Below is a letter written to UPenn regarding properties acquired by Rigdon
Miller from UPenn, sepcifically one on Beaumont Avenue. To date, there
has been no response.
February 27, 2004
Mr. Omar Blaik
Senior Vice-President Facilities
University of Pennsylvania
3101 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Re: 4815 Beaumont Avenue
Dear Mr. Blaik:
I am writing on behalf of my neighbors regarding 4815 Beaumont Avenue.
The house next door to me, 4815 Beaumont Avenue, has been vacant for more
than seven years. When we moved into our home 18 years ago, it was the
nicest house on the block ornate mantels, beautiful floors and wonderful
woodwork. Today the house is in shambles, and now, the worst house on the
block.
In this letter, I want to explain the history of the deterioration of the
house and the role that the University of Pennsylvania has played in the
process.
>From about 1990 to 1999, Chris Cummings, a professor of dentistry, owned
the house. As a professor at the University, he purchased the property
through the Penn mortgage guarantee program. The house became vacant
during the spring of 1996 when the tenants left because the owner refused
to make certain improvements.
At this point, I was forced to become actively involved. The house had
never been properly sealed after the tenants vacated. The refrigerator
had food in it, the bathrooms were filthy, windows were left open and the
roof leaked. Squatters tried on several occasions to sleep on the porch
and enter the premise. We finally convinced the owner to at least clean
the place up, but the other problems persisted. When I contacted the
University, they indicated that they could not get involved because
Cummings was current on the mortgage.
Shortly thereafter, Cummings moved to the Midwest and completely neglected
the house. During this period, burglars stole two original mantels and
the newel post, and squatters continued to try to enter the house. We
tried to convince the owner to install an alarm (that we were willing to
pay for), but he refused. Cummings made minimal payments to keep the bank
from foreclosing on the property.
Letter to Omar Blaik
Page 2
Cummings indicated that he could not sell the house because he would have
to take too much of a loss on the transaction. I then contacted Mellon
Bank in Colorado, the bank that held the mortgage on the property. They
confirmed that the mortgage was minimally up-to-date and that the
University of Pennsylvania had guaranteed the mortgage. I informed Mellon
that the house had been severely neglected and had declined significantly
in value. Mellon indicated that under the Penn guarantee program they
would not step in to protect their asset. Thus, the Universitys mortgage
guarantee program, although important in terms of making homes in
University City more affordable, had a significant downside banks would
not foreclose when the value of the asset declined below a certain level,
as stated in the mortgage agreement, because they were protected by the
guarantee.
I spend the next 16 months negotiating an agreement between the University
and Cummings for the house to be sold as is, and allow Cummings to make
monthly payments on a note.
During this time, the University had launched an innovative housing
rehabilitation program in University City. Two houses on the block were
being renovated through University-related programs. In both cases, the
rehabilitation had been first class. In addition, University City was
coming out of its housing slump.
When we inquired about the program, staff at the University housing office
informed me that it was no longer operational. 4815 Beaumont Avenue would
be sold to a private developer. I contacted several people who were
experienced contractors and carpenters to have them submit bids on the
property. The University rejected all of the bids from these people whom
I had contacted. Staff indicated that they wanted an experienced
developer to complete the project because they had had problems during
other rehabilitations.
The house was then sold to Wilson Rigdon as part of a multi-property
agreement. I was assured by the University that the property would be
developed within 18 months. They indicated that they had inserted a
development clause which stated that in the event the property was not
developed in the stipulated time period, the University had the right to
reclaim the house.
As a neighbor, we have continued to maintain the property. When Rigdon
needed access to our property to better understand how to rehabilitate the
house, we welcomed him. When the bank appraiser wanted to examine
comparable properties (i.e., our home), we cooperated. But when we
started asking Rigdon to maintain the property, however, he stopped
communication. In fact I called him three times a week for about two
months and never received a single return phone call.
Letter to Omar Blaik
Page 3
About one year ago, I was informed that Rigdon was in bankruptcy and that
the house was on hold. What was once the nicest house on the block was to
remain a dilapidated shell. And yet again, a University program had
failed the residents of the 4800 block of Beaumont Avenue.
At our September block meeting, I reviewed this history with my neighbors.
We concluded that we had been far too patient. It was time to get the
University directly involved. When I called again, I was told that the
house was being sold but that the bankruptcy might delay the process. I
also was told that the University was considering releasing the
development clause from the deed in order to expedite the transaction.
At this point, I do not know what has happened, but I request that you
intervene personally on our behalf. The University should not release the
development clause from the deed. It may expedite a sale in bankruptcy,
but it will not ensure that the property gets developed any time soon.
You cannot imagine how frustrated we are over this situation. Some
neighbors have suggested going to the media while others have wanted to
organize demonstrations at the University. Others have argued that the
University generally behaves in a responsible manner, and that we should
give you more time.
Given the circumstances of the last seven years, and specifically the
Universitys involvement in this house, the residents of the 4800 block of
Beaumont believe that the University has a responsibility to rehabilitate
this property directly.
The consensus on the block is that we need immediate action. We need to
know by April 15, 2004 that the property will be rehabilitated and receive
a specific timetable for that process. Anything short of this will lead
us to some type of public activity, perhaps during the Universitys
commencement, which describes the Universitys miserable failings
throughout this seven-year process. Obviously, for many people on the
block, public activity would make them highly uncomfortable. But our
patience and trust have gotten us nowhere.
We request a formal written response and would like to meet with you at
your earliest convenience. Thank for your consideration in this matter.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
