But I don't think we make people keep trees up on their property, as 43 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 much as we can't make 'em take 'em down until they become dangerous to the public health or, you know, to the public at all.
Mm-hmm. Would it be possible to have as part of this bill a mediation system so that if the two neighbors can't work it out, they can come in and --
I would think not, but we could talk about it. Councilman?
In the experience I had and I spoke to a little bit earlier, the property owner adjacent to the property that I owned, which was an investment property at the time, did not want to agree with me to have the tree removed. It was causing -- the root damage was causing a lot of damage to both yards. And ultimately, we wound up in court, and the judge made a decision that it was 50/50: 50 percent of the costs were related my property and 50 percent of the costs were related to the adjacent property owners. I mean, unfortunately, if you can't work it out in a neighborly way, the court is the 44 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 last place to go to get the issue resolved. So there's a process in which you can get to eventually to decide that.
I don't think it's necessary to be in the bill. If you feel aggrieved in any way because of a tree in this case that may or may not be -- you allege that the tree is causing damage to your property and the adjacent property owner whose property the tree is on feels as though it is not, eventually you're going to wind up in court if you can't resolve it in a neighborly way. It doesn't have to be by legislation. You have the right to sue and bring action against the property owner.
Mm-hmm. Well, I'd like to thank you for the amendments, and I do feel that keeping trees in the neighborhood is a value in and of itself, and anything the bill can do to support that, I appreciate it.
Yes, we do love trees. I'm here on behalf of some of the residents in my area that have trees problems, and I just took hold of a property that I had to remove trees myself. I just couldn't wait for L&I or PECO or, before it became Verizon, Bell Atlantic to come and remove the trees. The trees grew so much that the lines all got locked into the trees and they were in the backyard. PECO couldn't get to them or nobody could have gotten to them. And I was just calling and calling. So at that time, I said I'm not going to call anymore and I went in and hired a contractor. And it's not cheap. You're looking at 15, $1600 just to remove them. The damage that it caused -- the leaves clogged the drain, always constantly falling, and I just had to always re-clean and always go rent a machine to just unclog the drains, 'cause 46 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 constantly the leaves keep falling. My concern is that some of these trees that are running between lines that PECO should also take the responsibility and Verizon to make a commitment to come and help some of the private residence owner remove that problem.
Humberto, our resident PECO expert is absent from this hearing and I'm sure he would have something to say. We'll leave his name out of this. But it's been my experience that PECO would rather trim the trees than have them lines fall down. Once they start getting in the wires -- they've been responsive, as much as I can remember, to do that, sure, because it's a money thing to them. It's cheaper for them to trim the trees -- 'cause they have crews on contract that do that -- than to knock some wires down, 'cause that becomes a big deal, then they got to pay people more money to come out. And I'm sorry that happened. I wish we could have worked that out.
Also, my last question. I had to remove the trees and also was neighboring 47 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 trees and the neighbors just couldn't afford also to pay some of the expense to remove the trees. So it was just left on just me to remove the trees. Is there a way to also amend on the bill that if a resident and a joint resident have trees next to them, there could be an agreement that both residents should hold the responsibility to get this tree removed and not leave the burden on just one resident.
You could do that privately. I mean, every time we put something on -- no good deed goes undone, you know, and every time we try to do something, it just makes Mr. Haigler and his department more work. You know, I see what you're after but I think if you and I can work something out, it might be fine, but Councilman DiCicco and I may not be able to. And if we can agree to do that. And you know people, that's how it works out. The less people that are involved, the easier it is; the move involved, the more complicated.
But I appreciate 48 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 your comments and we'll talk to the prime sponsor and see if he wants to do something about that, okay?
Okay, we're going to bring up -- there's five or six more people, but everybody seems to be talking about the same thing. So here's who I have left: Joyce Martinez, John Choice, Georgianna Johnson, Margaret McClain, Helen Brown, and John Jonik. If we're all going to testify to the same thing, if you're going to say the same thing that's been said -- if you have something different, come up. You're certainly welcome to talk, but for the -- if you could summarize it, it would be nice. You know, we're getting -- we got the point and we know what needs to be done, but you're certainly welcome to --
No, go ahead, 49 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 you're fine.
Seventh and Hunting, the 5th District Council. I want to know if I could get reimbursed for having this tree cut down that's the responsibility of L&I because, like this guy just told this guy here, he hemmed and hawed, We don't know when or whatever. "When or whatever" could mean somebody's life, and when that winded start blowing, the actual root from the bottom of this tree begin to --
Where was the tree at, ma'am? Was it in an abandoned house or in an alleyway or on abandoned property?
Oh, that's not L&I, then, right? Otis? That's the property 50 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 owner's responsibility.
But, I mean, some plan need to be set up where people can be reimbursed because he talking about issuing citations $50, $50, $50. And like you said before, there going to be people that just can't afford it, and that is true. There are people that just can't afford it, opposed to making this $50, $50 situation, which this tree eventually going to fall on this lady house and which is going to end up costing thousands of dollars. I think a program needs to be set up with the City, where they contract somebody or somebody within the City that they can have a program where people that have to pay to have they trees cut down work with a program that's within 51 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 the system to cut these trees, because now, once this bill hit the street, the tree hustle begin, okay? Like you said, you got people charging $600 for a tree 'cause they claim they can't get to the alley, which is true, and people making they own prices on a lot of things. I have a tree in the alley that if it don't get caught, firemen, me, you, or nobody else going to be able to walk through the alley.
That's our next one, the alley, the Streets Department. We just found that out today.
Because they know that's been going on for a long time and they should have been taking care of that because, although we had a street cleanup and this and that, nobody is really pursuing any things on the alley. At one time, they used to enforce that the alleys be 52 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 clean that people kept their alleyways clean or whatever, but now it's a "don't care" attitude, you know, they do or they don't. And instead of sending citations out to people is not the answer, because you have two homeowners in a block of 100 PHAs, so that's a big problem right there in itself.
Well, I think PHA's got to take some responsibility to removed some of these trees too.
Yeah, but we know that's not happening. So, you know, that's why we need to come up with some kind of plan where you contract somebody in the City or -- and I can call it as a homeowner and say, I need this tree removed, and it's a set price or whatever, 'cause I had a tree removed that cost $1500, plus another $300 for the stump. So that's two different issues when you getting a tree cut.
Thank you for that 53 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 point and we'll take that into consideration.
My name's Georgianna Johnson, and I have a question to the committee and I want to say good morning.
I would like to know why L&I and the Streets Department can't inform each other of their responsibilities of these overhanging trees and thereby write a report and send it to -- a copy to each individual department and a copy to the Councilman. I believe in the paper trail. You saying that these trees need to be done, but the men who come out to cut them down, they don't even talk to the people that call them. They just go and cut them down and they don't know who's cutting them down, who did what, or whatever. And I think it's about time that the citizens in this city start knowing who's doing what. And I happen to be a person who's very nosey. I'll go out and ask them, and they'll say, Well, I don't know, somebody sent me here. So I have a problem with that. So that is my problem. 54 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 I don't have any trees on my block that need cutting down, but I would like to know if somebody could inform -- if Macy's could tell Gimbel's, we would be very happy. Thank you. (Laughter.)
Good morning, Councilman. My name is John Choice and I'm from North Philadelphia, the 32th Ward.
My issue is basically, they're going to prune the trees, they're going to cut back to the property lines. Who's going to deal with the height of these trees? In my area, most of these trees are as tall as three-story homes that the people are living in. When they fall, they take out a lot. I've had homes take out fences, second floor levels, sides of walls, everything. So pruning the trees is going to be a good thing but the height of the tree is going to be the problem. When the weather changes, it gets cold or the storms blow through the houses and the 55 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 trees that are old and rotten are going to fall. Now, if you prune it, it's fine, but you only prune it to the property line. The tree's not on the property, the tree's as tall as a three-story house. So when it falls, it's going to take out two or three homes, fences, electric lines everything. So, I mean, the bill's great and I appreciate Councilman Clarke working on it, but my issue is basically in my neighborhood, where he's been around, they've looked at a number of issues in the trees. The smallest tree's rounder than this table. Three stories is a long ways up when a tree falls, and it falls on a lot of people's homes and it takes out a lot. And many of the people that can't afford to have these trees cut are going to be senior citizens who have been in those homes, who've raised families over the years and afford to be paying 15, $1600 to help take out these trees. Now, L&I said they're going to prune, they're going to cut so much of a line, and the Streets Department's going to work with the alleys. I just want to know if collectively, can 56 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 the three departments, four departments, work together to try to take out some of the height of these trees when they do the pruning. And if you cut 'em back on the property line, you still got 2, 300 feet up. Can they cut back some of the height so if it does fall, it don't take out as much damage that can be done?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Choice. Mr. Choice, realistically, I can see several reasons why I don't think we'd be in a position to do that. First, you've heard from testimony from individuals who are tree lovers, and I think --
I understand that. I mean, I'm not against the tree but, you know, some of them are old.
Let me ask you a question. Now, I think based on the speculative nature of when the tree is going to fall and where it may fall, I don't think that we should have the wherewithal to cut the tree off at a particular height, and I just think politically, I don't 57 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 think -- and I think practically, that's probably not a good thing to do. And I understand your concern 'cause I have walked in your community and I see the potential at some point in time where one of those trees may fall, but if the tree is still living, I know that we're not going to be in a position to decrease the height of that particular tree. Maybe somewhere down the line, after this program is implemented, we can look at possibly dealing with some trees that are dead and potentially dangerous. But at this point, I'm just really --
But I was speaking basically more to the ones that are kind of old. Some of the ones that are still living and blooming, you know, if they trim 'em back, then the wires and things will be out of the way, which is fine. But you have some that are --
Yeah, that is the responsibility of the property owner and, you know, there will already be a cost incurred by a property owner based on the implementation of this bill. And I'm concerned that if we go a step further, there will be an additional cost 58 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 associated with the property owner. And I don't know at this point -- and I can't speak for my colleagues, but I don't know at this point if government is willing to do that and create an additional burden to that property owner, who, in many cases, as we have just heard, may not be able to pay for this particular program. So I'm a little concerned about that. But I do understand your problem.
All right. The second issue is then if you're going to trim back the lines around the electric lines and what have you, are they going to come out where they have the open, empty lots and take out those trees, or are just going to trim those too?
This bill only speaks to a situation where there's a abutting property owner and the tree is causing, or potentially causing, damage or danger to that abutting property owner. That's all this bill 22 speaks to. If there's a vacant lot and there's no 23 abutting property owner that is complaining about that, this bill doesn't speak to that. Now, that vacant property is owned by 59 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 somebody. So if there is a tree on a vacant property, a lot, and it is potentially creating a dangerous situation for the abutting property owner, it's my understanding that this bill can be implemented in that particular situation.
And also, I think this $250 million for this blight program, like there's a little part in it that everyone seems to be ignoring. If we introduce it this week, hopefully, we'll find that there's a private initiative bond -- Darrell's making faces, but I'm going to say it, that if that was something that Councilwoman Krajewski wanted to do, she should be able to do that 'cause only she knows her district. If it's something that another District Councilman wants to do -- you understand? It might be working in his district but not in mine. So if it's a City-owned lot, we should take it down possibly. So if it's by some speculator that's been sitting on it for 50 years, he should take it down; we shouldn't pay for that.
Yeah, but then you find out you have a bunch of empty lots that you can't find the owner. 60 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771
Somebody owns the lot somewhere, though, and we got to get to that, and then maybe we can address all that in this blight program that we're going to get through here. Thank you. Next witness?
Good morning, Council. My name's Margaret McClain. I live in a home where I have been fighting a issue with a tree for four years. It's (indiscernible) from the root and it's not where in the tree sits on someone else's property -- maybe the City's or halfway in between. I bring to you the root of a tree that I've been fighting (Displaying piece of tree root) where from above, the birds may have brought in some of it's little twigs and planted it in the corner of my roof. When we thought we had the root and we cleaned everything out, we thought, but up jumped the tree again. Right now, the bark of this tree is growing out of my house, and at the bottom of it, it does not exist. And I agree with the prunement [sic] of the tree along with 61 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 Councilman Darrell Clarke and assisting him. I also work in the area of the community in different ways with children where some of the trees are diseased. And I feel as though that we should also look in that area to make sure that the (indiscernible) of the trees are not hazardous to the health of not only our children, our seniors that may have respiratorial [sic] systems and issues of health matters. Some of those trees drip a dew on you and it burns your skin and it does break you out. But I thank Councilman Darrell Clarke for bringing this issue up, and I hope we do get this matter addressed quickly. And I thank the Council.
Good morning. My name is Helen Brown, and I'm a committee person and I'm here to support the bill. And I have a question. I didn't quite understand what the L&I person said about the tree from your next-door neighbor, they are 62 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 responsible. My neighbor is also a tree lover and it's causing damage to my roof, which I had to have repaired. And I'd like to know what do I do with him and his tree?
The question was, I think, if you didn't hear it, her neighbor has a tree and she wants the tree to be big and bountiful, but it's destroying her quality of life.
If the neighbor -- it's am occupied property, the neighbor is responsible for the tree, as they are responsible for anything else that goes on in their property. Give us the information, we will send our inspectors out. We will follow due process to notify the person that they are in violation of the City law and that they do have time to correct this violation. If they do not correct this violation -- because, again, we can't do this for them -- they have to be notified that they do have a 63 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 problem, and we do have to give them the opportunity to correct that problem. If they do not correct that problem, then we will take them through the proper necessary enforcement action, including, with this bill, this bill specifically has a mechanism in there to cite the violation to the property owner immediately to give them -- instead of taking them to court and waiting for the court to issue a fine against this person, this bill has provisions in there where we can issue a ticket immediately to that person on an every day basis if necessary to try to gain compliance. It's the ultimate responsibility of code enforcement to try to gain voluntary compliance. Again, the City can only do but what it can do legally.
Thank you, Mr. Haigler. In questions? (No questions.)
My name is John Jonik, J-O-N-I-K. I wrote that article that was 64 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 apparently mentioned before I got here. Only knowing of the two original versions of the bill 4 771 and 772, I heard later that this amended version was available for three months but the Chief Clerk's Office didn't have it, so I ran with what was available. I ran with the copies of the bill that the Chief Clerk's Office had available, and they did not advise me to go to Mr. Clark's office or anyplace else, that that would be anything but the one that would be treated in the hearing today. So I just have a few things to add. I do have testimony, which I have submitted 15 copies of that's back there somewhere, but I want 16 to point out one thing that people are talking 17 about 1500, $2,000 charges. That may be just the tip of the iceberg. Since the City seems to have exempted itself from insurance here, unlike every car owner in the City supposed to be, this could be millions of dollars. If, you know, a City contractor knocks a wire thing down and the whole neighborhood goes up or whatever conceivable nightmare happens. I don't know how anybody could afford that or whether or not temporary insurance 65 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 will be available to a person when the City would be taking down a tree or pruning it. That insurance thing seems very worrisome. Some people may have home -- maybe it's covered in most people's homeowner's insurance, but a lot of people don't even have that in the City, even through the fair plan. I do like the idea that since trees benefit everybody in the City -- this is Penn's green country town, and tree blocks away can benefit somebody by shading in the evening or shading the sun or just cooling the air, by supplying birds to eat the West Nile virus mosquitos or whatever. And so, therefore, since it is a public benefit, even if a tree is on somebody's private land, it benefits a lot of people, notwithstanding the people who don't like leaves and, you know, twigs. So I think there has to be some kind of public subsidy or some kind of program where people could have a problem tree corrected without going bankrupt. I don't know how that can be done, whether there's any precedence for it. 66 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 And I did make one point about the high cost and fines and this insurance thing or whatever, it will prompt do-it-yourself lumberjacks to start climbing up the trees. I've seen my neighbors do this -- tough guys up in the tree with ropes, huge logs swinging down, missing their kids by two inches, things like this. It's incredibly frightening to -- if anybody ever dealt with a tree, they're not called widow-makers for no reason. I think that sometimes that really tough penalties end up causing more problems than they may solve sometimes. So I hope that's considered along with the insurance angle.
Good morning. And I'm here to support the bill that Councilman Darrell Clarke 67 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 is opposing. My name is Sarah Lewis, I'm a committee person out of the 32nd Ward, Division 30. I'm here (indiscernible) have a report against L&I. I have called L&I about a property at 1735 North (indiscernible) Street.
Excuse me, ma'am. If you could speak directly into the mic, we'll be able to hear you better.
All right. I have called L&I hundreds of times about 1735 (indiscernible) Street where there's a big tree in the backyard. The lady, she's 85 years old, and the tree is actually like tearing her roof off. L&I had told me over and over that they've got in touch with the owner, but nothing hasn't been done, okay. At 1707 (indiscernible) Street, where the City had gave me a vacant property where I have a garden out there, but when Mr. Waver (ph.), who worked for the City, came out there and tore that building down, they left all of the bricks and stones in the back of that alleyway. They have not came back and removed it. I'd appreciate L&I doing their responsibilities. 68 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 010010 And thank you.
Thank you, ma'am. We have nobody else to testify so we're going to move on to the next bill. The clerk will read the next bill.
Bill 010010, an ordinance 9 amending Chapter 9-700 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Amusement Businesses," by adding a new section implementing provisions of the Local Option Small Games of Chance Act under which licenses may be issued to eligible organizations to conduct or operate small games of chance in the City, under certain terms and conditions.
It's more than bingo. Anyone to testify on this bill? Mr. Haigler from the Administration? (Witness comes forward.)
Good day, Councilman Mariano and members of the Committee Licenses and 69 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 010010 Inspections. I am Otis Haigler, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 010010, which, if enacted, will amend Section 9-700 of the Philadelphia Code by regulating the requirement to operate small games of chance in the City of Philadelphia. Since the requirements of this bill is mandated by passage of the Local Options Small Games of Chance Act by the State legislature, the Department of Licenses and Inspections offers no 14 objections to the enactment of the bill and is prepared to administer the licensing provisions. I had other portions of the testimony, but I understand that there are some issues with that portion of the testimony.
Yeah, and you have some problems with the temporary license, and we're waiting for an opinion from the Law Department. We'll report it out like this and we'll amend it on the floor if we have to.
Okay, 'cause I just wanted to make that known, that we did have an 70 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 010010 issue with the fee for the limited option license.
We'll let the Law Department decide. Thank you, Mr. Haigler. Thank you very much.
Seeing none, we're going to go on to the next bill, and I think Councilman Clarke's holding that, right? You're going to hold 72.
So we're going to hold 000772, and that will be the end of the public hearing and we'll go right into the public meeting. - - - 71 5/8/01 L&I - PUBLIC MEETING
Thank you, thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 6 771 be reported out of committee as amended. I believe all members --
Oh, I'm sorry, my mistake. Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the amendments that have been submitted to all members. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved, so moved and seconded. What's your choice, everyone? I'm sorry. All those in favor, aye? Anybody against, no? The amendments pass.
All right. Thank 72 5/8/01 L&I - PUBLIC MEETING you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill No. 771, as amended, be reported out with a favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the rules so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
So moved and seconded on this bill 000771, as amended.
Actually, Mr. Chairman, there was also a request by the Administration on to insert Section 13 312.2.2, to insert $150.
That would be another amendment or do we do that administratively?
That would be an addendum to the amendment. Give me one second here. Yes, under PM 312.4.2, where it says "Penalty," it reads: "The penalty for a violation of any provision of this section shall be. . . " And at that point I would strike out 73 5/8/01 L&I - PUBLIC MEETING everything after "shall be" and insert "in accordance with Section A-601 of the Administrative Code," which covers the $150 to $300 fine provision.
Okay, so that's another amendment. I recognize Councilman Clarke for I move for the amendment that Mr. Haigler just read.
I'd like to move for the amendment, the second amendment on Bill 17 No. 771, as testified by Mr. Haigler, to insert $150. (Duly seconded.)
Okay, it's been amended and seconded. 74 5/8/01 L&I - PUBLIC MEETING All those in favor? So the amendment passes. Now we have to vote on the bill as amended twice.
All right. Could you make that motion, Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I move that Bill No. 771, as amended, be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a suspension of the rules as to allow reading on first calendar this Thursday. (Duly seconded.)
It's been amended and amended and it's to read it without -- suspend it regular -- how do you say that now?
Suspend the rules for the next session of Council to make the first reading. All those if favor for this bill, as 75 5/8/01 L&I - PUBLIC MEETING amended, with a suspension of the rules? Any nays? The bill's approved, thank you. The next one. Darrell, you going to read that one too, Councilman Clarke?
Yes, certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 010010 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the rules so as to allow first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
All those in favor? All those opposed? Seeing none, the bill is approved as out with a suspension of the rules. So that will close the public meeting of the L&I Committee. There's no other bills, right? That's it. Thank you.
Thank you. (Adjourned 11:20 a.m.) 76 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, May 8, 2001, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON LICENSES & INSPECTIONS BILL NO.'S __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter