Citizen blogger Bill Rowland takes a look at the District 3 community forum, which drew a record number of participants for a Great Expectations neighborhood meeting. (Bill's own blog can be read at http://phillyfoodguys.com/).
He writes:
The March 5th presentation of Great Expectations’ Citizens Agenda to residents of City Council District 3 was energizing, if not informative. With attendance more than 100% greater than expected, West Philly’s participation blew away that of other sections of the city. Meeting in the heart of West Philly at 39th & Market Streets was a diverse group of 140 including residents, activists and students, as well as a squad of City Year volunteers.
Discussion of the Citizens Agenda started over dinner, as individuals and small groups arrived to share a buffet meal before the event began. The feeling was perceptibly optimistic as neighbors became reacquainted; Great Expectations “veterans” chatted with “newbies”; and everyone shared their hopes, concerns and dreams for the city’s future.
Excitement steadily built as the room filled and organizers scrambled to accommodate the unexpected response. With the deployment of stacking banquet chairs and the delivery of additional copies of the Citizens Agenda, attendees were well equipped for a productive session. Thankfully the buffet held out, and everyone was satisfied and focused on the issues at hand.
MC Harris Sokoloff kicked off the event by providing a brief introduction to the Project and made a few suggestions on how attendees could maximize the productivity of the event, especially when it came time to question Council Members Jannie Blackwell (District 3) and Curtis Jones (District 4). Hint: Short, open ended questions are best. The group of 140 then broke out into four groups each focusing on three issues; I chose to listen in to Group 1: Planning & Zoning, Neighborhoods in Flux and Environment.
The group’s facilitator started by getting a feel for which issues we wanted to discuss. While “All of Them” was the finding, the discussion continually returned to the issues of Planning & Zoning and Neighborhoods in Flux. Unfortunately Environment took the back seat.
The biggest subject of discussion revolved around Penn and Drexel’s expansion into the business of real estate development and the affect it has on the surrounding neighborhoods. Perhaps the most poignant anecdote was one man’s memory of an incident in 1960 when 616 people in the area were displaced through the city’s use of eminent domain. There was a general feeling that area residents rarely get sufficient notice of planned development. In addition, residents are only given the opportunity to provide meaningful input as a result of protest.
Residents of the 52nd Street area echoed this sentiment when describing their neighborhood as being “held hostage” by a Septa redevelopment project. Those attendees felt that no opportunity for community input was given and the result is a neighborhood teetering on the brink of disaster: all buses detoured; streets torn up; businesses being starved. One man said that he felt that the neighborhood is “being killed for the sake of a better transportation system.”
As if many didn’t already have plenty to think about, the meaning and affect of “gentrification” also seemed to be on everyone’s minds. Although not discussed at length, it was clear that the influx of the more affluent, the impending property reassessment and the lack of affordable housing in the city combined to become the
“800 lb. Gorilla in the room.” One gentleman reflected on the irony that the very taxes many families pay may fund their own displacement.
From my standpoint, I think that the development, use and communication of a comprehensive urban development plan would ease the fears of many. As mentioned in the Citizens Agenda, “The problem of helter-skelter development that wastes resources, damages neighborhoods, invites corruption and enables ugliness begins with the city’s lack of a comprehensive plan” – and damages trust. I think everyone in Group 1 would agree.
As the time approached for the question and answer period with Council members Blackwell and Jones, each group hurried to prepare a handful of questions. Chaos ensued as the room faced the panel and moved to get within earshot. The Inquirer’s Chris Satullo introduced Ms. Blackwell and Mr. Jones as Harris Sokoloff stood ready to offer the microphone to those with questions.
The ensuing question-and-answer period offered flashes of insight contrasted by moments of filler. Perhaps my expectations were a bit high; after all, there aren’t many people that can comprehensively answer such a battery of questions. Although there was a great deal of discussion, a couple questions presented by Group 1 included:
What additional input can citizens have in the development of area universities?
Unfortunately, I don’t think Ms. Blackwell’s answer was very satisfying. Basically, City Council continues to work with developers and area schools to ensure the inclusion of residents’ concerns. In addition, Ms. Blackwell stated that she attempts to maximize developers’ consideration of community needs when working with them in other areas. Finally, the Council woman stated that she didn’t feel that public input on a daily basis is warranted. Generally, I thought that her response to the question was measured and well thought out, even if it wasn’t what most wanted to hear.
What is City Council doing to promote affordable housing?
Ms. Blackwell’s response was somewhat incomplete. She pointed to a commitment by Mayor Nutter to a $1 M annual increase in the Housing Trust Fund and advocated for an additional fund for the acquisition of property. There was no mention of where it would come from or who would champion such a fund.
As the evening wound down, many questions covering the 12 points of the Citizens Agenda were discussed at length. While some answers offered a great deal of background and content, others barely touched on the question at hand. Answers that were short, sweet and to-the-point were rare, but I guess that can be partially due to the complexity of city government and partially due to the nature of politicians.
The introduction of the Citizens Agenda to the 3rd District was a big success. If the turnout and participation are any indication, West Philly deeply cares about their neighborhood and Philadelphia. We’re all vested in the success of the neighborhood and the city. It behooves us to monitor progress, hold our elected officials accountable and perhaps most importantly, hold ourselves accountable to drive Philadelphia to be the Next Great City.
Comments (6)
I don't understand why many Philadelphians feel "there isn't enough affordable housing." There is more affordable housing in Philly than any large city on the east coast.
We have to have a balance -- there has to be enough people paying enough in property taxes in real time, in real dollars, to fund schools, safety, and quality city services like regular street sweeping roll-throughs.
If people want to live in a house where taxes and rents are low, why not help them find such a place outside the city limits? They'll be better off, and so will the city's tax base.
For those who really really want to stay, they have to pay their share of their footprint in real, market value assessments in a timely manner.
Sound "harsh?" Try living in any other locale in the booming metropolitan region with the idea that one has a "right" to be low paying, slow to pay residents like we have in Philly and see how soon the ding letters and shut offs come.
Posted by Anonymous | March 12, 2008 3:22 AM
Posted on March 12, 2008 03:22
Jannie Blackwell's Councilmanic District 3 includes most of the zip codes 19104, 19139, and 19143.
19104 is West Philadelphia and owes the city $23,665,669.78 in back property taxes on 3,837 properties out of a total of 11,986 properties, a rate of 32.0 percent.
19139 is West Market and owes the city $24,126,030.98 in back property taxes on 5,452 properties out of a total of 16,414 properties in the zipcode, or 33.2 percent.
19143 is Kingsessing and owes the city $39,032,001.63 in back property taxes on 8,276 properties out of a total of 25,497 properties, or 32.5%
So there is no way to call renovation of these areas "gentrification" -- there is no "gentry" coming in to "take properties" from viable owners. What is true is that owners are way behind on taxes assessed back when taxes were low. Years worth of back taxes means foreclosures and sheriff sales.
What residents have to see is that owners who pay, stay. Taxes are not "funding displacement" because these are properties not paying taxes.
We can't afford whole zip codes to have 1/3rd of all owners not paying for years at a time. It's not fair to those of us who do, and who need everyone to put in their fair share for improved schools, safety, and clean streets.
Posted by Anonymous | March 12, 2008 3:53 AM
Posted on March 12, 2008 03:53
Compare this with Curtis Jones's District 4 that includes most or significant parts of 19127, 19128, 19131, 19151, and 19129.
There are significant differences in the rate of property tax collection between these zip codes.
19127 is Manayunk and owes the city $1,281,835.72 in back property taxes for a only 281 properties out of 2,964 total properties, or 9.5%.
19131 is West Park and owes the city $19,002,520.62 in back property taxes on 4,210 properties out of 14,958 properties total, or 28.1%.
19129 is East Falls, and owes the city $2,490,161.40 on only 522 properties out of 4,017 possible properties, or 13.0%.
19151 is Overbrook and owes the city $8,426,445.02 in back property taxes on 1,929 properties out of 11,370 total properties in the zip, or 17.0%
It seems that 1. property tax payment collection using effective methods such as foreclosure vary greatly according to who your city council rep is. 2. this is not fair or legal 3. and the council reps have the power to help resident more by collecting this money and putting it to use.
Councilmanic "privilege" should not extend to corrupting the objectivity of the BRT, the Dept. of Revenue, or the Sheriff sale process. It should not proceed according to assumptions based on race or income.
Property tax is not an income tax. Every owner must pay it. It seems that there are owners at this meeting who are complaining about rising taxes when there is a 1 in 3 chance among Ms. Blackwell's constituents that they are not paying anyway.
Council has been "promoting affordable housing" for years by not collecting property taxes equitably among residents. This is a haphazard method that kills neighborhoods and cheats school children (who don't vote) from revenue needed to fund schools that children should attend.
The question is, why are people demanding that the city allow them an unwritten exemption from paying their bills?
Full market value assessment based on objective, nonpolitical average recent sales prices is fair to all owners, those who do pay, and even those who don't. The city has a right to expect, in the social contract, that all owners contribute their fair share to create a city that everyone can live in.
Posted by Anonymous | March 12, 2008 4:09 AM
Posted on March 12, 2008 04:09
How serious a problem is it that the city has an informal, almost entirely optional, honor system of property tax payment?
Pretty serious -- what could the city schools, police, or L&I do with $494 million in overdue taxes on 113,000 properties?
It could almost eliminate half the wage tax which provides $1.2 billion in city revenue.
The vacant lots that would be sold to collect the debt would then have new property tax paying owners who pay in newly assessed market values with the understanding that they are to pay on time.
That means that properties in nontaxpaying limbo for years are now part of the new, updated tax base.
That could potentially account for the other half of the replacement revenue needed to get rid of the wage tax. The final revenue portion in wage tax revenue replacement comes from the businesses who move back or decide to be here because the wage tax is gone, and they don't have to demote employees 3-4% to be in the city.
We need to look carefully at both sides of neighborhood change. We need to change neighborhoods into safe, functional, real time/in full property tax contributors. Development is one way to do that.
The cost to wearing the "don't collect property taxes" hair shirt is kids who have no way to get an education, because there is no money to pay for it, high crime, broken infrastructure, and malaise. Philly has tried this for some time, as evidenced by the years of unpaid taxes, which like gas or water bills, gets paid at foreclosure.
There is a time to reap, and a time to sow. What we need to reap is allowing pols to get away with the cheap, docile votes created by letting people own but not pay.
Posted by Anonymous | March 12, 2008 4:22 AM
Posted on March 12, 2008 04:22
www.hallwatch.org/proptax/about/redelinq/stats/summary
and
/www.hallwatch.org/proptax/about/redelinq/stats/delinqbyzip
Posted by Anonymous | March 12, 2008 4:23 AM
Posted on March 12, 2008 04:23
I used to work by the SEPTA reconstruction projects from 46th St and west. That has really torn the neighborhood up. I worked just north of Market St and aside from the school at 46th St, it wasn't a nice area to be in as a result of closed down businesses and a lack of foot traffic which would make the place feel safer.
This seems to be due to SEPTA's and the city's poor handling of the needs of the businesses under the tracks. I'm sad to learn that little (or nothing) has been done since I worked there 2 years ago.
Posted by albert | March 14, 2008 12:06 AM
Posted on March 14, 2008 00:06