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 --