I'm told that they have to post their fees. And they would be allowed to have different fees, but they would need to post what those fees are. And there might be different circumstances for different ones coming into the garage, and those fees would need to be posted.
Well, I just think that we've got to be very careful to have a very fair equal to everybody tax.
The tax -- The 153 Whole - 5/25/05 tax itself is percent of the charge for the transaction. So the tax is uniform. What may differ is the amount of fee that's charged. But the tax is the same percentage no matter what the transaction cost is.
All right. I'm 9 not sure what that means. 10 But I think we're in trouble if 11 people legitimately can say that different 12 folks are getting the benefit of lower rates 13 or lower charges, even if the rate is the 14 same. So, I'd want to be very careful with 15 respect to that. I can't identify yet the circumstance, but it sounded to me as if there are all kind of special arrangements that can be made, whereby the fee to a certain group of people could be less than the fee for the same service by the same garage would be to other people. So I'd want to be very careful in that. Now, secondly, somewhere in the bill 25 there is a section referring to the 154 Whole - 5/25/05 permission to have art on billboards. And the word used there is primarily. I think... Could you read me that section?
Which ordinance 6 are you referring to? Are you referring to the L & I ordinance on the 453?
I'm not sure which bill it is, but it's one of the two bills. Makes a provision that if something is primarily art...
Artwork, such as a painting or a mural that is a permanent, i.e., lasting the life of the building, end of brackets, original, created specifically for the site, and is not primarily intended to advertise a product or service.
Now, what does that mean? What would such a sculpture or 155 Whole - 5/25/05 piece of art be? For what reason is that section in the contract? In the ordinance? What does that give whoever is interested in --
It's a definition of artwork. It's meant... H is a definition, Councilman. The definitions in this section 9 for the following -- following definitions apply. So what we're saying, the definition of artwork -- on site public art, rather, is what I just read. That's under definitions, and...
That's to prevent to -- Like in the neighborhoods we have mural arts, beautiful artwork that's done by the community.
All right. Now, I would strongly urge the 156 Whole - 5/25/05 removal of the word primarily because you're going to find yourself constantly in battle, because efforts will be made to advertise businesses or activities that will be appropriate for a billboard, if there were any such thing as appropriateness for a billboard. It might be appropriate for a billboard in Las Vegas, say, and the owners of the billboards will want to seek the benefits of having it classified as primarily art.
Okay. Very good. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. 157 Whole - 5/25/05 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Councilman Nutter and I were discussing this. So, he's on the phone. And maybe we'll do it together. I think I heard, and the Council President pointed out, that, Miss Kammerdeiner, that you mentioned that this valet parking tax would be a double tax?
No. 10 Councilman Nutter was indicating that he thought it might be because some of the valet parking operators have agreements with parking facilities and pay the parking facility for putting the car there. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Right.
And that transaction would be subject to the parking tax. And I said that there were two separate transactions paid by the person who was parking the vehicle. One is paid by the patron of the valet parking operation, and the other is paid by the valet operator to the parking. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I need to see 158 Whole - 5/25/05 if I can simplify this because my understanding -- at least I believe the intent was -- I take my car to Bob Solvibile. I'm a customer, and I bring my car to Bob Solvibile, who's a valet operator. And they're all supposed to be having contracts with garages.
Exactly. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That was under the valet bill we did a few years ago.
Exactly. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So assuming that is accurate, I pay Bob $15. He then takes the garage -- the car, my car, to Councilman Nutter's garage. And he has a deal with the Councilman to park -- to charge -- be charged $5 for the purpose of parking that car. Councilman Nutter is going to pay 15 percent on the $5 that he collected from the valet operator. I thought the intent was for the City to collect 15 percent on the $10 that 159 Whole - 5/25/05 the valet operator has collected as his or her profit. Isn't that -- Because if you do it the other way, you're going to be charging 6 percent on the $15 and then 15 percent on the 7 $5. I don't believe that was the intent. 8
As currently 11 drafted, the bill would not provide for a 12 credit for that. It is certainly possible to 13 have that amended -- 14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It is double 15 taxation.
-- if you do not want that provision. There's a provision says there's no 23 credit for other tax that may be -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I certainly am a supporter of the valet parking tax, but not 160 Whole - 5/25/05 under those conditions. I think that is not a fair way of doing it.
There is a specific provision within the bill that could be amended, if you chose. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I see our Managing Director is here.
I was going so suggest that perhaps he can address this issue because it's just very troublesome.
Good afternoon. My name is Pedro Ramos. I'm Managing Director. I guess what I'd like to... I'd like to concur with the general principle that Council members are describing, that the intention isn't to have any double tax. And if we could -- If you would indulge us a few minutes, what I'd like to suggest is that we -- is that we invite the Revenue Commissioner back in a few minutes so that we can come back to you, and -- 161 Whole - 5/25/05 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You're clear of what -- I think I'm speaking for a majority of us, that we don't have a problem with the percent -- 6
I hear you. 7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- on the $10 8 or whatever that balance is, but it's not 9 fair to do it both times. It's... 10
I'm saying, rather than 11 try to work through it up here, if you would 12 give the administration a few minutes, we'll 13 go back and caucus and come back. 14
While Mr. Ramos and the Revenue Commissioner there... Miss Reed was up earlier. I'd like to better understand. She gave a number of 400 cars a day. I mean, this is purely on the revenue side. Commissioner, the assumption here is that it's 15 percent of something results in 162 Whole - 5/25/05 $2.2 million in revenue, correct.
Okay. So, the base there, then, is you need a little more than about $14.6 million in revenue, of which you're taking percent, that then generates 8 $2.2 million to the City. 9
Okay. In order 13 to generate the 14.6 or so million dollars in 14 base revenue at $15 a car is somewhere in the 15 neighborhood of 900,000 plus vehicles annually, divided by 365 is 2,670 some odd cars being valeted a day. Do you want to -- As you go back and talk about the other issue, do you want to --
Our numbers are derived from the gross receipts of a number 163 Whole - 5/25/05 of businesses. We were looking at it from that standpoint, as opposed to the number of cars. And I really can't comment directly.
I understand that. I'm dealing with your revenue figure of $2.2 million.
In order for you to generate that, that's percent of some 11 number, close to $15 million. 12
At 15 bucks a 14 car, which is what you're dealing with. 15
Not necessarily, because in some of the larger hotels you may have a valet fee of $25 or $30 overnight. So your numbers are not necessarily 15.
I understand that. Why don't we at least work on what's the base -- what's the overall revenue you need from which you're going to take 15 percent to generate $2.2 million in revenue. We can at least figure that out. 164 Whole - 5/25/05
I think I understand your question, but I think we came from a different perspective, in trying to come up with our revenue estimate. And so, I will see how we can factor back to the type of thing you're referring to.
Okay. But however many different perspectives we come from, at the end of the day, you have to be able to explain how you generate $2.2 million in revenue. And that's got to come from some number of vehicles being valeted a year, a day, a week, whatever the measurement is going to be. So it all starts with the $2.2 million, right?
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee, on any one of the three bills in front of us? Seeing none, I do not have a list of 165 Whole - 5/25/05 witnesses who would like to testify, but I understand that there is a panel. Good afternoon. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna, and members of the City Council. My name is George Caulker. I'm President of Clear Channel Outdoor of Philadelphia. Thank you for allowing us to testify today. I am here to urge you to vote no 15 against the proposed outdoor advertising tax and increased permit fees. This tax is blatantly unfair and discriminatory because it targets one segment of an industry, and it is unconstitutional. How is it fair for me to send a salesperson into a client with a proposal that includes a tax, when a newspaper rep is going in with a proposal that does not include a tax? Our rates have been determined in a 166 Whole - 5/25/05 competitive open market. We don't operate in a vacuum. We can't raise our rates by seven percent without losing business to our competition, and that will surely damage our businesses. Would you tax a Chinese restaurant but not an Italian restaurant? It is blatantly unfair, and our employees feel they are being singled out. Add taxes in general are a bad idea. Advertising is the fuel that drives the economic engine. Add taxes are shortsighted because they discourage advertising which will stifle the economy. These bills are especially unfair because they are a last-minute attempt to solve a budget crisis that was not created by us, yet punishes our industry. We have not even had time to mount an appropriate defense. The permit fees are unfair because they go beyond the amount necessary for proper enforcement of our industry. Even worse, both bills contain 167 Whole - 5/25/05 language that creates an incredible hardship for our industry, by creating onerous and expensive reporting procedures that further cripple our businesses. For instance, how do I handle existing contracts? Contracts that call for some signs in Philadelphia and some in the suburbs? The burdens are tremendous. These bills are so bad for our industry, we would have no choice but to fight them in court. In fact, these bills won't solve the budget crisis, as they'll be tied up in court for years to come. Why attack an industry that has been a good corporate citizen? We already pay our fair share of taxes. In fact, in 1998 we voluntarily moved back into the City, thereby increasing the City wage tax revenues for the City. I doubt we would make the same decision today. And that is the message we'll be sending to others in the business. And is it fair to leave -- to have the law-abiding companies assume the burden 168 Whole - 5/25/05 of policing the activity of those that are not compliant? We have some of our employees here today. And I would like them to stand and be recognized. (A number of people stand.)
These are your constituents, including members of IBEW, sheet metal workers, and District painters 11 and tradesmen. 12 This bill would not only affect the 13 jobs of these people, but those that work for 14 us, our suppliers, our clients, primarily 15 small businesses, and ultimately the 16 consumer. 17 Beyond paying taxes and creating 18 jobs, we support the community in many other 19 ways, especially through public service 20 advertising. 21 We support many worthy causes such as the Philadelphia Food Bank, Ronald McDonald House, March of Dimes, and the Philadelphia Police and Fire Departments. In fact, I was at a press conference for our 169 Whole - 5/25/05 latest Fire Department campaign when I was notified about these bills. We also have Dorothy Johnson Spite of Mothers in Charge here to talk about the importance of her campaigns. Members of Council, there has to be a better way to handle this. Councilman DiCicco has suggested forming a task force that would work through the summer, to bring the industry and the City together and solve these problems in a way that does not destroy our industry. We could generate revenue that a scaffolding or wall wrap program that would include a revenue share for the City. We could agree on permit fees and regulations, including an inspection program and enforcement guidelines that are fair to everybody. We know the sign business better than anyone. We know what works in other jurisdictions. And we could accomplish our collective goals by working together, without destroying a valuable, viable industry. 170 Whole - 5/25/05 I urge you to vote no, to table these bills so that we have time to work together to find a better solution. Thank you.
My name is David Neff, President of Neff & Associates. We're an advertising and public relations firm, headquartered in Old City, Philadelphia. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
Of course, the reason I'm here is to urge City Council to vote against this taxing. Aside from some of the things that George Caulker has already pointed out, some of the issues that I wanted to point out include the following: 171 Whole - 5/25/05 I felt the tax was very arbitrary and discriminatory against outdoor companies. Now, my firm, we are an advertising agency, so we buy television, outdoor, radio, newspaper, magazines, and we recommend that media to our clients. If this would go through, it would discourage business from doing business within the City of Philadelphia and really sends the wrong message. The PR ramifications of something like this going through are great. This legislation would give Philadelphia yet another black eye in the national press, at a time when we could really use more positive news from our City and its government. If outdoor companies would be affected and would not have enough resources to maintain the cleanliness of their structures, the outdoor companies would be burdened with these taxes. Therefore, they would have less resources in order to maintain their structures. So, I know the Mayor and City 172 Whole - 5/25/05 Council have done great -- have made great strides in improving the look and feel of the City. And City Council and the Mayor's administration have brought new vitality into Center City. So, we're on a roll. And let's continue it. And I think if this would go through, this would, you know, go against some of the major principles that clearly City Council and the Mayor are in favor of. There would be lots of -- These -- If these rules would go through, it would penalize small and mid size retailers that advertise in the outdoor medium. These retailers, because of some of the things that City Council and the Mayor's administration have moved forward with, these retailers are keeping their shops open. They're risking their businesses. And they are promoting anti-blight because where there was once unoccupied storefronts, for example, on Chestnut Street, you know, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and beyond, 173 Whole - 5/25/05 there are now high-end retailers moving into those areas. I personally -- I mean, I live at 18th and Chestnut, so I live and work in the City. And I've seen the transformation that has taken place over the last five years, and it's actually quite remarkable. For example, Smith Brothers just moved into a building that was unoccupied for the last ten years. Smith Brothers is a high-end retailer of jeans and other designers clothes. These retailers are generally putting their money where their mouth is, and their in favor of taking advantage of a lot of the opportunities that City Council and the Mayor's administration have given them. So, they're already having a hard enough time, these small to mid size retailers in Philadelphia. They're, you know, constantly fighting off the big box retailers. The last thing they need is for their plans to advertise their business to be 174 Whole - 5/25/05 burdened, which this would do. In addition, this would handicap Philadelphia. And this is a very important point. If this would go through, this would handicap Philadelphia in competing for national outdoor buys. So what happens a lot with larger corporations that want to roll out new product introductions or branding campaigns, the advertising agencies that handle these accounts would -- they would be asked to recommend to their clients what markets they're going to roll this campaign out into. S. markets. If Philadelphia's outdoor advertising is taxed, this could eliminate Philadelphia from a mix of a major outdoor buy that would go down. This also potentially could trickle down to other media in the market. So not only would outdoor be affected, but large advertising agencies headquartered in other areas might skip Philadelphia altogether with television, radio, outdoor, of course and 175 Whole - 5/25/05 print.
This also would discourage, again, as I mentioned before, with a lot of the things that City Council has moved forward with, and the Mayor's administration has moved forward with. Everyone's been very successful in getting developers, real estate trusts and other financial institutions to invest in Center City. You guys have done an unbelievable job with that. This... If this would go through, this would further discourage developers in those real estate trusts into either getting more involved in the City of Philadelphia or consider coming to the City. So the ramifications and the PR ramifications of this go way beyond just advertising. This also could negatively affect the current residential and retail growth of Center City. And as we all know, perception is reality. This also could have a devastating 176 Whole - 5/25/05 impact on many worthy non-profit organizations. Clear Channel, the company that George represents, as well as all the other major outdoor companies in this marketplace, are very generous consistently throughout the year in donating space on their billboards to promote non -- you know, very worthy non-profit organizations and causes. And lastly, this could unfairly impact media recommendations to advertisers from respective agencies, and encourage regional advertisers to use agencies outside of our region. You know, when my media department is making a recommendation to a client on what to recommend, we don't want this tax to impact our recommendation to our client, and therefore not recommend outdoor or recommend less outdoor, in favor of recommending television, radio, newspapers and magazines. That concludes my personal comments. We have another representative. And if it's okay with you, I would like to read his, you 177 Whole - 5/25/05 know, his little outline as well. Okay? So I'm now speaking for Scott Franks. Scott Franks is the Chairman of Tierney Communications which is one of the City's largest advertising public relations agencies. As Chairman of the Philadelphia Council of the American Association of Advertising Agencies, which is made up of over 60 agencies in the greater Philadelphia region, our agencies to a large degree rely on the vitality of our local business market. Most of our clients are here, and the advertising that they're doing is here. Scott worries about a new tax on outdoor advertising, from a couple of perspectives. When a tax is imposed, it's naive to believe that there will be no impact on those businesses that are contracting for the advertising that will appear on the billboards, and that there will not be a trickle down effect on the consumers that are seeking what's advertised. In other words, prices will go up 178 Whole - 5/25/05 for advertisers and prices will go up for consumers. The most adverse impact will be the small business person. Already saddled with an exorbitant business privilege tax, small business will now find one of their most relied -- one of their most relied on mediums billboards costing more. The move -- The move to increased taxes sends yet another signal that we are not friendly to those businesses. And the aforementioned pass-along cost doesn't sound good to anybody. Now let's talk about the impact on the outdoor companies themselves. As an advertising agency, we continuously monitor the price of media, to gauge what's best for our clients. , print and outdoor; and how much should we be spending if one medium, outdoor, spikes in cost? We may very well recommend against it. This could very likely have a 179 Whole - 5/25/05 devastating impact on all the local outdoor companies and their employees. If this tax does not serve business, does not serve the consumer, does not serve the many billboard company jobs in this market, and does nothing for ad agencies like ours, what does it serve? Who does it serve? I respectfully urge you to think about the negative ramifications of this tax. Thank you very much.
Thank you, sir. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Madam President, honorable Council members. My name Jim Cade. I am a resident of the City of Philadelphia. I'm also a business owner in the City of Philadelphia for the past 33 years. I am President of the Lancaster Avenue Business Association West which comprises the businesses located between 52nd and 63rd Street on Lancaster Avenue. 180 Whole - 5/25/05 I'm also a board member of the Lancaster Avenue Redevelopment Corporation, a CDC located on Lancaster Avenue, dedicated to the revitalization of the Lancaster Avenue corridor and commercial strip. My purpose for coming here today is because I read an article Sunday concerning the billboards. It made me aware of interest in the billboards. On my property and on six other properties along this business corridor, there are billboard signs located. We're the property owners that the billboard signs are located on. All of these properties are privately owned properties. And I, as well as the other business owners, should be considered mom and pop operations. What happens and what has been of benefit and why we should look at some of these billboards not as blight but as economic engines in the City, we receive rental commission from the billboard companies, passed on to the businesses, that 181 Whole - 5/25/05 assist our businesses and in maintaining our properties that we would not have access to otherwise. These are benign incomes that do not take any space from us, from our normal business operations, but that allows us to paint the buildings, to clean the properties. These are revenues that we wouldn't have. The money that comes from these rentals is taxed as income by the City. We pay taxes on this income. The businesses along Lancaster Avenue corridor... There are four main businesses that advertise with these signs located in this corridor that promote the businesses within the corridor. One promotes a very large shopping center that was just constructed at 56t and Lancaster Avenue, with private development money, no tax incentives added to this. This was private development. We have a sign billboard that the owner contracted and he uses to promote this, which promotes jobs that were created in this 182 Whole - 5/25/05 shopping area. There are signs that direct us to where we can get food. There's one that says there's a certain eatery seven blocks further down the Avenue. Somebody driving down the Avenue that wants to know, what can we eat that's seven blocks on the left? They're prepared to make a turn into that property and consummate a transaction, of whether it be food or whatever. I find billboards to be informational. I find them to be cute sometimes. We laugh at them, some of the things that they put up. They're accessible to anybody, to anybody to advertise, at a rate that a small business can afford. I can afford to put up a billboard sign for a month. I can not afford to advertise in the newspaper for one day of what it would cost me to advertise on a billboard for a whole month. This increase of knowledge on my business to my potential customers helps to 183 Whole - 5/25/05 increase my business, which increases tax revenues to the City, that are based on the profits of my business, that are based on the profit -- that are based on the wages that are paid to my employees. That's why these signs actually generate business. And I would suggest to enhance revenue, that some of these illegal signs we talk about, they be made legal, and that they be collected -- the fees be collected on.
And it's really not fair to those who pay; and then we have these illegal signs up and we have people not paying.
Let me just ask you a question. You keep talking about the billboards in your shopping center there. Is this actually a billboard or is it an advertisement that's painted onto your property?
No. These are actually billboards located along the corridor that 184 Whole - 5/25/05 direct potential customers to businesses located on the corridor. No, they are not affixed to the buildings. They are not accessory. They are actually operated by the billboard companies. But it gives business on the corridor access to advertisement that they might not normally have. There's one gigantic sign that advertises a 40 percent discount on groceries at this particular shopping center. The average person might not know that if they didn't have that outdoor sign informing that. That's a help to somebody that's trying to cut down on their grocery bill. There's one that directs you where you can go to a Kentucky Fried Chicken three blocks up the street. So as I'm driving up the street, I just don't see, oh, let me turn and create a traffic problem. I expect that this is going to be there, so I can turn into there without causing a traffic -- I know what's coming up. These are things that help. There's 185 Whole - 5/25/05 a business that actually has a four-faced sign located on their property. Two of these sign faces, they advertise the two businesses located on this property. They paid to have their businesses advertised. This increases their business activity which increases the tax revenues that they pay the City. I think that a lot of misconceptions of what billboards actually do. The only thing billboards were meant to do is to advertise and encourage business and commerce in the City. And I think that if we had more billboards located legally, where they should be located, in an appropriate place -- And they would only be in a commercial property or commercial corridors, because if it's not visible and if it's not desirable, the billboard company is not going to put it up anyway. So, if it's not a need for it, it wouldn't be desirable. One of the other things I noticed in this article is the blaring of the alcohol 186 Whole - 5/25/05 beverage ads. Now, one thing I would like to make clear about these alcohol beverage ads that I find offensive is the fact that they don't need to be there. But they're not controlled by the billboard companies. They're controlled, as all other facets of the liquor industry, by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, which would be no problem to have them prohibit outdoor advising alcoholic beverages. I mean, it's a very simple solution. It's a simple solution when they ban cigarette advertising. There's no more Marlboro Man signs as you cross the Expressway that used to be there that was a famous sign. They're gone because they were a problem. But I think we need to focus these and the other things that people say constitute neighborhood blight to the appropriate agencies. And instead of looking up at the billboard signs, we need to look at street 187 Whole - 5/25/05 level, at the short dumping that causes blight or the abandoned cars that cause blight, of the graffiti that causes blight, of the vandalism that causes blight. These are the things that should be focused on to eliminate blight, not an economic benefit to the City as billboards are, that a lot of people may not even realize as an economic benefit. And I think that any time that we try and suppress a business that has made investments into the City, such as the billboard companies, and tell them we don't want them here, we want to get rid of them, that's not a good message to business. I would like to see Philadelphia as a place to do business, being a businessperson. I have no other interest in the billboard industry, except for the fact that it assists business. And that's what it's about. Most of our taxes are based on revenue. I pay a business privilege tax for the privilege of doing business in the City. 188 Whole - 5/25/05 I pay a use and occupancy tax to occupy the property where I conduct this business. I pay a property tax to own the property where I conduct the business that I pay a use and occupancy tax to use.
I pay a wage tax for the money that I earn. Most of our taxation is based on commerce. And if we don't find ways to increase commerce in the City, that's why we have tax problems. If we increase our commerce, if we become a business oriented City, friendly to business, and do away with these nuisance taxes, then we will increase our revenues, our tax revenues, and we won't have to try and find ways to closing income gaps. If we didn't waste money in the City, illegal... If we didn't waste money in the City for paying lawsuits, for paying legal representation, if we better managed our employees so that we don't have these situations occur, we could save a lot of money. How much money is wasted each year 189 Whole - 5/25/05 in legal costs and lawsuits and damage claims that should be eliminated, that should never even occur? We need to really focus as citizens and as politicians what needs to be done to encourage and create a better business atmosphere. And we need to focus on what is really blight. Because a person doesn't like a billboard, could that be considered blight? Suppose a person doesn't like the color your house is painted. Does that make your house blight? I just think we need to stop looking up, and look street level for blight. We need to understand just exactly what the billboard industry does for the City. I've looked at... The billboard on my property has been there since I've been there, since 1986, for 19 years. And I'm saying many public service announcements, the drunk driving announcements, the insurance fraud, people that have been lost, missing persons. Everything's been advertised free 190 Whole - 5/25/05 of cost by these billboard companies. I can't think of another entity that's more community concerned and more accessible than what these billboard companies have given us, against things that affect our daily lives, at no cost. What will we do without these? How will we get the public messages out? How will the Ad Council run their ads, their public service ads: Stay in school, education, all of these things. And I'm saying years of this as I 14 walk out of my door every day and face this 15 billboard sign. 16 And I don't think that it's just -- 17 I just don't think it's fair, you know, to 18 single out this industry. 19 Suppose somebody singled out my 20 industry that I repair cars, and that I have to pay an extra amount because I repair cars, and the person walking doesn't think that car is necessary. Why should I be penalized a seven percent tax to try and increase my business 191 Whole - 5/25/05 in the City of Philadelphia? And that's what an excise tax amounts to. So, I think we just need to look at this in a different direction. And this is why I felt compelled to come to Council and give a point of view of a businessperson, a community person, that actually benefits from the sign, from the revenue that's generated, and from the help that it gives my business to increase business through affordable advertising. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak before Council. And I hope that some of the things I've said will be considered by Council as they address this bill.
We certainly applaud you for coming in to express your views. Thank you so much.
Are there any questions or comments to members of the committee? (No response.) 192 Whole - 5/25/05
Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify on the three bills before us? Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Dorothy Johnson Spite, Executive Director of Mothers in Charge.
My name is Mike Gillespie, Jr., with the Philadelphia Ad Club.
Good afternoon, Council. Mothers in Charge is a group of mothers, grandmothers, aunts and sisters who work in the City of Philadelphia, to make a difference as it relates to violence. Most of the mothers and grandmothers and sisters have lost sons and daughters and loved ones to violence. 193 Whole - 5/25/05 We partner with individuals and communities and community organizations, as well as corporations, to affect change, as it relates to violence in our City. We have knocked on the door of many corporations in the City, and have been turned a deaf ear, in terms of helping us to support our initiative of saving lives. But back in May -- I'm sorry. Back in January of '04, with the support of the Police Commissioner, we convened a meeting with Clear Channel. And we asked them to support our initiative of stopping violence in the City of Philadelphia. And one of the ways we thought we could do that was to erect billboards around the City of loved ones of our members who had lost loved ones to violence and the murder was unsolved. My son, years old, Khalid Jaabar 22 Johnson, was shot seven times over a parking 23 space. The person that killed Khalid is 24 serving a life sentence in prison, but there are many mothers in our organization who 194 Whole - 5/25/05 don't know the person who claimed the life of their loved one. So we wanted to put billboards up of the victims of these horrendous murders, in hopes of getting the people that were responsible for the murder off the street. This is a picture of the first billboard that we erected in the City of Philadelphia, in May of '04. This billboard is of Darren Griffin, His mother, Dr. Pat Griffin, is a member of Mothers in Charge. Clear Channel came to the table and agreed to support Mothers in Charge and our initiatives. These billboards are placed around the City of Philadelphia in hopes of getting the people off the street that are responsible for these murders. Today there's over a hundred -- close to 150 murders this year already in the City of Philadelphia. We're trying to address that issue so that we will all be safe. 195 Whole - 5/25/05 Clear Channel helped us with that initiative by donating billboard space in the City of Philadelphia. As of to date we've placed about 47, 48 billboards around the City of Philadelphia, to address the issue of unsolved murders, and to get the murderers off the streets, and to make the City safe for everyone. I'm going to ask Sheree to tell a little story about one of the mothers who came into our office.
Several months ago a mother and her son came into our office. We were sitting around a table. And he said he visited the area at 52nd and Willows where a billboard was of Vincent Jackson. He said he walked past that billboard several times, and all he could see was those glaring eyes looking at him. So he decided right then because of that that he would try to tell what he knew concerning Vincent Jackson's murder. The billboard worked. And it 196 Whole - 5/25/05 helped. He came in and gave some information. The information that was received was given to the Police Department. They are now investigating. And we understand that there's an arrest soon to be made. We know that the billboard campaign works. We need the billboard campaign. Here's another picture. This lady and her daughter were murdered at 42nd and Aspen. The murderer has not been caught, but we know when these people see this billboard, that their heart -- somebody will come forward with some information concerning this billboard. We ask that it not be a tax on the people who help us get these billboards out to help save a life.
We know that no one is safe until all are safe. We really appreciate Clear Channel and their support for community organizations trying to address the issue of violence. And we do need to continue this initiative with these billboards, in order to make the streets of 197 Whole - 5/25/05 Philadelphia safe. So we ask that you do not input the tax on this organization.
Again, my name is Mike Gillespie, and I'm here representing the Philadelphia Ad Club. It's hard to follow such an important and impassioned case as was just made, but I'd like to sort of circle back to the business end of things, and take a minute and talk a little bit about the Philadelphia ad community as national -- on a national platform. Philadelphia is a major player in the ad world. It's one of the largest markets in the country. It encompasses three states and 18 counties. And the County of Philadelphia is really the epicenter, the cultural center of the ad community. To tax outdoor would do irreparable damage to the ad community in Philadelphia, and our position on the national platform as 198 Whole - 5/25/05 an ad community. It would be unfair to the small and the medium and the large size advertisers who use this as a key component of their media mix, but it would also do damage to small organizations, non-profits, as we've just heard. I think one of the things that we haven't heard yet is about how organizations like Clear Channel work with neighborhoods in neighborhood beautification projects. One of the things that I know as a resident of Philadelphia, I live in the Pennsport neighborhood. And we attend the -- My wife and I attend the meetings regularly. Organizations like Clear Channel are interested in helping our community by providing neighborhood beautification programs, and so forth. And so, this kind of tax, which would be passed onto the consumer, would be extremely unfair, would undermine community advancement efforts that the City is making, but more importantly, I think, will undermine 199 Whole - 5/25/05 Philadelphia as an ad community, and undermine our position really as a national leader on the advertising stage. So I would ask Council to considerate at least tabling this until a sensible solution can be reached. It was clear from today's testimony that there are more questions than answers about outdoor -- how outdoor should be billed, how it's taxed, what kind of structures constitute a billboard or a sign. I think that until there is some more answers, I think it makes sense to table this before irreparable damage is done to a key sector of this community's business landscape. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify on any of the three bills? Please approach the witness table. Please identify yourselves for the record.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna. My name is Mary Tracy. And 200 Whole - 5/25/05 to the other Council members who are still here, my greetings. And thank you for allowing me to speak, as well as some folks from the community that are joining me. I do have something that I'd like to pass up to Council members or to pass around. I think it would be helpful to take a look at what we're really talking about here. Also some copies of testimony. The map that we put together yesterday that we're passing around shows what we perceive as the billboards in Philadelphia in a way I think that really illustrates the problems that neighborhoods have with this proliferation of billboards. The map actually shows in colors the various economic levels of our City neighborhoods, starting with the gray area at the bottom which is zero to $12,000; moving onto the light gray, which is 12,000 to 25,000, the medium gray 25,000 to 38, and a deep gray -- or green -- I'm sorry -- 38,000 to 50,000, and the deepest green is the neighborhood with the most money, and 50,000 201 Whole - 5/25/05 to 62,000. And the little red dots. There are light red and dark red dots. Each one indicates three billboard structures. Do you have that?
Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt you, but I don't think you had sufficient copies.
Oh, you can't copy them green. No. Sorry. I'll be glad to furnish them later. I wasn't quite sure how many people and copies we needed.
Well, I think people can't follow your testimony if they don't have the map, so I would suggest that in your testimony you could talk about 202 Whole - 5/25/05 the locations, rather than pointing out the map.
Yes. You know what? I think I gave my map away. Councilwoman Tasco, can I get that back? I gave you my last copy. I apologize. You know we're a non-profit; we're trying to save costs here. Anyway, I mean, the point of this is -- and I'll send everyone a letter so you'll have a copy of this. But the point is is that the real proliferation of these outdoor advertising signs are in our poorest neighborhoods. And the illegal ones are greater in our poorest neighborhoods. When you look at the light green in the center, that's the $12,000 to $25,000 income level of those neighborhoods, and they are inundated with billboards. And there are very few neighborhoods in the City that don't have some, but as you go into the darker green areas there are very few. 203 Whole - 5/25/05 So are billboards a problem in Philadelphia? Absolutely. And I represent SCRUB. Stands for the Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight. SCRUB was formed here in the City Council room in 1990 because so many people came together with this problem of the proliferation of signs. And we asked our City Council members to help us regulate it better. And this Council did. They unanimously voted on controls that would eliminate illegal billboards, that would stop the proliferation, that would protect our neighborhoods, particularly our playgrounds, our parks, our schools, our residences, all these places where people live and work and don't want to be looking hours a day, 7 20 days a week at advertising messages. 21 The gentleman that just spoke before 22 talked about, you know, let's take a look at 23 eye level when we're looking at blight. 24 Well, that's exactly what we do. And in these neighborhoods where we have the 204 Whole - 5/25/05 proliferation of wall racks, you have billboards right at the eye level of the people who live there. Just last week we were before a school, and there was a billboard on a corner store that had a huge picture of vodka. And as those children played in that yard, that's what they looked at. As they walked down the street on their way home, that's what they looked at, up on a pole. As they turned the corner to go to their home, another one. These were at eye level, and they glamorize alcohol and they uglify a neighborhood. I have just a few comments on the advertising testimony, because I think it's really important to put things in perspective. Mr. Caulker from Clear Channel very elegantly pointed out what a growth industry advertising is. And I don't think any of us could deny that because, as you ride down the streets and through the highways, you just see more and more of them. 205 Whole - 5/25/05 And you see the signs that were this big (Indicating) growing, to have be twice -- double, triple the size and even proliferating, having two or three on a sign where there was once one. And why is that happening? Is it legal? Are they allowed to just change their signs or put up new signs? Absolutely not. But Philadelphia, while we passed great laws, setting landmark examples to the rest of the nation, we have not come through with any of the enforcement. And why? Because we haven't provided the resources. I think it's very clear that when City Council wants to really accomplish something, we need to figure out how we're going to pay for it. And who should pay for it? Should I, a taxpayer? Should neighbors, neighborhoods pay for this? I don't think so. The real cost of regulating this industry needs to be taken by the very people who are making money. And are they making money. Since 206 Whole - 5/25/05 this billboard law was passed years ago... 3 I've got the wrong one. 8 billion 8 industry. 9 It is a robust industry, and just 10 last year increased by six percent. The 11 monthly rental rates in Philadelphia can 12 range from $800 to over $25,000. 13 Yet, Philadelphia charged no 14 billboard license fees from 1991 to 2000. And in the year 2000 we received $200 in revenue. Finally L & I said, we have to do something here.
And they brought in each and every billboard company and said, would you please pay a hundred dollars a sign structure of at least the licensed signs? And they very generously agreed to do that, bringing in, I think we said, $88,000 this year, which is as much as one billboard will generate in a few months. 207 Whole - 5/25/05 So I think this is an industry that has been a cash cow and provided, you know, opportunities for growth because of the City's lax enforcement. I think that this proposed ordinance, 453, is reasonable and necessary. Philadelphia has accepted the responsibility for the control of outdoor advertising. Unlike the rest of the state, the state takes care of that. And they actually have a budget of 500,000. And they just go in take down sign if it's illegal, it doesn't pass the test. In Philadelphia, when neighborhood groups say, what about that sign that's, you know, towering over the school? Is that legal? And we look it up, and we say, no, well then, why don't they take it down? No, no. The billboard industry never takes down a sign. They try to get a variance. And when they don't get the variance, then they go to court to try to appeal that decision. 208 Whole - 5/25/05 And when they lose in the first court, they'll appeal to the second court, all the time bringing in revenue from those illegal billboards. Is it fair to penalize the legal billboards for all the illegal ones? Well, I think it's better to charge the billboard industry that has not done a good job of monitoring itself than to charge the citizens of the City of Philadelphia because we have other things we need to pay for. And I would strongly urge this City Council to vote in favor of this ordinance. As citizens in the neighborhood, we really expect our government to be able to enforce the laws. We see laws. We get involved in it. And when there's no teeth in the enforcement, it really makes us feel very badly about our government here. And we wonder: Why in Philadelphia can they not enforce a simple law? In Gladwynne you don't see billboards. No where in lower Merion will 209 Whole - 5/25/05 you see them. In Abington. In Delaware County I think they're starting to crop up. But you know, I mean, I think it's just not fair. It's not fair because we live in the City that we have to just put up with illegal behavior. And it is. When you have 900 billboards that -- You know, we caught someone just I think it was a year and a half ago put up more sheets, 11 just packed them up inside of buildings. 12 And the people in that neighborhood 13 say, well, we thought they were allowed to do 14 that. You mean that's illegal? 15 I mean, they're shocked. Anybody 16 who finds out that some of these -- so many of these billboards are illegal are absolutely shocked, because you look at something so large, and you wonder, why they can get away with that. And then when we go to L & I and say, well, take it down; and they turn to us and say, well, we don't have a budget for that, well, I mean, I don't think it does much for their morale, it doesn't incent them 210 Whole - 5/25/05 to enforce the law because at the end of the day, what do they do? And I think it only encourages further illegal behavior. Whether you like billboards or you don't, in 1991 Philadelphia City Council passed a law to regulate them. And we really need your help to bring them into compliance. And it will only be by charging them their fair share of taxes. Well, the taxes won't do this. I apologize. But a fair share of licensing fees. And I don't have a lot to say about the tax, except I think there's one thing we should keep in mind about this excise tax. And it's made me think about what Philadelphia was a hundred years ago. We were an industrial giant. And we had factories galore, and we could tax those kind of businesses. Now those businesses have all gone overseas. And what we do sell is our citizen's eye space. And we give it for free.
211 Whole - 5/25/05 Well, I think we need to look at these transactions as something that we're selling. It's the fifth largest market. And there certainly are roads that taxpayers pay for are the reasons why there's such a value in these billboards because millions of cars go by. So, as the billboard industry sells what they don't own, our field of vision 11 hours a day, 7 days a week, then I think that 12 Nike or, you know, Ford or Subaru or Coca- 13 Cola or whatever these corporations are, that 14 want to tell us about their product, why not 15 pay a transaction fee? 16 Because maybe instead of getting 17 free billboard space, this money will go to 18 keep our libraries open, and will keep our 19 art museums open. 20 And this is a very real 21 contribution, and we would appreciate maybe 22 taking a look at that. 23 At that I'll turn over... 24
Thank you. Councilwoman Tasco, I believe you 212 Whole - 5/25/05 indicated you wanted to be recognized at this time.
The billboards that you're talking about, could you distinguish whether they are the large ones we see on the highway? And does -- Or are you talking about them in addition to the eight sheets or most others?
Well, not through this. We really can't. One of the things, though, Councilwoman, that... We did a survey of Mantua and Tacony. And one of the things that we learned that, for the most part, the illegal billboards in our what we would refer to as our inner City areas, are the eight sheets. And they are the ones that are sort of like a checkerboard in the neighborhood. The ones we found in Tacony, they had very few eight sheets right in the middle of the neighborhood. Their billboards were more along the major arteries and the major roadways. 213 Whole - 5/25/05 Nevertheless, there was a lot of them that are illegal as well. So, I would be glad to, you know, to get some information to you on that. But by this -- you know, this particular -- our -- I guess our -- our intent in putting this together was really to -- just to show what we all suspected, is that those communities that are least able to really defend themselves --
Well, they are the other small wall signs that are put up that are basically illegal. City doesn't collect any taxes.
And when we passed a law in 1991 to regulate it, what -- I don't have the bill here. What did it require? I mean, it seemed this morning like when we had the testimony from L & I, well, you know, we really can't do anything about it. 214 Whole - 5/25/05 I mean, they can put them up, and we don't have any authority to do anything. And if you know who the company is, we have laws in place to control them. The fact that they didn't, you know, here we are today saying, we need this revenue to hire four people to regulate 900 billboards, when they had the mechanism to do it before.
Well, $800,000 is not a lot of money in a $3 billion budget. We could have included it in the NTI legislation, if you created this blight. And we could have had it done in a year's time. It would have been gone. Even if it was a short period of time to do that... to do it. And so, you know, it's just very hard to believe that in a week's time we got to deal with an issue that we have been trying to deal with through the years, in trying to come up with a process to charge 215 Whole - 5/25/05 whatever fees might be necessary, but you just can't seem to do it in one week. Usually when we have an issue like this, there's a process. You've got to bring the people in from the industry. You sit down and talk about it. And you come up with some legislation that -- that you may or may not agree with. When we did lead paint, everybody didn't agree with lead paint. The homeowners association didn't, with all these groups. But they got together and came up with something and did something about it. Here we have a week. We have this group over here, the billboard owners, saying well, look, you know, this is going to cause us some problems. And these eight sheets seem to be the problem to me.
No, they're just not the eight sheets. The other problem, Councilwoman Tasco -- and I agree: the City should have done this years ago.
I mean, the political will wasn't there. You know how that goes. But, you know... And I think basically it's one of those -- It's such a difficult industry to regulate. You really don't have any idea until you actually try to figure it out. When someone calls and says, what about that sign across the street from me? And it can take you... You know, you -- L & I will -- You have to go down there. You have to look it up. They can't find the record. The addresses are mixed up. We did a survey of all the railroads and found about 350 billboards along railroad properties. And we could only get seven permits found at L & I. So, I mean, maybe they're there somewhere. I don't know. But that's pretty pathetic. And I think that, you know, that's probably what L & I is saying, you know. They have so many issues pulling them, for them to really get the job done here. 217 Whole - 5/25/05 This is what it's going to take. And for them to say, if you don't take that sign down or we will, they have to be able to do that or the billboard company will just say, yeah, right. And I think that this is not an issue that we need a lot of discussion on any more. We've been waiting years for this. 10 We have community groups that are 11 trying to restore their commercial corridors, 12 and they are hitting roadblocks because these 13 buildings have illegal billboards attached to 14 them. And instead of just saying, well, you're trying to restore your commercial corridor. We'll work with you. We'll take the sign down. Oh, no. They then finally try to get a permit which they can't because it could be across the from a park or across from a playground or, you know, in a C-2 commercial. They're not allowed. So then they try to get variance. And, you know, then we're off to the races, with years of litigation on one sign. 218 Whole - 5/25/05 So, I mean, how do you stop this? Is this the way to run a country, to run a City? I think it flies in the face of the law.
If that is the impediment to getting the sign down, of passing this bill, is it going to create a better scenario? If you go, what changes? That you have somebody to enforce the law. Or if you go to L & I and say, well, this is an illegal billboard. Take it down. And then they get -- Then you still back in the process again. Doesn't take you out of the process.
No. I'll tell you, that's a good question. And I think what's different now, that instead of going to the courts and saying, we want you to order to take that billboard down, they go to the courts and say, we want an order to take the billboard down. And then if the billboard company wants to go to the courts to try to legalize 219 Whole - 5/25/05 it, they still can. And they can put it back up if it happens.
But what changes? We're not changing the law here. You're only changing the fact that you've got somebody to enforce the law.
So what's wrong -- What's wrong with L & I saying to the billboard, we're taking -- you have to take the billboard down?
Well, I mean, also you have to remember that one of the things happened with this law is that... I mean, it got thrown out in court in 1991. So, they haven't had any real enforcement law since 1991 because it was thrown out, and they never went back to fix it. Today, here before this Council, 14 years later, we're trying to fix it.
They figured out -- There's so many signs -- so many signs out 220 Whole - 5/25/05 there.
Well, there's so many signs out there. We have... I don't know what it was... 2,000, whatever, signs. And it's going to cost us $1.2 million, 1.5. I don't know what the thing is. Let's divide that up. That comes to 650 a sign face. That's what we need to run this program effectively. And that's what we want, a program that will be run effectively, that when, you know, Mary Jones who lives in Mt. Airy calls up about a sign, L & I can get right on it. When someone wants to know the list of illegal billboards in a neighborhood, they can get that information. There's just too many... I mean, it really is in the billboard industry's best interests not to have a good enforcement component. And there are plenty of signs that are legal, and we're not talking about them.
What is going 221 Whole - 5/25/05 to be the enforcement mechanism if the bill 3 was struck down that we passed in '91?
What will be the enforcement mechanism if we don't have... Only thing we're doing here is raising -- charging an excise fee and a billboard fee.
Well, we're really talking two different things here. The excise fee is really saying, you know what? We need to start getting some tax revenue from an industry that is making billions. So... And frankly, they're not paying their fair share in that way. The other part is the one that we're the most concerned about. And that's really between you and the revenue group. What we are really concerned about is the enforcement component. We really believe that the industry should be paying permit fees and license fees that actually cover the cost of proper enforcement. That is not happening now, and it 222 Whole - 5/25/05 hasn't happened in the history of the City of Philadelphia. And we have the laws. Now we want L & I to have the resources to actually enforce them.
So now... Because, you know, we just got this bill last week because I really haven't read it. Now, you're saying that with the $650 face fee, right, the illegal signs, eight sheets in the community, they're going to have to begin paying $650 per sign.
No; I don't think they're ever going to pay that because I know they're not going to be able to get a zoning variance because there's no hardship on this property.
So then... Maybe then if the -- I think if the billboard owner -- Frank Notario, I think is his name that owns Chesapeake. If he knows, hey, the City's really going to take these down and then charge me, maybe he'll finally take them 223 Whole - 5/25/05 down. I mean, you're looking at a guy who's had these billboards out there for decades. So, what's -- why would he possibly think that suddenly the City's going to actually do what they say? They have never had before. But this bill will enable the City to do what it says it's going to do.
And that would be a welcome change for many citizens in this City.
Well, first of all, it provides important financial resources.
To have the kind of staffing that you need at L & I to be able to do the work. That's an essential piece of 224 Whole - 5/25/05 it. You can't have one person, you know... Think of how big our City is, and how many buildings and structures --
Will L & I have the ability to go and take the sign down?
Well, they are, because a part of the money that -- Part of this money is not just for staffing. Part of the money that they have put in this budget will be to hire some companies that can do that.
That's not what the letter says to me. Says they have put $550,000 in here for staff, 657 -- Doesn't say anything about any companies.
Isn't it, like, a demolition or something? Did those L & I guys leave?
They're going to put $567,000 in Class 100 which is staff, plus the $250,000 for Mr. Solvibile.
Well, he's got 225 Whole - 5/25/05 250,000 in Class 200. What's the $250,000 for?
Councilwoman, we have a breakdown here of the different costs that we used to arrive at the figure. And basically for salary it's $367,047. For fringe benefits on top of that, it's $173,980. For demolition contracts it's $400,000. For engineering studies that we may need to do is $150,000. Personal computers is $21,000. Software licenses is $50,000. Telephone 2,000. Automobile expense would be 4,000. Indirect cost is $1,282,619. Indirect cost rates per fiscal year '03 -- It's how we arrived at the figures is the numbers I just gave you there. There's an estimated legal sign faces, what we arrived this at, is 2,762. And the license fee per sign face is 650.
Now, Miss Tracy seems to think this bill -- and I really haven't read it; I just saw it this 226 Whole - 5/25/05 morning -- that it's going to take care of all of the -- basically, the illegal signs, and specifically for me the eight sheets that are in the communities, and that you all are going to have the ability to get rid of all those eight sheets right away if they are not legalized by the owner. And is this true? And what will be different now in dealing with these illegal signs, and particularly the eight sheets, that you couldn't do before this?
Well, with the -- As Miss Tracy said, the department never had a fund to remove any kind of a sign at all. We could write violations, go to court, but we never had the monies in our budget to physically hire a contractor to remove signs. Our first choice will be, even with this new ordinance, to force the owners to comply. As to the eight sheets --
Violations, court 227 Whole - 5/25/05 activities, court orders.
We -- We -- We have done it. We were successful in about 35 to 40 cases of having signs removed. We have been doing that. We -- We will be able, with the sign unit that we're going to create, be more aggressive in what we're doing. We had one person doing it before. Now we'll have -- he'll be there with three or four other people to assist him in this activity, which will increase it. As to the eight sheets that are in the communities, we have issued a violation notice. I stated this earlier. You might not have been in the room, Councilwoman, that we sent to -- Is Chesapeake... Is that the -- the Chesapeake and to their -- and to the owner and to their legal counsel a violation notice ordering them to remove all 900 signs. They have filed an appeal. And we 228 Whole - 5/25/05 believe it's going to be heard in front of the Zoning Board. It's for the choice that the Law Department recommended we put the appeal. And there will be zoning hearings or a zoning hearing -- it has to be determined over a period of time -- on the eight sheets where they will state. Initially we've asked them to prove to us the ones that are legal, to give us the paperwork on the signs that they claim are legal. We have not seen any of that paperwork yet. It has not come to us. As of yesterday, I know we had not received it. The zoning hearings, where the appeal -- they're appealing our violation notice in front of the Zoning Board. And at that point the Zoning Board will tell them, they're not legal. And we'll be able to have -- order them to remove them. that's where we're going. That's the direction that we're going in, is the removal of all 900 or to put it in a better way, all 229 Whole - 5/25/05 illegal eight sheet signs in the City of Philadelphia which we believe most of them are, in fact, illegal.
So if they get a ruling from the Zoning Board, then they go back to Commonwealth Court?
Our next step, I'm not sure, Councilwoman. Probably it will be a court action or the owner will comply on his own or their own. I'm not sure who owns Chesapeake.
So you need $850,000 to do this, but you've already sent out violation notice to the owner. And they have appealed, and you have to go through the Zoning Board. So if you lose, what happens to this pot of money?
I -- I -- I would -- I would -- If we lost, if the Zoning Board -- I would ask the Law Department to appeal the decision of the Zoning Board at a higher court level.
So we're really no better off than we are now. 230 Whole - 5/25/05
We will be no 4 better off than we are now, under the circumstances of how the process works. But we're not changing the process.
Well, there's a legal process that we must follow, no matter what the ordinance says.
And we'll have to follow that legal process, even under this bill.
Exactly. I believe in my heart of hearts that within a year all illegal eight sheets will not be in the City of Philadelphia.
Councilwoman, if I could just interject here, I think one of the things that could change, though, is that before the City didn't have the resources to go in and take the signs down themselves. I mean, the state just says, 30 days take it down or we will. And they take it down. The City doesn't have those resources, so they try to coerce the owner to take them 231 Whole - 5/25/05 down. And then you get back into courts again. And the City doesn't have to go in the courts to take a sign down. They can send a letter and then just take it down. So, this would really enable them to do that.
We could have taken the billboards down with NTI dollars.
But they didn't allocate them for that. I mean, we asked about that, but --
Well, it was for blight, but it was for buildings -- I mean, we have so much blight, it's hard to pick your place. And billboards weren't at that point. I mean, I would have loved it if they had.
What we were told about that, it was that each Council member had some... some, I guess, control over what kind of NTI dollars were being spent. 232 Whole - 5/25/05 And if that Council member wanted to take them down, then maybe; but I don't know if that's true or not.
You didn't know about that? So, I don't know. I don't think there were as many dollars in there as we...
That's a new piece. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: (Indicating)
I'm here for the duration. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, I mean, before you got out and have to come right back. I don't want to go out of turn, but...
That's all right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any consideration or discussion that possibly using either the anti-grafitti folks, Tom Comway's people and/or the CLIP program, to remove these signs, since they're 233 Whole - 5/25/05 out there. And part of their job is to remove blight, clean vacant lots and things of that nature, to assist. If not do it all, at least to assist?
I agree. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Because you're connected. I mean, L & I and the CLIP program are kind of like one and the same, aren't they?
We staff them with three individuals that are inspectors. I have, in my own thought processes, thought that we could -- with the eight sheets, we could white over them, you know, whitewash them. I remember prior Commissioner Levin -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: My concern -- Not to interrupt you. If you put whitewash on them, they will become canvasses for graffiti.
I understand that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We have the problem with the Jersey barriers; same things. 234 Whole - 5/25/05
I -- I -- I understand that. I -- I -- I -- But to answer your question, yes. My -- We -- I was -- We would discuss with Tommy Comway and -- and -- and the CLIP people -- We -- We -- We -- We will use them to help identify... COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Just a suggestion. Thank you, Madam President.
Commissioner, you know all of the locations of the illegal billboards?
We believe so, yes. We have 900 locations that we've identified as... When we sent the violation notice to Chesapeake, we attached each location where -- where -- where the signs were at each location.
-- to determine if someone had put a deck up and it was done illegally, you could certainly see every billboard that was erected, and determine whether it was done legally or illegally.
We will, going forward in the future, once we have all identified where the legal ones are, be able to see, using the aerial shots, we're going to buy a package that will compare one year to the next year. So if it was, let's say, no 16 billboard here in '05, and then the aerial shot they take for '06 shows a billboard, we'll be able to check our records to see if it was legal, and it will make enforcement somewhat -- much easier.
But if it exists in '05, you're still able to ascertain whether it was erected illegally or legally.
If it -- If we -- If it will give us the correct address. It's -- 236 Whole - 5/25/05 With the aerial shot, the address of the sign itself might not be quite accurate. You still need to research what the addresses is and go back to the Zoning Code.
Understood. Councilman DiCicco wanted to be recognized. Now Councilman Kenney.
I just heard the tail end of that. Are you saying that we're going to fly aerial reconnaissance?
I -- I'm going to call it the wrong name. I'm going to call it Pictionary. And it's not Pictionary. It's pitometry. And right now on my computer at my desk I can zero in on your address, if I knew it --
-- and I could see your house from the sides, the front... Well, it's a row home, I believe. So, from the back, from the front, and the top roof.