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 I was co-chair with Hansel for the zoning overlay and the zoning changes because I realized that was the first necessary step in changing East Falls.
Marilyn, I'm sorry. Could you bring that mike a little closer to you for the members. Thank you.
We need these zoning changes in order to prepare East Falls for revitalization. We need a vital main street that the C2 zoning change will allow. We need the zoning overlay to provide control over the kind of development in order to safeguard the community. We envision a beautiful and revitalized Ridge Ave. and a Victorian theme that reflects the existing architecture, with stores to service the local shopping needs and to capture the park users' commerce. This two-pronged development objective will eliminate the blight now existing on Ridge Avenue and will create jobs for un- and underemployed residents. Our goals for development are guided by our goals to preserve green space and to enhance our views of the river and to encourage pedestrian rather than auto 133 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 uses. We developed these goals through many public meetings, with the guidance of land use professionals. The zoning overlay committee began meeting with members of the City Planning officials over, I think, a year and a half ago, with members from all the neighborhood organizations and many property owners. We have crafted a plan that meets everyone's needs. The L4 area -- in fact, it was G2. Many of the residents, like Leon, were artists, and they wanted to be able to live there and yet have their studio and their work space there. So Rich Lombardo suggested an L4, which provides for all of these uses and yet doesn't provide, you know, for a slaughterhouse and stuff like that, which we didn't want there. So the HOPE VI Program is going forward, and this zoning change and overlay is the first step in the manifestation of our vision for a beautiful and revitalized East Falls that celebrates its connection to the river. It is very important that this bill 25 pass. I'm sorry, we had four other members of our 134 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 local civic organizations here to testify for this bill, and they had to go. And, again, we want to publicly thank Rich Lombardo and Tom Chapman for making this, in their words, the most inclusive, thorough and participatory process that they have participated in. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony and thank you for your patience. We really appreciate your waiting. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name's Carolyn Sutton, and I'm a 13-year resident of East Falls and Vice President of the Development Corporation. I'll be very brief because I think most of what we all feel has been said. But I did want to identify the other people that were here today and had to leave. Julie Cambern (ph.) Is the editor of the Fallser, the newspaper that we use on a consistent basis to let residents of the community know what's going, and she's also Vice President of the Business Association. Alice Rife (ph.) and Peggy Gertz 135 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 (ph.) are both homeowners of longtime standing along Ridge Avenue and also Midvale, and they came also to show their support. Ron Bedner (ph.) Is a technical advisor to our group and he is with the Department of Economic development for Pennsylvania, and had a great deal of input into our work. And the last person who left was Roberta Ginsberg, the President of the Development Corporation, and who certainly has been an inspiration in this process. I agree fully with the viewpoints that Marilyn expressed, but I did want to say that one of the our goals in putting together the zoning change recommendation and the overlay was to support full community requests for buildings and services that would provide us with retail products and services, parking, recreational appeal, and employment potential for our neighbors. And that could be all from me.
Fine. Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments from any members of the committee? 136 12/1/99 RULES - 990642, 43 (No questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on Bill No.'s 990642 or 990643?
Thank you. Very briefly, we have letters from each of the presidents of the four community-based organizations that were submitted, and I would ask if they could be added to record as if they were read in as testimony. That's the Schuykill Falls Tenant Council, the East Falls Community Council, the East Falls Business Association, and the East Falls Development Corporation, who are all in support of these two bills.
Thank you, Councilman. I believe that the stenographer already has copies of the letter. Thank you all very much again.
The clerk 137 12/1/99 RULES - 990723 will please read the title of Bill No. 990723.
An ordinance amending an ordinance approved August 30, 1965, as amended, which approved the redevelopment proposal, the urban renewal plan, and the relocation plan of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the Center City Redevelopment Area, Franklin Urban Renewal Area, by approving the fourth amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the fifth amendment to the urban renewal plan, which provide, inter alia, for the expansion of the southwestern boundary to include the blocks generally bounded by 11th Street, Ridge Avenue, Wood Street, and Vine Street; applying the mixed-use category to the expanded area; modification to the mixed-use category to prohibit certain specific uses for the additional land acquisition of approximately three properties; and provision of certain relocation services, as required by law; all as contained in the fourth amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the fifth amendment to the urban renewal plan.
Mr. Lombardo, are you testifying on this bill? 138 12/1/99 RULES - 990723
Who do we have to testify on this bill? (Noel Eisenstat comes forward.)
Good afternoon. My name is Noel Eisenstat. I'm the Executive Director of the City's Redevelopment Authority, and I'm here to comment on Bill 990723, which is in the Franklin Town Urban Renewal Area, which is part of the Center City Redevelopment Area, and I'm here to discuss the Holy Redeemer Catholic Church and School expansion. My testimony explains to you that the Authority has undertaken a series of activities, including a 51-unit mixed-income-unit housing development, and an 11-unit mixed-income development. We're here today to talk about a very small piece of property, and I think that my testimony is self-explanatory. With me is Reverend Tom Betz, who really can explain why this property is so important.
Good afternoon. My name is Father Tom Betz, and I am the Director of 139 12/1/99 RULES - 990723 Holy Redeemer Chinese Catholic Church and School. I have served the Holy Redeemer for more than eight years. During these years, I've seen dramatic growth in Chinatown, at Holy Redeemer, and in the Asian community of Philadelphia. Chinatown and the Asian Community are growing rapidly, and I'm happy to say that Holy Redeemer has grown rapidly during these years, also. Our school enrollment has increased over the 8 years that I've been there by more than 85 students, and we're now bursting at capacity. All of our programs -- the English for adults, recreation, tutoring for kids -- are thriving. The recent construction of 51 homes at Ninth and Vine has stabilized the neighborhood and opened the possibility of other new homes and businesses in the area surrounding Holy Redeemer, north of Vine Street. Because of generous benefactors, Holy Redeemer is planning to build a new building, consisting of a lunchroom for the school, two classrooms, and a library. The new lunch room will allow to Holy Redeemer to use its gym seven days a week. It's now used as a lunch 140 12/1/99 RULES - 990723 room and a gym both for the school and the community. The library would be for Holy Redeemer School children; however, we also plan to open it several nights each week for the local public school kids. Some of the land within our church wall is burdened by old, unused interests long ago condemned for the Vine Street Expressway. The growth of Holy Redeemer and Chinatown requires us now to acquire title to these three parcels of land already located in our church and school yard. We ask the assistance of the City of Philadelphia for this project. Madam Chair and members of the Committee on Rules, I respectfully urge favorable consideration of Bill No. 980335 and also request a waiver of Council rules which would allow for the first reading of this bill at the next meeting of City Council, on December 2, 1999. Thank you.
Thank you, Father. I'm very happy to hear that Holy Redeemer is doing so well.
That's great. Are there any questions? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Thank you very much, Father, and thank you for your patience.
This will conclude public hearing of the Rules Committee. - - -
We will now go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 990716.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 990716 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and with an additional request made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been 142 12/1/99 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 990716 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next meeting. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter regarding Bill No. 990642.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill 990642 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 990642 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit 143 12/1/99 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING first reading at our next meeting. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter regarding Bill No. 990643.
Madam Chair, on that bill, I believe Mr. Chapman or Mr. Lombardo mentioned in their testimony that there's an amendment in that bill. That's an amendment to Map B-1, a proposed zoning map, which is presently on in the bill. And I would move the adoption of the amendment. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter. 144 12/1/99 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
Madam Chair, I move that Bill 990643, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 990643 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended, and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding Bill No. 990723.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 990723 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council 145 12/1/99 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that Bill No. 990723 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next meeting. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. At this time, the Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Madam Chair, I move that the Rules Committee approve the revision to the University of Pennsylvania Institutional Development District Master Plan. That's the plan -- the revision was requested by Councilwoman Blackwell as the District Councilmember and was further approved by the Planning Commission, and all that is necessary for approval of the plan now 146 12/1/99 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING is for this committee to approve it. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried thank you all very much. Thank you all very much. Thank you for your patience. (Adjourned at 12:50 p.m.) - - - 147 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, December 1, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES BILL NO.'S 990642, 990643, 990716, 990723 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter