COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, PUBLIC WORKS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, 6/13/00, 1:35 p.m. - - - BILL 000109 - Authorizing Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to PAID a deed to certain tract of land at 313-325 Race Street. BILL 000147 - Re skateboarding on public property. BILL 000178 - Authorizing Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to PAID a deed to land on northwest corner of 7th and Pattison Ave. BILL 000315 - Authorizing Commissioner of Public Property to lease certain parcels of land owned by School District of Philadelphia. BILL 000341 - Authorizing Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to PAID a deed to land in vicinity of 47th and Market Streets. BILL 000352 - Authorizing Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to PAID a deed to a land at northwest corner of 5TH and Huntington. BILL 000353 - Approving lease amendment agreement between PGW and Phila. Regional Port Authority. BILL 000370 - Authorizing Commissioner of Public Property to enter into sublease agreement with PAID for use of office space at 1401 Arch Street. BILL 000414 - Authorizing Commissioner of Public Property to convey to PAID portion of real estate in vicinity of Red Lion Rd. Roosevelt Blvd.. (Full title of all bills attached hereto.) PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL, V. Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 6/13/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY & PUBLIC WORKS I N D E X Bill 000109 Paul Deegan, PIDC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Don Clendenon, CEO, ISUN Networks . . . . . . Commissioner Andres Perez, Public Property. . 6 Bill 000178 7 Edward Duffy, PIDC and PAID . . . . . . . . . Commissioner Andres Perez, Public Property. . 8 Bill 000315 9 Commissioner Andres Perez, Public Property. . 19 Gerald Ashley, North Penn Civic Association 20 10 Ralph Wynder, 38th Ward Democratic Leader 20 and Chairman of Residents Coalition 11 Bill 000341 12 Paul Deegan, PIDC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Commissioner Andres Perez, Public Property. . 29 13 Thomas Chapman, City Planning Commission. . . 29 14 Bill 000352 Commissioner Andres Perez, Public Property. . 31 15 Jesse Bermudez, Executive Director. . . . . . 31 Asociacion de Musicos Latino Americanos Thomas Chapman, City Planning . . . . . . . . 32 Bill 000353 Rajan Ramanujan, Director . . . . . . . . . . 35 Engineering and Facilities, PGW Commissioner Andres Perez, Public Property. . 37 Bill 000414 Craig Schelter, Executive V. President, PIDC 39 Commissioner Andres Perez, Public Property. . 45 Bill 000370 Commissioner Andres Perez, Public Property. . 50 Bill 000147 Joe Martz, Managing Director. . . . . . . . . 52 William Mifflin, Fairmount Park Commission 55 Inspector James Tiano . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Central Police Division Commander Officer Shaunagher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 3 6/13/00 PUBLIC PROPERTY & PUBLIC WORKS (Index, cont'd.) Page Bill 000147, cont'd. Barry Scott, Risk Management. . . . . . . . . 76 Grace Redden, President, BOMA . . . . . . . . 91 R. Martin, Bell Atlantic Tower, 1717 Arch St. 94 Josh Nims, Skaters Defense Lobby. . . . . . . 124 Josh Kalis, Professional Skateboarder . . . . 134 Bernard McDonald, Skateboarder. . . . . . . . 145 B. Lathrop, Friends of FDR Skateboard Park 155 4 /00 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 2 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The Council Committee on Public Property and Public Works is now in session to hear testimony on a number of bills. The first is Bill No. 000109, an ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development ("PAID"), without consideration, a deed conveying fee simple title to a certain tract of City-owned land with the buildings and improvements thereon situate at 313, 315, 317, 319, 321, 323, and 325 Race Street under and subject to the terms and conditions of the Philadelphia Industrial and Commercial Development agreement between the City, PAID, and the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Paul Deegan, and I represent PIDC. The bill authorizes the City to convey A 17,000 square foot property at 313-25 Race 5 /00 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 2 Street to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development. After conveyance to PIDC, the property will be sold to ISUN Networks, Incorporated -- that's I-S-U-N -- a Philadelphia- based Internet company that develops communications technologies for the higher education market. This property was formerly used by the City's police and fire departments. The site is improved with a three-story historically certified police office building and a two-story fire station. There is also a 42-car parking lot on the eastern end of the parcel. ISUN Networks intends to renovate these buildings and occupy them as a corporate headquarters facility. This will enable the company to consolidate their operations and will result in the moving of over 50 employees from Research Triangle Park, in North Carolina. The company's business plan projects the creation of 125 new jobs in the next three years. Although the final cost estimates are not available, the company expects to spend approximately $4.5 million for the acquisition and 6 /00 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 2 renovation of these buildings. The property has been appraised at approximately a million dollars as is, but that value does not take into account the cost of removing asbestos and other hazardous materials which known to be present in the building, and those studies are being -- that cost is being evaluated now. The buyer will be responsible for this expense, and the estimated cost for the site cleanup is now being prepared. The net proceeds of the sale will be deposited in the City's General Fund. ISUN Networks is the type of company the City is trying to attract -- high technology and high growth. The property's location in Old City is in a mixed residential and commercial area and is attractive to the typically young highly educated new economy worker, which makes it ideal for high-tech company headquarters. In fact, the owner of the company, Mr. Don Clendenon, is also a young, highly educated and an Old City resident. His company is now located on Third Street. He's present in the chambers today and is available to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Clendenon, if you could just. . . 7 /00 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 2
Sir, if you could come forward in case there are any questions. (Witness comes forward.).
Thank you. If you would like to identify yourself for the record and if you have anything you'd like to offer beyond Mr. Deegan's testimony, we'd be happy to hear it. And we have a very old system here, so you have to pull the microphone right up to your mouth. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Don Clendenon. I am the CEO of ISUN Networks. We develop network platforms for universities, basically turning each individual university into like its own virtual AOL. We've been expanding quite rapidly. Our offices are in Old City right now, at 309 North Third Street. We've been -- we've got offices in Research Triangle Park -- that's where our primary development's been going. We've been trying to think about relocating the entire business operation into the Philadelphia area, the 8 /00 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 2 downtown area, but it's been very difficult to attract talent and try to find space. We identified the building in question here as being a building that's adequate in size to accommodate -- an infrastructure to accommodate the operation that we need. Right now, the venture capitalists are expecting us to expand at a rate that's far greater than what we had originally anticipated. We should have more than a hundred, high-tech jobs, with median salaries between 60 and $70,000, coming into the area. Roughly 100 people we will be hiring before the year end, with a cap between now and next September of around 230 employees.
Terrific. Thank you very much. Does anyone else at the table have anything else to offer in this regard?
I would just like to say that although Councilman DiCicco isn't here on this committee, he was very instrumental in pushing this legislation forward and pushing the project forward and assuring the company that they're welcome in Philadelphia. 9 /00 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 2
It is my understanding that there's no request for any City support financially, as far as TIFs or public financing of any kind?
No, there isn't. We have offered the traditional State programs that are based on job creation and total project cost, such PIDA (Pennsylvania Industrial Development Authority) assistance, which is available to every company in the City if they meet certain criteria.
I would ask the committee to consider the bill favorably and the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading at the next session of Council.
You can assume that all bills coming out of committee today will be suspended for next week.
Thank you. Mr. Perez? 10 /00 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 2 COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Good afternoon, Chairman Kenny. My name is Andres Perez, Commissioner of the Department of Public Property. And I'll summarize my prepared testimony simply by stating that the Department is in support of this transfer of the parcel, and we ask for your favorable consideration. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Mr. Clendenon, thank you. What you're doing in the City and the of jobs you're creating and your willingness to invest in the City and to have faith in where we're going is a tremendous thing for us, and we're just very happy you're here, very happy you're staying here and expanding. It's a terrific thing and we thank you for coming in today.
Right across the street, you probably know you have great hard-shell crabs at DiNardo's, so it's always a nice plus for your location too. Thanks again. 11 /00 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 2 Are there any questions from anybody on the committee? Councilman Rizzo?
Thank you. My question is for Commissioner Perez. Commissioner, before the decision was made to transfer this property, with all the space that the City's renting, and this is already a building that's owned by the City of Philadelphia, was there any consideration that this building be utilized by the City workforce? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: We did. The conclusion on our part was that under the City's standard capital program approach, based on the methods that we do our bidding and the kind of cost that we tend to get on those bids against the private sector -- and in this case, one of buildings also requiring historical treatment considerations, it was deemed to be too expensive to rehab and bring departments back in. The complication, of course, is it was already occupied by Fire Department units, police units. The building was deteriorating rapidly, sections of it were falling off. So we opted to 12 /00 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 2 relocate the entire operation to a completely rehabbed location.
A rental facility? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: No. We acquired -- this is -- the elements that were in this building were relocated to the property we acquired for the Internal Affairs Division, Duncan Road.
Any further questions for this group? (No further questions.)
The next bill is Bill No. 000178, which is an ordinance amending an ordinance approved November 13, 1997, authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development without consideration a deed conveying fee simple tile to a certain tract of City-owned land with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate on the 13 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000178 northwest corner of Seventh Street and Pattison Avenue in the 39th Ward of the City of Philadelphia, under and subject to the terms and conditions of the Philadelphia Industrial and Commercial Development agreement between the City, the Philadelphia Industrial for Industrial Development, and the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation by authorizing the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, notwithstanding any contrary requirements of the agreement, to convey the property for a nominal consideration. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Edward Duffy, and I represent the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation and the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development. And I'm here to testify in support of this bill. This ordinance amends a previous ordinance, Bill 970720, which authorized the City to convey the 11-acre property at the northeast 14 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000178 corner of Seventh Street and Pattison Avenue to PAID. This new ordinance will permit PAID to reconvey this property for less than market value to Sysco Food Services -- that's S-Y-S-C-O -- the owner of the adjacent property in Philadelphia's Food Distribution Center. This will be an added incentive to the City's over financial incentive package to keep Sysco here in the City and to assist with their expansion. This property currently is used by the Philadelphia Streets Department for vehicle maintenance and is partly occupied by an abandoned incinerator. Sysco currently owns and occupies a 206,000 square foot facility at the southeast corner of Seventh Street and Packer Avenue, and this is adjacent to and north of this City-owned property, which is the subject of this ordinance. Their goal is to double the size of the existing building and add 400 to 500 new jobs to Philadelphia. To meet that goal, they need to acquire and expand on the City-owned site. Sysco is the largest marketer and distributor of food service products in the world, 15 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000178 employing 33,000 people at more than 70 locations in the United States and Canada, including their current employment of 550 workers in Philadelphia. This property right now is a liability to the City. We plan to demolish the existing incinerator and remediate the environmental problems on the site, using State economic development grants, thereby minimizing the cost to the City and putting this property back onto the City's tax rolls. I ask that the committee consider this bill favorably and that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading. Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. Commissioner Perez, do you have anything to add? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Again, my name is Commissioner Andres Perez, Department of Public Property. And, again, I'll summarize my prepared testimony simply by asking for Council's favorable 16 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000178 consideration of this ordinance. We have worked for years with various organizations to get to this point and we look for your favorable action. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Mr. Duffy, is there a planned expansion of the employment complement at Sysco as a result of the expansion to the old incinerator trash transfer site.
They right now have a 17-acre property, which is a mix of various uses. They are gradually converting areas to be used for truck maintenance and dry warehousing to office space and refrigerated warehousing so that they are actually expanding on their own property, but they are pushing their existing operations onto this new site basically for parking and also for the reuse of the Sanitation Division garage building there. So most of the site will be used for parking and an added incentive is, we will be able to get the incinerator demolished.
Plus, I mean, it would also, I guess, further deepen the roots of 17 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000178 this company in the City. I know there was some discussion not too long ago as to some reorganization or realignment of various operations throughout the country, and this may have been on the bubble at the time, and now it seems to be off the bubble because the expansion is happening, and I think some of the labor problems have been resolved there, and things are moving forward. Is that a correct characterization?
Yes, that's right. They've also expanded their area of operations to include Atlantic City.
And could you describe the company and what -- they're a food distribution company basically?
Yes, that's right. Prepared foods, two institutions, and restaurants.
Okay, thank you. Are there any questions for this panel?
Good afternoon, gentlemen. This is a matter of background and for my own information. When opportunities like this come before the City -- and I agree that it's a great thing, as the Chairman of the committee has already outlined. In terms of practice or protocol or procedure, what happens? Companies come to PAID and then PAID reaches out to Andres Perez? Procedurally, what happens?
Yes. I would say that the company came to us. In this specific instance, they wanted to acquire City property, so we worked very closely with the Department of Public Property.
Now, does that tend to be the norm, or is that an exception?
Yeah, every deal is really 19 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000315 different. For example, we recently were here to discuss acquisition of property from the private sector in order to facilitate the expansion of a company.
Thank you very much. Any other questions? (No further questions.)
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 000315, which is an ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to lease for nominal consideration certain parcels of land owned by the School District of Philadelphia located at 29th and Chalmers and Roxborough High School's athletic field and track, under certain terms and conditions. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Again, my name is Andres Perez, Commissioner of the Department of Public Property, and I'm here today to testify in 20 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000315 support of Bill No. 315. In summary, you've actually recited the elements of the transaction, and we ask the committee again to favorably consider this action at the earliest opportunity. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any questions for this witness? Councilmember Nutter?
I'm sorry. We have one -- Mr. Gerald Ashley, could you please come forward and Mr. Wynder? (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. My name is Gerald Ashley, and I'm with the North Penn Civic Association and a member of the Residents Coalition.
Mr. Wynder, would you please identify yourself for the record?
Ralph Wynder, 38th Ward Democratic Leader, and Chairman of the Residents Coalition. 21 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000315
I'm just here to speak in favor of this particular ordinance, the transfer of the land at 29th and Chalmers Avenue from the Board of Education to the Public Property at this time. I'm in favor of that because our community has a very long history on that land, a history that began about 30 years ago, when the City attempted to take that land from the people of that community and turn it into a commercial site. Since that time, we have struggled to preserve the land, we have been successful in saving it for the members of our neighborhood. The land, of course, has recreational facilities there -- football fields, soccer fields, baseball fields, track, and so forth, that the Board has also used over the years. And we've shared it in a coexistence that has been very mutually beneficial to both the community and to the other entities. At this time, though, we think that if this transfer were to go through, it would meet the wishes of Judge Stanley Greenberg, who, back 22 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000315 in 19, I believe, 77, issued a desire to see the land transferred to recreation so that the members of our community could in fact utilize it in a social and recreational and educational environment for the members of our community and for people throughout the City. We have been, you know, building on that land since then. Thanks to our councilman, Michael Nutter, he has transformed many aspects of that land that had been unkempt and weedy into picnic areas and into fields that have really, really upgraded the community in that area, and we thank him and we thank all of the other members of Council who have worked with him and members of the Recreation Department and Board of Education who have been helpful in that area. So we're 100 percent, you know, behind the leasing of this land by Public Property from the Board of Education.
Thank you for your testimony. I would appreciate it if Councilman Nutter could enlighten the record as to the specific intricacies of this lease arrangement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 23 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000315 This bill, 315, represents a unique opportunity, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, at two different locations, but for the same reason, at 29th and Chalmers, of which there is another bill pending before the Council with regard to the naming of the field -- that's not this particular bill, but the City of Philadelphia has already invested over $150,000 at this site already to create the ball fields that Mr. Wynder and Mr. Ashley discussed as well as the picnic areas. This will ensure the use at that site for a long period of time. I appreciate Commissioner Perez's support for this as well. We are proceeding with a Phase II at this particular site. The Recreation Department has been very supportive. There is a building on this property. The Residents Coalition and RAH and North Penn, under the leadership of the late Van Thomas, had already started renovations to that building. They've developed a relationship with the Recreation Department to maintain the building and go forward. We also expect to have site improvements to the exterior of this property underway, at least the conceptual plan underway, 24 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000315 very shortly. With regard to the Roxborough High portion of this, this is also a unique relationship between the City of Philadelphia, the School District, and a private person who has stepped forward to have a complete renovation of the track at Roxborough High. The total cost of that project is $1.2 million. The City of Philadelphia is supporting it at the total sum of $400,000, the School District has $400,000, and the private party has put up $400,000. This lease arrangement allows the City to officially contribute its funding to this project because we now have, or will have, a relationship with the School District at that particular site. That's the history behind both of these, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. Are any there questions of these witnesses from members of the committee?.
Good afternoon once again. 25 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000315
And to God be the honor and the glory. There were just a couple of concerns that we did have with respect to the transfer. As you know, Ralph has stated our history up there and our commitment to that land and to the improvement of that land. At present, as Councilman Nutter acknowledged, we are preparing for July 1 a day of memorial services on behalf of our former -- our president Van R. Thomas. There were certain maintenance requests that were placed in existence with respect to that building, specifically being the roof, the outside restroom areas, there was some weeding that needed to be cut along the Chalmers Avenue and Lehigh Avenue side. Our concern was, once this transfer is initiated, at that point in time, who then would have the jurisdiction to remedy these requests?
It will be the Recreation Department's responsibility. And I, based on our conversation the other day, have started that process. This will be the Recreation 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000315 Department's responsibility?
Okay, great. And we should fall within that July 1 timeframe that we were pushing for?
We will do our best. There's a fair amount of work to be done.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, at the request of the community with regard to 29th and Chalmers, I will ask the City Solicitor's Office -- in Section 2, where it talks about certain documents and instruments to be filed and prepared under certain terms and conditions, the community requests that some language be incorporated in the larger document that reflects the history and the involvement by the community, and I will ask the City Solicitor's Office to amend those documents appropriately with the particular groups and organizations that we're talking about here today.
Is there anyone 27 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000341 else to testify on that bill? (No response.)
We will now move to Bill No. 000341, which is an ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, without consideration, a deed conveying fee simple title to a certain tract of City-owned land, with the buildings and improvements thereon situated in the vicinity of 47th and Market Streets, under and subject to the terms and conditions of the Philadelphia Industrial and Commercial Development agreement between the City, PAID, and the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Paul Deegan, and I represent PIDC and PAID. This bill authorizes the City to convey a 25,000 square foot parcel of land at 47th and Market to PAID. After conveying it to PAID, the property will be sold to Community Care and 28 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000341 Development Corporation, a developer of health care facilities. CCDC also owns the adjacent vacant lot to the east, which was purchased from the City on May 13, 1991, and has an agreement of sale with PAID for the lot immediately to the west, at 4700 to 4704 Market Street. That sale was authorized by City Council in December of 1999. Basically, this parcel was the bed of a street, and the street was stricken, but the parcel did not revert to the adjacent ownership, so it has to be dealt with separately in a separate bill. And that's basically the situation. He owns one side, he has an agreement for the other side of the street, the street's been stricken, so we just want to include the street in the total property, so it's really a little bit of housekeeping, just real estate housekeeping out there. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
Okay, thank you very much. Commissioner Perez? 29 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000341 COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Again, Commissioner Perez for the Department of Public Property expressing my support for this transaction and requesting that you give favorable action on this at your earliest opportunity. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. For the City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. My prepared testimony would only repeat what was already stated by Mr. Deegan, so just let me add for the record that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of June 1, 2000, recommended that Bill No. 341 be approved.
Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.) 30 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000352
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill 000352, which is an ordinance amending Bill No. 970833, approved June 25, 1998, entitled "An ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, without consideration, a deed conveying fee simple title to a certain tract of City-owned land, with the buildings and improvements thereon situate at the northwest corner of Fifth and Huntington Streets, and authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to enter into or to execute such other agreements, as may be necessary or desirable to effectuate the provisions of this ordinance, all under certain terms and conditions," by authorizing conveyance to the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia or the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation and by extending the term for compliance with the conditions to June 30, 2001. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Good afternoon, 31 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000352 Chairman Kenney. My name is an Andres Perez, the Commissioner of the Department of Public Property, and I'm here today in support of this bill. Council had previously approved this transaction. There was a performance timeline on that transaction which ran out before funding was complete, so we're here today asking for the amendment to extend the time on behalf of the organization. The organization is also represented here today for Council's interest. And, again, I ask for your favorable consideration at your earliest opportunity.
Thank you very much. Could you please identify yourself for the record.
Yes. My name is Jesse Bermudez, and I am the Executive Director and cofounder of the Asociacion de Musicos Latino Americanos. I want to thank everyone here for making it possible that I'm here to make this request to City Council. I do have some information on the organization that would talk a little bit about 32 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000352 the project, where it's at. There's some architectural drawings in there and also some information about our consultant which is helping us to revitalize that area where our project is going to be developed. One of the requests that I would like from City Council is that we -- you permit us to get an extension on this ordinance so that then we can take that and transfer the land to AMLA, and we would like that process to take place through PIDC, because we are constantly working with them already with the issue of State funding go we had received from the Governor.
Okay. Mr. Chapman, do you have anything to add to this?
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, once again, Thomas Chapman for the City Planning Commission. I would just add for the record that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of June 1, 2000, recommended that Bill 22 No. 352 be approved.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of 33 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000352 the committee? Let me recognize Councilmember Ortiz. Do you have a question or comment or a statement?
Just a comment, Mr. Chairman. L'Asociacion de Musicos Latino Americanos and I and other folks in the community have had a real dream of taking the association, together with the Puerto Rican Workshop, and making it an anchor of a cultural and arts business district type of situation. The governor, Governor Ridge, allotted a grant of $2 million, the City has put forward $1 million, which I think we have to look at how we can supplement that later on, because it will become not only a cultural center but also a school, a business to develop that whole area and really make it a real cultural center, together with (unintelligible) Puertoriqueno, and it's been in the makings now for over 20 years, and I hope that this is perhaps the last steps before we can begin construction.
Thank you very much. I wonder if we have an appropriate name 34 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000353 that we could dedicate this operation to, I guess, in the recent days since we've lost Mr. Puente.
Sure would. Anyone else have any questions? (No further questions.)
Thank you very much. Thank you for coming in. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
The next bill for consideration is Bill No. 000353, an ordinance 16 approving a third lease amendment agreement between Philadelphia Gas Works by Philadelphia Facilities Management Corporation soley in its capacity as operator and manager of the City-owned Philadelphia Gas Works and the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority for premises known as PGW Lot #1, located near the intersection of Delaware Avenue and Tioga streets. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. 35 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000353 Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Councilman Kenney and members of Council My name is Rajan Ramanujan, R-A-J-A-N, R-A-M-A-N-U-J-A-M.
I am the Director of Engineering and Facilities at the Philadelphia Gas Works. I'm here today in support of Bill No. 10 000353, which permits the third lease amendment to an existing lease between PGW and the Philadelphia Port Authority. The lease agreement pertains to a lease of 0.424 acres of land located at the intersection of Tioga Streets and Delaware Avenue. This is land that was a part of the old Richmond plant. Pursuant to it current lease with PGW, the Port Authority used this land for parking across the street from its office building located at the intersection of Delaware Avenue and Tioga Street. This lease amendment will extend the lease for an additional 40-year term, beginning as of July 1, 1999. However, the lease provides that PGW can terminate the lease at any time on 12 months' notice. 36 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000353 The lease amendment calls for the rental of $235 per month increased at on rate of $213.29 per month. We believe this to be a reasonable rental for the property in this area and have obtained an estimate of value from Robert Hess confirming this belief. In addition to rent, the Port Authority will continue to pay all utilities, maintenance, and taxes associated with the leasehold. PGW believes that this lease, as amended, is favorable to both PGW and the Port Authority for a number of reasons: PGW receives the benefit of income from an asset not currently being used for its operations; it enjoys the ability to recapture the use of the property on a year's notice, whenever the property's needed for operations; the Port Authority receives the benefit of a parking area for its employees. For these reasons, PGW desires to enter into the lease agreement and has received PFMC Board approval for the lease amendment. The Philadelphia Gas Commission has also recommended the approval of the lease amendment to Council. We also ask for a suspension of the 37 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000353 rules, as the chairman stated earlier. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have. I also have with me today a PGW legal department representative who can assist in answering any questions.
Thank you very much. Mr. Perez? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Again, Commissioner Perez for the Department of Public Property, and I'm here in support of Bill No. 353 and again ask the committee's favorable recommendation. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Councilmember Rizzo?
Commissioner Perez and also the representative of PGW, is there any interest in just selling this lot away rather than continuing with this lease arrangement? Why can't 38 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000353 there just be a permanent transaction occur where every so often you don't have to come back here? Is there any plan to use this in the future?
There is a good possibility that we might need this for future operations. That is why we don't want to give up the property.
Thank you very much. Any further questions? (No further questions.)
Thank you very much for your attendance. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none -- by the way, we're also going to -- on Bill 353, we're going do submit for the record a letter from James 39 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000414 T. McDermott, Jr., Executive Director of the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority also supporting this particular transaction and requesting its passage. Thank you very much. The next bill for consideration is Bill 7 No. 000414, which is an ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property and the Director of Commerce, on behalf of the City of the City of Philadelphia to convey to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development from time to time all or any portion of certain City-owned real estate in the vicinity of Red Lion Road, the Roosevelt Boulevard, under certain terms and conditions, subject to the Philadelphia Industrial and Commercial Development agreement among the City, PAID, and the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. Please identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Craig Schelter. I'm Executive Vice President of the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation and I'm here to testify in support of Bill No. 414. 40 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000414 This bill authorizes the City to convey portions of a 98-acre site of vacant land on the southwest side of Red Lion Road approximately 1100 east of Roosevelt Boulevard to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development. This is part of the Northeast Philadelphia Airport property, which is owned by the City and under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce Division of Aviation. This authorization is the first step in an extremely complex transaction, which I will describe in more detail later in my testimony. The goal line, however, is a July 2001 opening of a 1,015,000 square foot warehouse and distribution facility on a 67-acre site for a Fortune 200 company, creating 1100 new jobs in the City of Philadelphia and the creation of an additional 31-acre fully improved and marketable development site. This Fortune 200 company is the TJX Corporation, which is the parent corporation of TJMaxx, Marshall's, and Wright's. I'll add parenthetically to my written testimony, this is the largest number of new jobs created by a moving corporation in this city since 41 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000414 UPS came in the 1980s. So this is a very significant transaction. Initially, PAID will lease the 98-acre parcel from the City and sublease it to the developer Liberty Property Trust. During this initial lease term, an existing solid waste landfill on the property will be cleaned up and relocated to an adjacent area of the airport, in accordance with a plan approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. I'll add parenthetically, if you want me to go over any of this at the board, Paul Deegan has a site plan there, and he can point that out, but I'll go through my testimony, unless you've questions as I go along. The City's Water Department, in the late 1970s, created this permitted landfill and the Water Department is contributing $6 million to a total $12 million cleanup and relocation cost. 5 million. When the site cleanup is completed, PAID is authorized to sell or lease 67 acres of the site to Liberty Property Trust. They will construct a 1,015,000 square foot warehouse and distribution facility at a cost of 55 million. TJX Companies Incorporated, the owners of the TJMaxx and Marshall's, will occupy the facility, and they'll do this under a 20-year lease with two 7-year options. As I said earlier, this facility is projected to create 1500 new jobs, 1100 of which, the company is willing to guarantee, will be in place at the end of four years from the opening of the building. The sale of this land requires approval of the Federal Aviation Administration, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and the City's Director of Commerce -- and the City's Commissioner of Public Property as well, I should add. The FAA process is lengthy. So the development will begin under a lease from the City to PAID and a sublease between PAID and Liberty Property Trust. 43 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000414 With these approvals in place, PAID will be able to sell the property to the developer and continue the lease-sublease arrangement. The sales price will be $72,000 per acre, or a total of $4,824,000 for the 67 acres. This price is based on our current land sales for Northeast Industrial Parks for fully improved land. The City's Commerce and Law Departments have worked closely with PIDC, the Commonwealth, and Liberty Property Trust to bring this project to Philadelphia. TJX Companies has considered a number of East Coast sites for a major expansion for this operation. This would be their fifth such distribution facility nationally. They retained a real estate site selection firm based in Princeton, New Jersey, to conduct the search anonymously.
And so for several months, neither we, nor the City knew the identity of the company. We believe Philadelphia was selected for a number of reasons: Number one, location. This is a large, flat rectilinear site on Route 1, a major artery with easy access to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, I-95, and the Boston- Washington corridor. 44 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000414 Number two, the incentives. This site has been designated a Keystone Opportunity Zone by the Commonwealth, providing major tax incentives for the qualifying companies until January 1, 2011. Next, the labor market. This site is in the middle of a densely populated residential area of Northeast Philadelphia, providing a good labor supply of capable workers within easy commuting distance. Next, development expertise. Liberty Property Trust, selected by the client as the developer of the facility, has an impressive track record and portfolio of major industrial parks and office building development. And, finally, the City provided additional incentives to create a day care facility adjacent to the site and job training funds from the Workforce Development Corporation, formerly the Private Industry Council. Everyone involved in this negotiation -- the City, PIDC, the State, Liberty Property Trust -- is excited about bringing a development of this magnitude and economic impact to 45 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000414 Philadelphia. To take the next step, I ask that the committee consider the bill favorably, with a suspension of the rules to permit first reading at the next regularly scheduled meeting of Council. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you very much. Commissioner Perez, would you like to give your testimony and go from there. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Again, Commissioner Perez from the Department of Public Property, I'm here the to testify in support of Bill 414 and ask your favorable consideration.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of the committee? Councilman Rizzo?
Mr. Schelter, is it the norm in development around the airport that the process proceed before the Department of Transportation? In your testimony, you indicate 46 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000414 that the FAA process is lengthy. What would be the possibility that there would be a complication with this particular site? And the next part of that question is, is this facility in the -- will aircraft be flying directly and departing directly over this location?
Okay, the answer to the second question is no. That's an easy one. The first one takes a little bit longer. In this particular case, this is an unusual process for the City to dispose of airport property. And for that reason, what we did in this situation is, we structured this both as a lease and as a sale transaction. We're already in a position where we have signed the City, PAID, and PAID Liberty, and Liberty TJX, have signed leases that allow this project to go forward. And we could do that without FAA approval. However, Liberty prefers to have fee ownership of the parcel, and we would prefer to be able to offer fee ownership for the 31-acre parcel that remains after we do the TJX parcel. So that's why we're here today. 47 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000414 What we need to have before we can go to the FAA is the acknowledgment and approval of the local governing body that you're willing to sell this property. We have a number of steps that we're going through. I think we are confident that we will ultimately get that approval, but if we don't, we can always fall back on the 75-year lease.
And even though it's a great idea of position, is the positioning of a day care center desirable -- is this a desirable location to do that? You indicated that there's no departures and arrivals right over the site, but is still an exposure?
Right. Everything on this site, Councilman -- one we had to be very respectful of -- there's a cone of space that goes out away from the end of the runway, and all that had to be avoided, and that was done from the very beginning. The day care facility was a requirement of TJMaxx that there would be a facility that could accommodate a place for 200 children for the workers at TJX. So what we had to do was identify a 48 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000414 site -- and Mr. Deegan's pointing to that site. It's directly off of Red Lion Road -- to be reserved in case that was the site where Liberty chose to build. They may find existing facilities in the Northeast and choose to use those, but we have reserved this parcel just in case so that we have a fall-back, in which case, Liberty would build the day care facility in that location. But there's no airport danger to children. Also on that particular site, we made sure, when we laid out the site, we separated out car traffic from truck traffic so that they use separate entrances, so that both the Swenson Skills Center, which is immediately to the west, and the day care facility and the employee traffic would use one driveway, and the truck traffic would be further to the east, off of Red Lion and a separate access point.
My assumption is that the day care is primarily for the use of the employees' needs along with people from the 49 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000414 outside so I would I suspect it's an enhancement to the facility to have day care on site for its employees?
Fine thank you. Any more questions for these witnesses from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Are there any representatives from the company here today?
They're not, okay. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Thank you very much. Great job. The next bill is Bill No. 000370, an ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to enter into a sublease agreement with the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development for use by the City and affiliated agencies of office space located at 1401 Arch Street 50 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000414 Philadelphia, PA, under certain terms and conditions. Please identify yourself for the record. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Good afternoon, Chairman Kenney. I'm Commissioner Perez from the Department of Public Property and I'm here to testify today in support of Bill No. 370. This bill essentially permits us to amend a lease which Council earlier approved for the addition of another floor to the existing space for the D.A.'s office in the 1401 Arch building, amending it to incorporate two floors instead of one at the same rates and at the same terms and conditions. And I ask for your favorable consideration.
Thank you very much. Any questions for Commissioner Perez? (No questions.)
Seeing none, we 51 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 will now move to Bill No. 000147, which is an ordinance amending Title X of the Philadelphia Code relating to regulation of individual conduct and activity by amending Section 10-610, entitled "Skateboarding on Public Property," prohibiting skateboarding on all public property, unless otherwise authorized, and by creating additional penalties all under certain terms and conditions. Could I ask the panel Managing Director Martz, Inspector Tiano, Mr. Mifflin, Commissioner Perez Scott, Mr. Scott, and if Judge Cermele's here, I don't see him, but if there's someone representing Judge Cermele. . . He won't be hear today, okay. I would assume the Managing Director is going to be the lead?
Okay, great. Will there be other individuals on your panel testifying specifically?
Okay. Will each one be testifying, or you will be speaking for --
Well, I'll make a general 52 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 statement, and we're here to answer questions.
Fine, thank you. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good afternoon, Chairman Kenney and members of the Public Property Committee. I'm Joseph Martz, Managing Director of the City of Philadelphia. I've been asked here today to provide City Council with an overview of the impact that skateboarders who use the City Hall apron and JFK Plaza have on the City and its residents. Joining me this afternoon are: Police Inspector James Tiano of the Central Police Division; Mr. William Mifflin, Executive Director of the Fairmount Park Commission; Commissioner Andres Perez, Department of Public Property; Mr. Barry Scott, Director of Safety for the Office of Risk Management. As you're all well aware, teenagers regularly use JFK Plaza and the City Hall apron for skateboarding, which has caused some significant damage to both areas. In addition to the normal wear and tear on the pavement caused by skateboarding wheels, the maneuvers that are often 53 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 attempted have loosened railings and damaged stone steps in both areas. Damage was mainly caused by the undercarriages of skateboards scraping and chipping off stone edges and corners of the custom granite facades. Skateboarders also routinely move objects, such as benches and trash receptacles, to create obstacle courses, damaging both the pavement and the objects. Specifically, skateboarders in JFK Plaza have damaged the stone fountain rim, the stone steps, terrace areas, portions of the retaining walls, and pavements, as well as the park benches and trash receptacles. In City Hall's perimeter area, similar damage has been done to railings on steps and the granite pavers that make up the City Hall apron. According to the Capital Program Office, the cost estimate for replacement and repair work in JFK Plaza and the City Hall apron total $900,000: approximately 700,000 for JFK Plaza and 200,000 for City Hall. And I would just like to add parenthetically that they are hard costs; there are, obviously, soft costs such as design fees and things like that that go along 54 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 with it that, I believe, would take that number well over a million dollars. Included in my written testimony is a chart detailing theses costs. In addition to the financial impact of skateboarding in JFK Plaza and City Hall, the aggressive present tactics used by skateboarders at these venues unnecessarily startle pedestrians and have caused some collisions. Despite an ordinance that prohibits skateboarding in these areas, skateboards create a nuisance to passersby on a daily basis that I believe negatively impacts the quality of life on people who live and work in Center City. The City also recognizes the need to provide teenagers with a place to skateboard. Through its Redevelopment Authority, the City is currently investing $20,000 to upgrade the Fairmount Commission's skateboarding area in Roosevelt Park. This concludes my testimony, and thank you very much. We're available to answer questions.
Thank you, Mr. 55 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 Martz. Mr. Mifflin, do you have anything to add to the testimony today? And Commissioner Perez?
I think basically, Councilman, I will answer questions, but I will just add to my bit of testimony to Director Martz in that we fully support legislation that would give us the opportunity to maintain public property with the Park Commission. We understand and support actually skateboarding as an approved recreational activity; however, we do not believe it is an appropriate activity in the public areas in Center City or in any public area but in designated areas for skateboarding.
All right. So your testimony is -- and I would certainly add to the record that I don't think the City has taken a particular posture that we are against skateboarding.
It's a recognized sport, it has certainly a high level of talent and ability that are required to do it. 56 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 The issue here today is one more of where is the appropriate place to engage in this activity. There are some appropriate places, there are some inappropriate places, and in many of our public places that were not built for skateboarding, we are experiencing significant damage. Is that a fair assessment?
Okay. Inspector, would you give us police experience on this. INSPECTOR TIANO: I've been in the division for about ten years now. I was the captain of the Ninth District.
Inspector, please identify yourself for the record. INSPECTOR TIANO: Inspector James Tiano, Central Police Division Commander. In my ten years in Central, I received numerous calls from citizens. Senior citizens made up a majority of the calls. They were very fearful when they walked through to pay their real estate water bills, young men are flying in the air and they don't react like they did when they 57 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 were younger, so sometimes they're very startled by the people on skateboards. To be honest with you, the enforcement has been very limited because it's intensive. I have Captain Giadetti (ph.) to my left, in the Concourse Unit. When we do enforce it -- and it's not on and everyday basis -- normally, it would take about four police officers to seal off the area, 'cause if one police officer goes into the park, they're gone.
Continue, Inspector, please. INSPECTOR TIANO: We wrote up about a thousand code violation notices in 1999 and I would say the majority of the people that we wrote up do not live in the City. About 70 percent don't live in the City.
Could say that again please? I'm sorry, inspector. What were those statistics again? INSPECTOR TIANO: About 1,000 code violation notices.
Right. And what was the breakdown? 58 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 INSPECTOR TIANO: About 65 percent live outside the City. What we found from the youngsters we talked to, this spot, the John F. Kennedy Plaza, is a renowned skateboarder spot. It's listed in their magazines and videos. And, in fact, the officer to my right, Ed, will tell you that he's talked to people from foreign countries that when they're close by, like New York or so, they come here because it's just a renowned spot.
Is it true that the plaza is also listed on the Internet? INSPECTOR TIANO: Yes, it is.
Okay. Officer, can you share with us your -- you have a direct assignment over there? OFFICER SHAUNAGHER: My name is Shaunagher (ph.), and I'm assigned to the concourse unit. And what we do, like the inspector said, about four of us, we go up to JFK Plaza and we attempt to stop skateboarders from skateboarding. When we do stop them, they're issued violations, they're told of the damage 59 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 that's occurring, and they're requested to leave the area. And most times, they do. And, like the inspector said, most of them are from out of town. We've stopped people as far as from England that pick it up off the Internet and want to come to Love Park to skate. It's world-renowned and everybody states that it is the best spot to skate.
Now, Commissioner Mifflin, can tell us a little bit about the history of JFK Plaza, also commonly known as "Love Park." When was it built and why was it built?
It was -- construction was begun in 1965 and it was completed in approximately 1967. Unfortunately, I don't know the cost of that construction. It was handled actually at that point by the Department of Public Property. But upon completion of the park, which was to cover a garage below grade, it became the responsibility of the Fairmount Park Commission for maintenance and management, and it has had that responsibility since 1967. Today, it is prohibited to skateboard 60 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 in JFK Plaza by vert of the Fairmount Park rules and regulations, as it is in any area of Fairmount Park, unless it is so permitted by the Fairmount Park Commission, and it is not -- a permit has not been issued for skateboarding in JFK Plaza. We are responsible for the floral decorations and the maintenance of the fountain in the plaza. Both its capital improvements and its operating budget needs are the responsibility of the Fairmount Park Commission. Most recently, we have assigned park rangers to the plaza, specifically to assist the Philadelphia Police Department in the prohibition of skateboarding in the plaza. And within the last six months, we have also issued 200 code violation notices as well.
Mr. Martz, can you tell us a little bit about the park built at FDR Park, when that was done, if you have any estimate of what the present facility costs. I notice your testimony indicated an additional $20,000 upgrade.
I actually will ask Bill to answer that because it is a Fairmount Park property. 61 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147
The skateboard park in FDR Park it was constructed in FY '98 for a total cost at that time of $40,000. Much of the work was done in-house, and the public dollars were actually used for the purchase of materials and supplies. And it's quite actually remarkable, and it's something that I am proud to point to, that it's quite frankly the way parks are supposed to work. The City, through the Park Commission, put in the initial improvements, and the users have expanded the facility probably three times the original size of the park. We believe it is actively used. We do not staff the park daily. We have staff that work in the park and they, with their other responsibilities in the park, will pay some level of attention to it. It works well. The youth use it. They have recently organized a friends group of the skateboard park, which we have encouraged and as a sister organization to the Friends of FDR Park. We've begun to recognize and we're working together not only for the operation of the park, but the capital improvements so that the City 62 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 funds, through the RDA, will be a wonderful assist, I think, in improving that park.
But it's not a -- excuse me. It's not a panacea, unfortunately, to solve all of the skateboard issues on other public properties in the park. The rangers, as well as the Philadelphia Police Department, have brochures which explain the park. In FDR Park, when we come upon skateboarders in JFK or here at the City Hall apron, explain how to get there, it is accessible through public transportation.
And the construction of that facility -- and, you know, whether people think it is low-level, medium-level, I mean, I'm not an expert in this particular area but, I mean, I certainly would not say that it's the most beautiful facility around, but it was an attempt by the City to respond to this issue when it arose, I believe, in the '93-'94 time period. Mayor Rendell, I think, asked for a hold or a suspension on enforcement at JFK Plaza until there was a facility constructed. It also may not be at a premiere 63 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 location and whether we could find another site that is either more accessible, larger, better built, those certainly remain options that the City can take. But, again, I would say the issue here today is whether or not you have inappropriate activity going on in certain space that was not built for that particular reason. Can you tell us a little bit about -- there was a story in the Inquirer dated April 30th, a Sunday story, about plans for JFK Plaza and Love Park and other public space in terms of upgrade to facilities as well as any problems that you've experienced in finding products or cleaners to deal with the markings that are left, I believe, from the wax on the skateboard wheels and other parts of the skateboard.
Mm-hmm. Well, the plans for JFK Plaza include both short-term and long-term plans. I'm not familiar this morning with the April 30th article. I recall reading it, but I couldn't recite it this morning. The short-term efforts are basically to reclaim the park, and the prohibition of skateboarding in JFK Plaza, I think, goes along 64 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 the lines of reclaiming the park on a short-term basis. Long-term, there's the issue of the Convention Visitors Bureau building and the future of that building. It's the use of the park by local residents. As you can see, we have development occurring now in the old former Cigna in a building. This will be there front yard basically. So we have interest in developers in ensuring that the park is well-maintained and protected and enhanced. It's always been a center for visitors, regardless of what happens to the visitor center building. Our park trolleys start there and take people on tours of the park and to the Art Museum and such, so it has a very important role in the way the City is perceived by our residents as well as visitors. And I'm sorry, Councilman, your second question with regard to the April 30th --
Solutions and cleaners dealing with the granite and the markings.
Thank you. 65 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 Actually, the Historic Preservation Trust, along with support from the University of Pennsylvania, has just recently found what we think is the best cleaning concoction, and it's just that. It's a mix of simple green and some other more abrasive detergents. We've worked with the Art Commission and the Public Art Office to ensure that the use of this material is not toxic and would not damage the granite pavers. And on a limited basis, it does seem to be working. It's going to take some elbow grease. It's not the type of thing go that you can just in and spray like a power wash. The first application, you really have to scrub. So we're in the process of doing just. We think once we clean, it the wax buildup from the undercarriage of the skateboard has basically sealed in the black mark from the skateboard itself. So we're first removing the wax and then getting to the grime. And we're optimistic that we'll see improvements there from a cleanliness standpoint. But there is, nevertheless, some damaged material there that should be replaced. 66 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147
Councilman, if I could, I just -- we have to do the same type of removal on both the apron of City Hall and the Municipal Services Building. As you all know, we did a $43 million renovation to the Museum Municipal Services Building back in fiscal '95 that included about $135,000 of art work on the plaza of City Hall. We had to take that art work down and send it all out there. It's essentially $73,000 worth of damage to that art work that has been removed and is being repaired right now as a result of skateboarding on the MSB Plaza.
Mr. Martz, could you, in addition to Love Park, Dilworth Plaza, Municipal Services Building Plaza, are there other areas throughout the City that are publicly owned that have experienced the same -- or maybe not the same level of attention but attention from skateboarding and skateboarding enthusiasts?
Recently, Councilman, as you well know, we completed paving improvements to Washington Square, and my staff has reported that they have witnessed skateboarding activity. We do 67 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 have skateboarding activity on what we refer to as the I-95 park. This would be near Front and Spruce, the old abandoned fountain that was placed there for the Bicentennial, and next to that is the Philadelphia Vietnam Veterans Memorial. We had an incident of skateboarding there, but I believe that has not been repeated, but we're fairly vigilant about checking that memorial.
And although it's not in your direct control or purview, Penn's Landing, is --
Okay. Any other areas aware that you're aware of, Commissioner Perez? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: No. 19
Part of the problem in the City's effort, I think, a couple years ago to find alternative sites for this activity I think has met with some resistance. I do believe, although I'm not an expert in this area, but part of what is the attraction is the natural urban landscape and facilities that are there now as 68 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 opposed to the construction of a faux urban landscape, I think is as best I can put it, that always, there will be an attraction for public plazas, public buildings, granite, and those type of materials, despite what we may put into skateboard park underneath I-95 at Roosevelt Park or anywhere else, even though it may get used, and I'm not saying that it doesn't, but it probably doesn't get used, obviously, anywhere near the level that we'd like it because we still have problems on public property. I mean, I'm wondering whether or not you think that no matter what we create in an artificial way would keep people from wanting to use the natural urbanscape that's in public parks.
That's a real possibility. My understanding, it seems lately, is that the real interest is in being in Center City. And, you know, it's just very difficult for us to keep up on those public spaces. I mean, you know, we have limited resources with which to go back and try to fight the grime that comes along with all of this. 69 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147
What is it about the granite pavers that seem to -- I mean, granite, in my experience, seems to be a pretty sturdy commodity. Is it the way pavers are laid, is it the way they're put together that the creates the cracks?
The pavers are set on small corners, pins. There are four pins in each of the pavers. So when you come down on it, you're distributing the weight in a single force against the way, you know, those four corners that hold it all in place. So there's not a lot of support there to handle a person's weight, and when it comes down with that kind of force, it absolutely decimates the paver.
Councilwoman Blackwell had indicated she had a question.
Thank you very much. I have just two questions. One is, what is the cost of the amount of cleanup that this requires; do you know, do you have any figures to that amount?
We've just started the cleanup effort, Councilwoman, and I'm certain when 70 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 I'm finished the initial scrubbing so to speak, just in direct labor costs -- and I'm doing this with seasonal employees -- will probably come close to $10,000.
And you can add to that, Councilwoman, probably similar costs at both the Municipal Services Building and City Hall.
All righty. Well -- so at this point, it hasn't cost us a lot in dollars. Why can't we, Mr. Chairman, meet with some of these young people? Apparently, a lot of young people want to do it 'cause they're all here. Can't we find -- have a discussion with them to work out some place that is amenable to all sides? Can we try to do that?
Well, I just want to add, if you don't mind, Councilwoman, that the cost that we're talking about are actual cleanup costs. There are considerable costs that come with the 71 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 damage to the pavers and the furniture in all of these public plazas. So we've identified $900,000 in costs that is as a result of the skateboarders using it.
I just wanted to add to both Councilman Kenney's comment and yours now, Councilwoman, that the Park Commission, quite frankly, would be delighted to work with the leadership of the skateboarders community as we move to improvements to the FDR Park. We believe that it's building in momentum and it's building in interest. It's something new that just -- it just took us a couple of years, and there are a few young people in the audience this afternoon who were with us four year and five years ago, when we opened the park and are still there and have actually brought a number of the improvements to it. So it would be foolish for the City to 72 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 go ahead and design something or build something without the input of the users and of the community. I just have to tell you, there's not a lot of communities in the City that would be pleased to have a skateboard park -- for whatever reasons -- in their community. And I think FDR Park really works well. There are some in the audience and others who think we should build an indoor skateboard facility for them and, you know, certainly to the extent that I can participate in discussions like that, I will do that.
Do you communicate at all with any of the similar people in your position throughout the region, as far as Montgomery, Delaware County, Bucks, Chester, New Jersey?
They don't have the extent that -- the counties that you've just mentioned really don't have the skateboard -- the level of skateboard issues that we have. However, other cities -- and I've traveled and when I met 73 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 with my peers around the country, they are all facing similar issues, and most have enacted legislation which prohibits skateboarding in public spaces, particularly in downtown areas.
Do you know if there is similar prohibitive legislation in the surrounding five-county area?
I know that there has been interest from other counties who are looking to what Philadelphia's doing. I believe there are similar but I -- and I could certainly -- I'd be pleased, through the Pennsylvania Parks and Recreation Society, to find out specifically what immediate or adjacent counties have similar issues. This is a big park and recreation issue, it really is. Skateboarding is not something that's been ignored.
Mr. Chairman, while they're coming forward, let me thank the 74 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 director for that. I tell you, you learn about so many sports. I met yesterday and learned that he had met with people regarding disk golf, which I had never heard of, that they want to do in the park. But it seems to me that Philadelphia, being "the city that loves you back," that if we work hard, we can come up with something. You know, we don't want it to be like the age of liquor being -- and repealing a law. We don't want to enact legislation that's not abided by or not agreed to by all parties and then we just deal with the enforcement. I think it gives a negative attitude. Since the Fairmount Park director said he's willing to work with some of the young people who are interested in doing that, to come up with something that's amenable. I don't know if the sponsor of the legislation and the chairman would be amenable to us having that and trying to come up with something that everybody can live with, as opposed to immediately passing legislation. That would be my recommendation but, certainly, I'll abide by the majority of the wishes of the committee. 75 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147
I don't think that that necessarily would be a bad idea, as long as there would be an agreement to a moratorium on skateboarding on public surfaces until we come up with some appropriate agreement or conciliation. I think to stop this process, while at the same time having the other side not contain their activity on public property, I think would be somewhat a one-sided agreement or arrangement.
Well, if we know who the leaders would be, maybe we can ask the question before the hearing's over, then that would be okay.
The question regarding -- and I think Councilman Nutter has some additional questions about risk management. Has the City received any lawsuits as a result of injuries occurred, for example, in Love Plaza by someone who has lost a skateboard and has cracked 76 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 an ankle or knocked someone over? I mean, are we being sued because of the activity that people may incur injury on public property because of this activity?
Mr. Chairman, my name is Barry Scott, I'm the Director of Safety and Loss Prevention of the City's Risk Management Division. To date, we have not received any substantial claims or litigation as a result of injury relating to skateboarding in the Love Park area or on other City properties right here in downtown. We've been very fortunate in terms of not having any significant claims experience in this area.
Mr. Scott, as the Director of Public Safety for Risk Management, can you give us either your official position or your professional perspective on your concern as a risk management person on this particular activity and the prospect of potential liability for the City?
Certainly. We are very concerned about the situation in Love Park. It does get a lot of use, there are many, many 77 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 pedestrians who pass through the park each day. The activity of skateboarding at various times is intense and the potential for injuries to pedestrians during the course of passing through the park is something that we believe is significant at many times during the day, and the potential for injury could be severe. We're also not able to identify some, what could be possible damage -- or claims against the City related to damage to the structures in the park, which also could be significant. So the fact that we've got a lot of people going very fast as others are trying to use the park and sightsee, and as you all knows, it's a beautiful vista there. People are not always paying attention necessarily to those going around them very fast as they're trying to enjoy the vista. So the potential for injury and loss is significant at this location.
Let me note that during the -- we don't have many homeless there anymore since we have the sidewalk control 78 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 bill, which we're all aware of, but, I mean, we've had in the Love Park seniors who come in town, who sit around and enjoy their afternoon, homeless people who are -- some are clean, some are not. We've had visitors who come, we've had kids skateboarding, and there have not been any problems. And Love Park is a really unique place. (Applause.)
And it's a special place in our city because it's a microcosm of all that we are, and I hope that we can preserve that nature. And in terms of -- I'm not surprised that you say we haven't had any cases of liability because it's just one of those unique places that just works, and I think it's one of the places we can be most proud of, and I hope that we would find a way to preserve its integrity. (Applause.)
Thank you. Many of the questions that I had have 79 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 been somewhat addressed, and I was concerned about the construction of the FDR facility, whether there was some interaction between the skateboard community, because if it's a knockoff of something that's not fun and it's not going to be as challenging, obviously, we know why they don't get there, but if it's just the fact that they want to be in Center City around people, they can see what they're doing and are pretty much performing for others, then I can understand why they're out here. I guess my question should be to the Managing Director. Do we know how the private sector deals with this issue? We're concerned about the costs associated with public property, the plazas that we've discussed today. If a particular business or shopping mall or a --
Councilman, we have a private sector panel that's scheduled to testify, people who represent owners or own Commerce Square and the Bell Atlantic Tower and 1601 Market, so. . .
That's good to know. But I guess my question would be, would the 80 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 Philadelphia Police Department respond presently with the ordinances that are presently available to ask a person to move or stop skateboarding on their property?
Jim's down here all the time, so he's a good person to ask. INSPECTOR TIANO: I did see in the audience Mr. Bob Martin, from Bell Atlantic, 1717 Arch. In my years in Center City, many, many calls from his organization about the damage done behind the building and other buildings, and also the Art Commission has called us and very numerous members of Council have called my office about the skateboarding. Again, we're very limited. Our enforcement there is very limited.
But can you, by law, by ordinance, ask a skateboarder to leave if the property owner makes a complaint? INSPECTOR TIANO: Yes, if it's private property and they have signs "No Trespassing," sure.
What was the -- what was the relevance other than just statistical of 81 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 pointing out City residents versus out-of- towners? INSPECTOR TIANO: I was asked, you know, to give an idea of who's coming down.
It's really not relevant. INSPECTOR TIANO: No, it's not relevant, just a statistic.
I would argue it's relevant to this particular Councilmember when City taxpayers' dollars are being used to repair and replace public property, at the damage done by suburbanites who no longer live in the City and whose parents may have moved out of the City to avoid being City residents, who come in on the R5 or on the 69th Street el to damage -- not to intentionally damage, but the result of what they do to damage property, to have myself and my neighbors pay the freight to have that stuff replaced. To me, it's extremely relevant, so I'm glad he raised it 'cause I was going to raise it myself. I think if I were to conduct something 82 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 that I like to do in a suburban -- what if I like to ride a 4-by-4 or an off-road bike of some kind in suburban Montgomery County, you could be assured that I will be nabbed by the Lower Merion police, hauled off with my bike and myself and pay a significant fine for doing so. So it is relevant to this particular Councilmember that City taxpayers are paying scarce dollars to replace equipment and to clean up things that suburban residents are coming in to do.
And keep in mind that the suburban residents also pay wage tax.
Well, the suburban residents have a choice not to pay the wage tax, and that is, they can work in the suburban community where they live, and if they can find a job making the hourly rate that they make in Philadelphia by working at the Deptford Mall, then God bless them, but I doubt that that's the case. The thing that I have found with that particular argument is that people work in Philadelphia because it is in their best interests to work in Philadelphia, and if they could find a job and a 83 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 house in the suburbs, they'd do both.
I don't want to get into a debate with the Chairman, but it's relevant that we have people from the suburbs coming to work here and, hopefully, some day they might move here. Thank you.
Well, they come to work here for their own benefit, because they drive up Broad Street, park in South Philadelphia at metered spots all day long, and use the subway and come to work in Center City, and then take their dollars home to their suburban communities to buy their groceries and spend their dollars, so I think that is relevant, Frank.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to do a follow-up around code violations. There's been information provided about that. Could you elaborate on first the scale of the code violations and -- answer that 84 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 question and then I have a couple others. You said that there were about 1,000 in 1999. INSPECTOR TIANO: Yes, ma'am.
When you say "code violations," define what that means, tickets? INSPECTOR TIANO: Well, yeah. It looks like a parking ticket, it's a code violation notice. It would be something you might give out to people who violate the trash rules or maybe a dog defecating on a highway, that kind of thing. It's a very minor thing that charges $25.
Okay. Now, when you document these code violations, have you discovered in your analyses of the information you have, are these repeat offenders or do young people then respond responsively and you get new young people who want to adventure on Love Park? Do you follow me? INSPECTOR TIANO: The information you ask, I would have to get from the Bureau of Adjudication on Filbert Street. That's who would be collecting the fine. But from talking to the captain and the officer from the concourse, they do have repeat offenders. 85 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Martz, I guess you would probably be the appropriate person to ask this question. The recreation centers, are there currently regulations associated with skateboards at recreation centers?
Is it okay to skateboard on a recreation center's property?
Only, Councilman, only in designated skateboarding areas within that 86 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 recreation center property. So it's somewhat similar to the Fairmount Park regulations. Unless it is permitted by the agency, then it is prohibited.
Do we have any recreation centers that have designate skateboard areas or skateboard rinks or anything like that?
I do not believe we have any skateboard rinks, per se. I honestly -- I'm certain we don't.
All right. The reason I ask that question kind of goes back to the decision to locate the I-95 skateboard rink, or whatever you want to call it, is -- candidly, people will tell you that a lot of the skateboarders, and I think it's our belief, that a lot of the skateboarders want to be in a highly visible site, and that's probably the least visible site, under I-95, and I'm wondering what kind of decision-making process took place to locate it there. And if that is in fact the case, as it relates to visibility, I was wondering if 87 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 there was any thought to possibly locating some of these rinks at some of these recreation centers where you have high levels of visibility with people continually being around these recreation centers, as an alternative.
What we liked -- what the City and the Fairmount Park Commission liked about FDR Park was the public transportation and the fact that it is a park. It's almost a regional park. Although there's not a swimming pool there today, there are athletic fields, it's a site of special e, vents there's a museum. And for those who wish to come for a park experience, we've now added a skateboard park. So, although when you look at it, it does look to be off to the side and sort of out of -- it's clearly not 15th and JFK Plaza, but there's a lot of activity that occurs there in the park. And as I indicated, there is some interest from the skateboarding community to either expand it or to build a facility for themselves. Now, they realize that facility for themselves would not be at 15th and JFK, so I think the issue of the phenomena of performing in 88 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 front of the public, there is certainly something to be said about that, but I think that was much more prevalent in 1995 and 1996 when we started this facility, quite frankly, than it is today. And just by evidence of the folks who are using the skateboard park in Fairmount Park, it is becoming more popular. And that's why we support legislation that will prohibit it on public property.
So we, more or less, are catering to the individuals who take the public transportation, as Councilman Kenney said, the R5, the people who kind of come into the city, and we're catering to that population at I-95. The reason I ask that question is because, contrary to popular belief, there are a lot of young individuals who skateboard in neighborhoods throughout the City of Philadelphia, but they tend to skateboard in their own neighborhood. In my neighborhood, kids skateboard up and down the street all the time, in the street sometimes, causing problems with traffic, vehicular traffic, but we don't have any skateboard facilities in any of those recreation 89 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 centers.
Part of my willingness to get involved in this is so that we could discuss this as part of our normal capital appropriations process. We should talk about whether or not it's appropriate in district rec centers, you know, throughout the City to take this into consideration in future years. And we're certainly willing to do that.
Yeah. I mean, if there's going to be -- if somehow this legislation passes and there is a ban and people feel that some uses are taken away, the possibility of creating some opportunities or some alternatives at some of these recreation centers, that, A, will give people visibility; B, will give people an opportunity to skateboard, the individuals who are coming into the communities; and, C, the kids who actually live in those communities now have an opportunity to skateboard in a safe environment, so I was wondering if we could get some thought to that.
I think it's appropriate. I mean, you see a lot more hockey rinks and things 90 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 like that going up in our recreation facilities today, and maybe it's an appropriate thing to do, and we should - that's why we're volunteering here to participate in that process with you.
And possibly, I mean, also allow the R5 people to come into the communities and find out how all of us live out in the neighborhoods, as opposed to just in Center City.
Thank you. Just as a follow-up to Councilman Clarke's concern about the recreation facilities, I'd like to note for the record that Section 19 10-610-1-B makes specific reference to the Recreation Department facilities are exempt from this particular bill. They are not covered in any way, shape, or form. They remain subject to the rules and regulations, as promulgated by the Recreation Department for their facilities. So we are not prohibiting skateboarding 91 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 at recreation facilities; they are untouched by this bill.
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Thank you very much. Is Miss Grace Reading in the room, Mr. Geist, Mr. Martin, Mr. Duckmann? (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Grace Redden, the President of BOMA, in Philadelphia. Good afternoon, Chairman Kenney.
Councilman Nutter, and members of the Committee of Public Property and Public Works, and all members of City Council. My name is Grace Redden, and as president of Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) of 92 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 Philadelphia, I would like to present testimony on the proposed amendment to Bill No. 179. BOMA was founded in 1916 and represents over 500 members who own or manage approximately 1 million square feet of commercial properties or provide services and supplies to properties in the tristate area. It is also one of more than 100 local associations, with 17,000 members, who own or manage over 8. 5 billion square feet of downtown and suburban commercial properties and facilities in North America and abroad. BOMA supports the proposed amendment to Bill No. 179. We strongly agree that the current regulations need to be expanded to prohibit the use of skateboards and in-line skates on private property without the express permission of the building owner. We interpret the bill not to be a ban on skateboarding in Philadelphia, but to ensure pedestrian safety and to eliminate damage to property both public and profit by the misuse of a skateboard by an individual. The owners and managers of buildings in Center City have much invested in their properties and to have further financial burdens placed upon them time and time 93 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 again by such recklessness and disrespect is unjust and unsafe. We urge you to implement the proposed amendment, thereby stopping continuous damage by skateboarding. I have a list of the building members and owners in the Center City area that have experienced damage or repairs to their properties in Center City. You will see it's a diversified group of owners. 1600 Market Street, $8,000 annually, owned by HRPT Management. 1601 Market Street, $8,000 annually, owned by Equity Office Properties. 1700 Market Street, EOP Market Street LTD Partnership, $10,000 annually. One and Two Commerce Square, Thomas Partner Group, $20,000 annually. 1818 Market Street, $6,000 annually. The Wanamaker Building, $2,000 annually. This is an ongoing either capital or operating expense by many of the owners in Center City, and I do have with me today Bob Martin, who's the property manager at Bell Atlantic Tower 94 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 who has experienced the most damage and replacement due to the skateboarding.
My name is Robert Martin. I am the property manager of the Bell Atlantic Tower, located at 1717 Arch Street, and I would like to present testimony on the proposed amendment to Bill No. 179. The Bell Atlantic Tower is a $1 million, 200,000 square foot office building, which opened in 1990. As part of this office building development, we construct a very attractive public plaza to the north of the building. The plaza is appointed with landscaping, granite pavers, and polished granite coping stones defining walkways and planted areas. These polished granite coping stones have been subject to much damage from skateboarders. We have attempted several methods to deter the skateboarders: posting of signs, additional security patrols on the plaza, police protection during prime times, installation of granite blocks to reduce attractiveness of the granite caps, all 95 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 to little or no avail. We continue to incur damage to the coping stones. We have also installed another type of prevention device along the Cherry Street side of the property where significant damage has occurred. All told, we have expended an estimated $75,000 to date in extra security, damage repair, and prevention devices. At the Bell Atlantic Tower, we need the City's help to regulate this activity and preserve our investment in fine public areas. We support the proposed amendment to Bill 179. We strongly agree that the current regulations need to be expanded to prohibit the use of skateboards and in-line skates on private property without the express permission of the property owner. Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.
Thank you for your testimony. Any questions for these witnesses? Councilman Nutter.
Mr. Martin and Miss Redden, thank you again. 96 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 You heard the testimony earlier from the panel and even some of the comments and concerns expressed by Councilmembers. Your primary concern again is your buildings or facilities or plazas were built for a particular use and purpose, not either necessarily or not particularly for the skateboarding use; and while you may have your own feelings about skateboarding in general, you're primarily just trying to protect your property. Is that the issue?
Any other question for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Thank you very much for coming in and for waiting. Mr. Nims. Mr. Lathrop, Mr. Kalis, Mr. Vonhartleben, Mr. McDonald. If any of those people are in the room, please come forward. (Witnesses come forward.)
Whoever's interested in getting started, if you could first start by identifying yourself for the record and 97 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 proceed.
My name is Shane Vonhartleben. I live here in Philadelphia. I have for several years. I own a skateboard store that I've had for about eight years now. I've been skateboarding for fifteen years, and I wanted to speak first on behalf of the skateboarders because I am one. My opinion basically is to keep things simple. I've heard a lot of statements, I've heard a lot of questions and answers, none of which have come from a skateboarder thus far, so that's why I want to speak first. All of these people here, they know what it's like because they've been there. I've personally been there for 15 years, 15 years of skateboarding all through the City. Having these problems become as serious as they are right now and hearing the money value that's been damaged, I don't know if these are excessive numbers, I don't have receipts, I don't 98 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 have proof of that, of course. But in respect to those numbers, if there had been something done through the users, as opposed to letting it build to such an explosion right now, a million dollars easy that I've heard quoted here in damages, comparing that to what has been done for skateboarding, I have on paper, on receipt in quote an estimated $30,000 that have been invested towards skateboarding. And that, of course, is FDR Park. And everyone here knows FDR Park. But the question is, why are people still skateboarding in the City and in Love Park, and why hasn't this $30,000 investment not saved thousands of dollars of damage that will soon turn into more damage? That answer is pretty easy, in my eyes, and perhaps in most skateboarders' eyes. If go to Love Park and you skateboard and you say, All right, these are obstacles that I enjoy skateboarding, these are really good modern street skating obstacles, but then you go to FDR, which, I was there in '94, designing the park with professional skateboarders that I sponsored. The design of the park that we came up 99 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 did not get done. In reality, the amount that did get done -- the foundation from the start was wrong. We were granted space that we're thankful for, we are very thankful for, but space right off the bat was paved without being level, it was a non-level surface to begin with, and I don't want to dwell on certain things. But, regardless, it was $30,000 invested to that park, and it was invested in means of not, you know, being comparative to Love Park. So right then and there, that was a mistake. Sure, skateboarders at that point took it on their own interest to invest money and time to build obstacles the way that specific skateboarders wanted, you know, to ride. Other skateboarders, obviously the ones that are still in Love Park or City Hall or wherever, they're skateboarding the obstacles that never got produced at FDR Park, it was never duplicated. So that's why the problem remains. I feel like I could speak hours on specifics, and I don't want to take up everyone's time, but I guess the issue at hand is, what are you wanting to do with these skateboarders? 100 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 You're giving them fines, there's all kinds of issues. Primarily it's to correct a mistake, you know, that was made before. One, we're only given one park. If I play basketball, I can play bask all over the City, all over the City. I can't go and skateboard all over the City. Actually, you're trying to stop me from being able to skateboard out my front door to go to Wawa to get something to drink, to do anything that I want to do. That's transportation. I own a car, I own a motorcycle. I'm not going to choose to leave my house to go down the street to a local store with those transportation devices. Should I walk? I think I should be able to skateboard.
You're trying to ban skateboarding in all areas, I'm told, specific areas.
Public places. There's people that are sitting here right now that have been cited all over the City. 101 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 But like I said, I don't want to go into, you know, complete depths of things, but what I'm saying what I feel is needed right now is two, three additional parks. Especially I heard someone here mention even an indoor facility. We're on the East Coast. It's seasonal here. We have an outdoor park that was provided for us in '94. Between '94 and now, skateboarding has increased in whatever rate or number. What happens when it rains, snows, it's too cold, it's a dangerous area to get between one place to another? What happens to the 13-year-old kid that can't get to FDR? There's a hundred or a thousand reasons why there's still going to be skateboarders skateboarding certain local spots or anywhere. What choices have we been given? We've been given one choice, and there's a lot of reasons against that one thing that we've been offered.
What is your suggestion on what the City should do to pay for damages and repairs and replacements both to public property and to private building owners and managers who have to repair and replace and 102 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 maintain their property? Is there any suggestions that the community would have on how we stop spending a million dollars a year or more on these particular issues? And the other part of my question is, even if we were to create the three or so state-of-the-art parks that you suggest, would there not still be people who would insist on skating at Love, who would insist on skating at Dilworth or the Municipal Services Building or Logan Square or anyplace else?
Those issues are all to be addressed by these two individuals right here. I chose to speak first on my beliefs and my ideas, but these individuals should answer those questions.
Primarily, to do it correctly, though, skateboarders should be linked completely to anyone that does anything in the construction process, the size, where it is, it has to be done by skateboarders. Of course, it has been to be agreeable and fair compromise to legal persons and what have 103 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 you, but a skateboarder has to be involved 100 percent of the time, o9r it will not be done correctly.
Hypothetically, if that were to be followed, that particular process, could you, as much as you could possibly, guarantee that there would no longer be people that want to skate Love and Dilworth and the Municipal Services Building and Logan Square? If under the best circumstances, hypothetically, we could provide -- not that I'm saying we have the resources to, but if we could provide exactly what you're suggesting, would you tell me that that would eliminate and then it would be fair at that point to cite people or to arrest people who are continuing to skate on public property and do damage?
All right. Of course, in life, there are no guarantees, but there is also a compromise that is needed. To take away one thing, what do you need to do? You need to have the compromise, you need to have the alternative. I'm saying right now that there's been 104 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 something that's getting taken away, and the compromise is not there on an equal level.
Sir, could you come back. Councilman Nutter has a question.
Shane Vonhartleben. In the course of your discussion, you mentioned that you had sponsored skateboarders. I took that down, but I didn't completely understand what you meant. Are you an event sponsor or a business person, or you just help other skaters or -- I didn't understand that.
I'm a skateboarder and a business person. I own a skateboard store, I own a skateboard company. The persons that I would sponsor --
What's the 105 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 difference between a skateboard store and a skateboard company?
All right. As a skateboard store, I sell products that are manufactured by skateboarders all across the world, and I sell them retail to skateboarders in the Philadelphia area, in the suburban areas that I've heard you guys speak about. Certain persons that have been cited have been from the suburbs, like you said, and that bothered you that maybe it was not local people. There's people coming from all over to shop in Philadelphia and spend money, either in my store or while they're skateboarding, they're buying drink, etc., they're spending money in the City, revenue.
All right. So you have, as a skateboarder, not only a personal interest in what's going on, but you have a financial interest in what's going on.
Hi, how are you? 106 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147
Good, okay. Shane, I'd like to know -- if you don't mind me calling you "Shane," 'cause I couldn't quite catch your last name.
And when you talk about the facility at FDR Park, are there any other facilities for skateboarders near or in and about Philadelphia that are adequate? Or where would be the closest? Do any of the surrounding counties have skateboard facilities?
I think that's almost -- well, to answer the question, there are surrounding counties, yes, that have skateboarding facilities?
That's a half an hour by car. There's people that don't have a car, and it's a private park, it costs money to skateboard there, it costs money to get there, it costs money to skateboard when you're there, it costs money to get back.
Well, I first just wanted to know if there was such a facility that you felt was adequate.
I'm sorry. The answer to that question is yes, I just stemmed from that question just because of the reason I find it to be not as relevant as what's taking place in the Philadelphia ban of skateboarding. That's why I went on to say that.
Well, I thought it had relevancy to deal with the fact that you said FDR Park was not adequate. And some of us don't skateboard.
It's a help. I like FDR Park. I think it definitely was a step in the right direction. I just don't think it was 108 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 followed by the necessary steps to continue solving your problem.
I understood what you were saying. I'm asking a question; I'm not trying to argue.
All right. Well, some people here are not that familiar with skateboarding, and I am one, so I'm asking a question to gain information to help me make my decision.
Okay. And if FDR Park is not adequate, I wanted to know from you what was the nearest facility that had it-- the nearest county that had a adequate facility so we could make some kind of comparison or that I could have some kind of basis to understand what you're looking for. 109 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147
Okay, so the closest one is Chichester. All right, thank you.
Well, your question was, like, the closest adequate park to a similar stature as Love Park.
No, as I understand it, the Councilperson's question was, what is in the area that would be in a more acceptable vein? Apparently, there's nothing inside the City that's been created or developed.
But what outside the City or in the region is as close as possible to what you're looking for? And I think your answer was Chichester. However, the mitigating factors were that it's far, it's private, and it costs money.
Yes. There are examples of parks in other counties that would help the area as far as keeping people in that select legal area to skateboard, yes. Without a question, it would definitely help.
How much does it 110 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 cost to use? I mean, what do they charge? Is it like a roller skating rink where you pay a certain amount of money to go in and use the floor, or what?
Right now, to go into a skate part, it's an average of between 8, $9 to skateboard in a park.
But also, if you're speaking -- it's different. But as we're here in Philadelphia with our sport, putting money aside, our interest is to skateboard publicly. I use examples of other sports because I participate in a sport, so I'm wondering why I can't participate in my sport with a designated place for free, just like how we spoke about these others sports. I mentioned basketball, baseball, football. All through the City, you can do these in several places without paying 8, $9 like skateboarders are paying to drive somewhere outside the City to skateboard. We're on the right path with FDR Park, how it's free to skateboard, but it was one step. There are a number of steps that haven't been 111 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 taken.
Right, right. Well, I think people roller-skate, in-line skate, and skateboard. I see 'em doing it in various places in the City, and I don't believe that they're, you know, getting fined or ticketed to do that. I know in my neighborhood, children do that. But I think the issue is Love Park specifically and some of the private property that people are talking about. I just want information about this whole sport of in-line -- not in-line but skateboarding. I know that -- I really don't see that -- I personally don't see a lot of people skateboarding in Center City. I'm here, I'm out, my district's on the other side of the City. So when I'm here in the evening, then I'm out. And during the evening hours, when I have community meetings, it's not in the Center City area. But I don't know that this bill -- and maybe Councilman Nutter or one of the other signers of the bill or authors of the bill could talk more specifically. I don't think this bill 25 is outlawing public skateboarding, period, you 112 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 know.
I feel as though I understand the bill. I just feel that there needs to be a compromise. If you're literally trying to continue stopping people from skateboarding in the very best, famous, world-renowned park, as I've heard all the other persons speak that they're aware of that, if you're going to take that away, obviously, I feel it would be fair to be given a compromise. I don't think you can take one away and not give a fair opposite.
Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I was around for the first look-see at this and, I mean, I was not involved in the design, it wasn't my issue back at that time of what happened down in FDR Park, and I have been down there. I think I said earlier in the testimony, it's not necessarily the best-looking place in the world. And as the Managing Director indicated, there apparently is money already allocated to that location. I don't know what those dollars are to do or what it will do for that particular facility down there, and maybe we can do an even better job. 113 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 But for my purposes at least, there is a line of demarcation between making some other facility better or having other facilities versus the damage and destruction to a place that was never built for that particular purpose. These are two totally different arguments and discussions. And what I'm hearing you say at some level is not only do you think you have a right to skate at Love Park and engage in your sport, which there are no other sports that are played at Love Park, not only do you have a right to skate there, but you also have a right to destroy public property. Now, do you believe that?
I don't believe I have an intention on destroying public property. 114 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 I haven't personally seen myself destroy public property.
Do you deny that there is damage and destruction to Love Park or to the City Hall apron?
No, I don't deny that, but I don't deny that there is money that's raised to keep and maintain public parks all throughout the City, and I haven't seen money spent to correct any damage that allegedly is caused by skateboarders.
I believe there's been a reluctance to spend any significant dollars over there because of the skateboarding activity presently. We're not going to waste our money. So this is a discussion about that specific public space that was not built for that purpose and the activities that are going on over there. And the cost estimates that been developed -- and if you want to talk to the Capital Program Office, I'm sure they'd be glad to go through what their process is to repair and replace those elements, but I don't think any of the individuals who came to the table had any interest in lying or 115 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 in engaging in massive conspiracy to put information on the record that wasn't correct. There is destruction at Love Park, at MSB, and on City Hall Plaza. There is no question about that, and we are trying to prevent that. That is separate from the discussion but should lead to a discussion about what we can do in other places.
But we're not going to continue to allow the destruction of the public property you want to skate in a public place. We can find other public places, but it has nothing to do with whether you continue to allow people to destroy public property. And that's what's going on.
Now, unless you're prepared to refute that there is damage to these sites -- are you?
Are you prepared to refute that there is damage to any of these sites 116 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 caused by an unnatural activity for which the facility was not built?
Do you think the destruction has come from people walking too hard?
Not necessarily. But I'm also saying that there can things damaging the park from all walks of life, no matter what people are doing. I'm not here to argue, either. Actually, like I had spoke --
My discussion is -- I was trying to make it sample, as I say.
These years of damage to the park, had this been recognized perhaps earlier and targeted correctly, I think that there would be less damage being caused -- or, of course, in your eyes, you want to see no 23 damage being caused to these parks.
That's our general philosophy, is that we like to keep our parks in 117 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 good shape, we'd not like to have non-natural activities taking place at them, and we like to try to prevent destruction. That's kind of what we do.
My interests, and I believe who are here today, have interest in seeing additional parks for skateboarding.
I understand that, I understand that. Where do you live?
Okay. More than likely, it's probably Councilman DiCicco. When people have interest in having a facility built in a particular location or based on what it is that they want to do, they usually have a discussion with their District Councilperson about it to see if they can get into a design element. And whether it's at FDR or on the waterfront or anywhere else, I'm sure the 118 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 Councilperson involved would have a great interest in sitting down and having that discussion with you.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. It is apparent to me that the witness has stated over and over that it is not his goal to certainly destroy public property, but that the two should be able to coexist -- not wanting to destroy public property and being able to skateboard. I think that we can ask him about a hundred ways, but I think he's been pretty clear he wants to protect his right to skateboard. Again, I would hope that we in Council realize that in the best of all worlds, we work it out. If these many young people come and want to skateboard, apparently there is a great interest. Obviously, we don't want to see, as elected officials, public property destroyed, but we also wants to make sure that the citizens of this city have the ability to use all of the facilities and take advantage of all of the great things our city 119 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 has to offer. So, again, I say it is obvious, from this first witness, that they're not interested in destroying public property; they just want to skateboard, and I think that if we focus on how we work out a compromise and where -- and the fact that there was mention of an indoor place, maybe three options that maybe we can get something done and move in the area of how we provide a solution, which may be more productive than certainly debating whether or not they want to destroy public property, which is obvious that that's not the goal; the goal is just skateboarding, pure and simple, the fun of skateboarding. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, thank you very much Mr. Chair. Shane, I wanted to follow up on your comments and let you know that it would be irresponsible of us to overlook these substantial dollars of damage that a number of private-sector interests have shared with us, separate from the 120 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 dollars that are spent by the City on City public property. So it behooves to us examine this because substantial dollars are in question, and the spin-off of that is these major companies employ people who contribute to our tax base here in our city. So I share that with you because it's the responsible thing for us to do. Additionally, I think representative -- City Councilperson Darrell Clarke's questions regarding rec centers, an opportunity may exist for further dialogue and/or discussion to see or examine more closely places in addition to the park you've mentioned, since it's apparent in your conversation that that remains somewhat unacceptable. Is that a fair assessment and interpretation of your comments about FDR Park, that that's, for the most part, unacceptable? Help us out.
Shane, you're going to have to come back to the microphone because the stenographer needs to take your words since she can't hear it unless you're on the sound system.
I feel like I'm on 121 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 trial, that's all.
I'm trying to do this for all skateboarders. Like every skateboarder in here, I know right now, has something that they would like to say, and they have issues that, you know, they would like to bring to the table. I'm just one, I'm one of thousands, so I'm doing my best. I hope everybody here, you know, if you have something to say -- we can write letters, we can do whatever we can, but I'm trying to do my best.
The reason you have to be on the microphone -- and we don't want to make you on trial -- is that the stenographer needs to be able to hear you in order to get the record straight.
And the information you provide help us. As Chair of 122 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 Recreation, Parks and Cultural Affairs, it's helpful to know what you think about that particular park area, because I do believe that Councilwoman Blackwell's recommendation is reasonable, but we need information from you to help us move towards a reasoned compromise.
If there's a potential for one. So let me hear again your bottom line with regards to FDR Park. Is it reasonable, does it suit your needs?
I understand you're conferring with your comrades over there.
Earlier, I believe I 123 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 was trying to state that Love Park is famous, it's recognized and it's known. If Love Park is the primary target of the problem right now, I think I heard $700,000, $200,000 in City Hall. If you take what Love Park had, if that was so popular, why not mock that, why not design what was so famous there and so popular there in a place that is legal and they can skate? That's all, that's all.
Would that be sufficient in keeping you off of Love Park?
If we're speaking in the spirit of compromise, there has to be give-and-take on both sides.
Yes, if it was good enough, yes. If there was a superior park in Philadelphia, yes. Legally, yes.
Thank you, Shane. 124 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147
My name is Josh Nims, and I represent the Skaters Defense Lobby, as we've decided we would organize under. First I'd like to say that I really appreciate the Councilwoman's support. We feel like it's definitely the spirit of compromise that we were looking for when we came here. " Vert skating is what happens at FDR Park. It's big walls, large, curved transitions; while street skating is more of what Love Park is all about. So we're talking about two different skateboarding environments, and that's what we're looking for. I have just a prepared statement that I'd like to read and just to keep it simple, and I think it will answer some of the questions where things aren't in layman's terms and are, rather, in skateboarders terms. Alternative sports, as they have been 125 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 popularly known, are no longer alternatives to the traditional sports. While skateboarding, as well as roller-blading and free-style biking -- the BMX and with the pegs at the park -- has seen numerous spurts of fad-like popularity in the past, the present state of these sports is on a par with baseball or hockey as a legitimate sport. There are nationally televised contests, internationally known professionals, including Mr. Kalis sitting to my left, and they ride equipment that's as technologically advanced as a race car. Large sports equipment manufacturers, like Nike and Adidas, are committing millions of dollars to design the best shoes and other gear for these athletes, and cities as large as Washington, DC, and Vancouver have put in a full-size indoor skate park into their new shopping malls. Again, that's private but it's large -- it's still a huge commitment to the sport. " It is for this reason that if this must pass that I implore you to consider the idea of some skate parks. Now, this would include roller- blading, bicycle parks. Obviously, a lot of things are assumed under this heading, but we'd like to see these in areas around the City, in the same vein as those interested in playing baseball would ask for a baseball diamond to be built near their neighborhood -- and this has come up already, I know. I realize that the facility at FDR Park, under I-95, in South Philadelphia was supposed to be a step in that direction. However, it is inaccessible for most of Philadelphia's skateboarders either in terms of getting there or in terms of those skateboarders being too inexperienced to take on the type and the size of skateboarding terrain that exists there. More importantly, as with any other traditional sport, it is unreasonable to expect every athlete to use one remote facility. We obviously don't expect every child who wants to play baseball in the City of Philadelphia to go to 127 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 the fields on the Ben Franklin Parkway. Neither do we expect every child who wants to play basketball to use the courts at 11th and Bainbridge Streets. Yet the present state of skateboarding is just that in Philadelphia. There are so many positive things that happened as a result of FDR Park, so I don't want it to sound like, again, we're not very thankful for the initial help from the City, which, then, skateboarders themselves created that park. The City provided three very crude obstacles on a poorly paved slab under the interstate several years ago. But since then, volunteers and the love of the sport have raised the concrete park around those obstacles so that it is considered one of the ten best skate parks in the world by skateboarding publications and be professionals. A system of smaller concrete parks, since concrete is less expensive than wood and requires less maintenance, could be built by the City and maintained by volunteers in the same way as FDR. , us, as we've already done with 128 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 FDR.
But the type of commitment that's been made by other municipalities, corporations, and by those who have already worked so hard, it can't happen, it can't happen, and, again, FDR proves that. Parents who might never come to Philadelphia otherwise bring their children from New Jersey and Delaware, as we've noted, much to our chagrin, apparently.
Well, they could have saved a trip by not moving out in the first place. That's a part of the problem. I have my own personal prejudice and I --
That's a side issue, you may be correct, I won't argue with you on that. They come to ride FDR Park, and they drive their cars and bring their suburban shopping trip to the City with a near-Center City skate park location. Again, you addressed this in a negative light, but I think it ought to be addressed in a positive light as well.
However, the park itself would have to remain free of charge, as baseball 129 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 diamonds or basketball courts presently are. Now, this is where I think is where you may be happier. There is no doubt that many skateboarding tricks, when performed on obstacles like those at JFK Plaza, result in damage that may be viewed as vandalism. Using obstacles found on the street is a recognizable form of skateboarding, aptly called "street skating," which requires great athleticism and courage to master. It is inevitable that many would continue to skateboard on the street after the park was created, but that is addressed by the proposal to amend the existing law. The new law, if enforced properly, would cause skateboarders in Center City to turn to using the skate park provided or face the legal consequences. However, that means there are two components: skate parks and the enforcement of the new law. They would work together to get skateboarders off of the Center City streets, while providing a reasonable alternative that respects the skill and the discipline required to master their chosen sport. The new law, without 130 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 such an alternative for skateboards would be nothing less than unfair to the skill and raw talent of these athletes. And I know that if the City wants to put its best face forward to the nation during the Republican National Convention, this is the type of idea that says the City is looking to fulfill the needs of its next generation of citizens and voters. I thank you for your time.
Thank you. Let me ask you a practical question, though, and this is one I tried to get at, I think, with Mr. Vonhartleben and some of the other questions I'd asked. I don't think it's realistic to think that the City has the economic wherewithal to recreate Love Park in toto. And what worries me is that we may be able only to have the economic resources, in cooperation and in consultation with the skateboarding community, to create parks that provide basically vertical skate opportunities only. Will we ever -- I'm sorry, he used a 131 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 term called "vert"? Was that an incorrect term.
No, that's correct. You're referring to more FDR-type skating, in other words.
Even if it's an expanded and proved, acceptable venue, it would provide, for the most part, vert skate opportunities only. My concern is, there would still be an element of the community that would want to street-skate and that would only really be attracted to the existing urban structured environment that is there now. Because my short time in trying to understand this, I have recognized two elements, all of it being athletics, all of it being athletes, but there's a -- and this is why big cities have this problem and the suburbs probably don't. There's existing architectural structures within an urban streetscape that is almost unavoidable for someone who want to street-skate. And my question is, even if invested substantial additional sums of money in creating artificial-created parks that are acceptable and 132 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 popular, would we not still have an element of the community, of the skateboarding community that still wants to do the street, city, urban skateboarding?
Well, I think I tried to address that at the end here, and so I -- but initially I'll say, I think Josh is good to say this because he's a street skater and he's probably one of these people who you'd be referring to. But I would say that when you ask for another Love Park, quote/unquote, I don't think what you're asking for -- what they're asking for is another granite monument. That's -- that would be unrealistic, obviously. You know, what you're asking -- you know, concrete can be laid in such a format to provide the same type of area. And it's fairly expensive. We know this because if we're out at FDR Park, we like concrete. And we know that you can build anything out of it with the same wax and soap and everything else that's used to make the surfaces slick. Concrete can react just the same as granite. So I think it is feasible to create a 133 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 structure that would be good for skateboarders.
So is one of the elements of this potential public creation, or creations -- I understand from your testimony that FDR is really not attractive because of its remoteness.
Not only remoteness from a transportation standpoint but a remoteness from a synergy standpoint.
I think there's something to be said for that, and that's definitely why the popularity of skateboarding in Love Park has mushroomed, because people will go there to ride and --
And be seen. Let me try to rephrase it. I mean, if you're talented and athletic and want to skate your craft, you like people to see you do it. I mean, part of it is what you can accomplish for yourself but also your peers and others, and you're in a downtown location that creates the bus traffic and the energy and the -- I mean, all that stuff together, I think -- I'm 134 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 trying to understand --
Well, I disagreed initially with that characterization because skateboarders, as far as getting visibility --
-- especially amongst peers, we rely on trade publications and video shoots really to get visibility, as you see it. So I don't -- I wouldn't say that --
What's the largest skateboarding company? Who produces the most equipment, supplies and those kind of things?
Please. Make sure to identify yourself for the record.
All right. My name is Josh Kalis. I've been a professional skateboarder for about six years now maybe, as a professional. I will tell you that the companies that I skate for, my shoe company and my board company, are probably one of the biggest in the world. And 135 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 the issue about the vert skateboarding --
The shoe company is DC Shoes, and the board company is Alien Workshop. And there's -- addressing the vert skating and the street skating, 90 percent of skateboarders nowadays are street-skaters. I mean, I make a lot of money skateboarding, and all street-skaters are people that buy my company's stuff with my name on it. There is not one vert skater that comes to Love Park to skate, you know what I mean? It's like, if you build FDR, right, but you still got all of these people coming to Love Park, right, that means obviously, if you were to building another vert skate park, it ain't going to -- it's not going to fix anything. What street skateboarders want, they come to City Hall to skate the stairs, the handrails. They go to Love Park to skate the 136 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 ledges, you know, like the planters and stuff like that. They don't want to skate their stuff. There's only this many of skateboarders want to skate there, you know? And as far as getting seen by the public, they don't -- street-skaters don't care about that. They just want to skate stuff that's smooth, fast, fun, you can hit things all over the place without having to stop and go hit this one. You know, Love Park, the way it's set up is, you can hit one ledge, then the next ledge, and then, boom, there's like a big ledge off three steps. You know, like, they want to -- it looks cool, you know? I mean, it's fun to skate. And you go there, you film your video part, tourists come there to skate, all the business people, Queen Village an Wawa and all of them places, they love skateboarders 'cause we come in there and spend so much money, you know? I mean, all we want to do is skate.
I guess all we want to do is kind of stop spending money on replacing --
I'm sorry, I'm nervous. 137 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147
No, I think you're doing a good job of trying to give us some idea as to what the mindset is. All we're trying to figure out and get this record clear on is that if we were to move forward and invest potentially in a facility, it would have to be something that would get people off of the public space. And I don't know, from your testimony, whether or not I can be assured that's going to happen.
You probably will never, ever get rid of all 100 percent, but if there was a place that was good enough that -- I mean, people come from all over the world to skate Love Park, you know, I mean all over the world. And if there was a place like -- that was like she said, equal to Love Park, I mean, why would you want to skate Love Park then? You'd want to go skate this place. I mean, like I said to Mr. Nutter one time, I said, there will always be, you know, your downtown city lurkers that want to go skate the streets and this and that. I mean, that will always happen. 138 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 But as far as a spot where everyone can just come and join and hang out and go to the store and come back and skate and film their video parts and kids can come and meet the pros and they get to see all their favorite people there, and professionals from California come there to skate and film their video parts, I mean, it's crazy.
Would there be some way for you or for a group of you to maybe talk to your companies, the companies that sponsor you, to see if they would be interested in putting forth some type of design?
Yeah. I got -- as a matter of fact, in Chicago, they just banned skateboarding in the Loop. I don't know if you're familiar with Chicago, but they banned it in the Loop, and they couldn't -- I mean, they got so popular that, I mean, they couldn't do anything. I mean, cops were beating up skateboarders and stuff because they got so many skateboarders. So, finally, the city is building, as we speak right now, a giant skate park right down on -- right by Oak Street Beach, which is in between the lake and downtown. I mean, it's right 139 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 there. I mean, I can get information from them and bring it to ya'll and show ya'll and --
I think part of what we need to see is what would be acceptable in the way of design. The issue of cost and location would have to be more of an economic issue overall and what the wherewithal of the City was to do this kind of stuff. But my point is that rather than us hit and miss, take shots in the dark as to what works and what doesn't, perhaps professionally designed, professionally consulted public space could be designed to replace the Love Park experience. It may be helpful in giving us some guidance as to what the cost might be and what the location has to be.
And I can give you names of probably five or six professionals that live here in Philadelphia, that pay taxes in Philadelphia, that make over six digits a year skateboarding. And I can give you names of those people who can help design it, to make sure that it's exactly what street skateboarders want to skate. And I can give you information from my people in Chicago 140 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 on how much the city had to put towards --
Josh, good afternoon. Did you -- I was away from the chair a little bit. Did you share any information with regard to potential locations, whether it's down at FDR Park or other locations for any proposed new site?
All right. Well, my man right here has got nice locations. I'm not really -- I couldn't really think of any great ones. I spoke to you one time maybe about Penn's Landing, but that might be kind of, I don't know, it might be hard to get to. I'm not sure you want to -- you want me to pass the microphone to --
Just hold on a second. And I know you also mentioned about -- I 141 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 thought I heard you say something about your sneaker deal or contract, but I didn't hear what you said about that. That's an agreement you have a line of sneakers, is that --
No. The skateboard sneaker company has a line of sneakers that they make, and once you get to a certain level, they allow you to design a sneaker because they feel your name and how popular you are, that if your name and your design was the sneaker, they would give that to you and you'd get a percentage off the royalties.
Okay, that's interesting. This gentleman has a potential site?
There's two Joshes -- Kalis and myself. I had -- this morning, as a matter of 142 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 fact, I was thinking that the Franklin Square location, the old Franklin Square location near the Seventh Street precinct would be an outstanding --
Are you talking about down by the police administration building?
Yes, Seventh Street? Yeah, Seventh Street, I believe. I felt like that would -- that would be an ideal setting. It would be near the new Independence Mall expansion, it would be near the proposed and very controversial stadium site. Of course, who knows about that. But it would also be close enough to Center City that if it was adequate, as an alternative to Love Park, it would also be adequate as an alternative in the sense that it would be in a similar location people enjoy. People enjoy coming into the City to skate, and I think they would still be -- I do think that they would go there, especially if the law, if it was passed, if it is -- if your proposal is passed, that if it's enforced strenuously, if it's enforced strenuously and 143 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 there's an alternative, together, those two things can accomplish, I think, both goals. But one without the other is no good, it's just no good. I don't know of many sites because I don't know what land is available in the City for that type of thing. I know that the idea of the recreation facilities, putting in, you know, a two- or three-tennis court-size facility is an excellent idea, and right along the lines of what you were thinking because if a -- I'll use the baseball diamond comparison. Baseball players get baseball diamonds and they're sprinkled all over the City. And increasingly, skateboarding is a massively popular and very legitimate sport, so --
And in some neighbors, roller hockey has increased in importance and we have add roller hockey facilities at the recreation facilities.
So I think that there's a very good compromise here to be made. 144 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147
I know when I started playing roller hockey in 1970 --
You don't have to give a date, Councilman. (Laughter.)
Like three people in the whole neighborhood had played it, and they said --
They were all playing basketball and looking at us, saying, What are you guys doing? And now seems to have to have exploded.
I would like to add one thing, but Bernie does have a point about the actual damage to Love Park. And while I realize that you've come up with the estimates, and there's not a lot of argument that skateboarding is part of the problem, but Bernie did have a couple of ideas about maybe where else some of this might be going, just to deflect a little bit of the criticism directed at skateboarding in this 145 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 situation.
Hello. My name's Bernard McDonald, and I've been a skateboarder for the past ten years. I'm pretty much a local skateboarder in Philadelphia. What he was just talking about, like, the actual real damage to Love Park that they were talking about, these numbers and figures, I think that they're a combination of exaggerations and even fabrications because the only thing that I've ever seen in place at Love Park are the blocks on the ground. You know how, like, it's blocks -- like, that's what the ground's made out of? Sometimes they break when the police trucks drive up the two steps and come chasing after us. I've seen 'em drive over, and the next thing you know, the little blocks are collapsing and breaking. It is physically impossible for a skateboard wheel to do that. I don't care how hard you land or how high you jump and land. You could come straight down and no matter how hard you do that, it's not going to break. 146 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 And as far as like the chips, like the chunks taken out of some of the ledges, those are from the bikes, you know what I mean? Like the BMX bikes that jump up and do it. I will admit that skateboarding scuffs up ledges and puts black on it, it, you know, rounds it out a little bit, but no like real significant damage, like what these people over here were talking about. And, also, it's laws like these that are chasing young people out of Philadelphia. I mean, you're talking about people, Oh, why did they move to the suburbs and this and that? Well, I believe that with all these ordinances and all these laws being passed and just -- it's just chasing people out. I mean, like, to say that you can't be in a public park because, oh, you're riding a skateboard or you're doing whatever, it's just ridiculous. I just thinks it's ridiculous 'cause it's a public park, it's there for the public to use. And we are the public, we are the taxpaying citizens. And I do vote. I mean, I know a lot of people here vote too also. You 147 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 might not think that, but it's, you know, whatever. And I just don't see how you can ban people from a public park. But as for, like, the compromise that you're talking about, like building skate parks or whatever, that would significantly work if, like Mr. Nims over here said, if you sprinkle them all around the City like -- not, like, build, like, a real big park but build, like, little parks, like, in different neighborhoods, like, all over the City and, like, a couple downtown, you know, maybe around Penn's Landing or over by -- I think he was talking about between Fifth and Sixth on Arch Street. We used to call it "Flower Park," but they tore it down. I've noticed that that got torn down recently. I was thinking maybe that would even be a spot. And also in the playgrounds around the City, like, we get kicked out of there sometimes by the police. I don't understand it, it doesn't make sense to me, but we'll be skating, like, a plastic bench, and they're telling us that we're going to break it, or a metal bench, and they're telling us we're going to break it and we got to 148 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 get out of here. Maybe build some ledges or some, like, you know, a little set of stairs or something for skateboarding, like a grind bar or something specifically for skateboarding. And each of these little -- like, you know, how, like, the little tennis courts and, like, the basketball courts and they'll have the swings for the kids, you know what I mean?
I think you have a general sense from many of us that we would like to take a look at that. Those are clearly our facilities, they are easy to try to figure out the elements that you might be able to do in those particular places. And, quite honestly, it would probably be easier and quicker, potentially even more cost-effective to look at that as a model of what you could add on to a current recreation facility, as opposed to trying to acquire what, in some instances, may be a rather sizeable parcel of property to just build a fully laid-out, you know, replica or model of Love Park.
So, I mean, all of us in our individual capacities could look at the 149 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 recreation facilities in our respective districts, see what land might be available that's, you know, part of that. Some of them have no particular expansion opportunities, some do.
But also -- I'm sorry, are you done? I didn't mean to interrupt or anything.
A lot of people come from all over the world, like tourists. Like, these are tourists that come in here and they spend money like -- just like. . .
You're talking about, like you're scared the tourists are going to be afraid of us and they're not going to want to come through Love Park, or whatever, or like the people that live here -- well, that's just not -- overall, that's just not true, 'cause there's more people that -- they come and they watch us skateboard, and they're, like, yeah, that's great, I think that's awesome. If you ask anybody, like, they'll tell you that, you know, like, there's 150 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 nothing wrong with that, I don't see anything wrong with it. People come -- tourists come from all over the world just to skate at Love Park or just to skate -- not just at Love Park, in all of Philadelphia but mostly Love Park. I just don't see why we can't -- like, we all pay taxes. Why can't you just say, Oh, well, if there's damage at, like, these, you know, these ledges or whatever, why can't we just have it? You know what I mean? Like, why can't we just have Love Park and a couple of the public parks or whatever? Mostly Love Park and just say, you know, that's just a skateboard park. 'Cause that's what Mayor Rendell did. I believe it was '91 or '92. I remember they tried to ban skateboarding back then, and Mayor Rendell said, Oh, well, we're just going to let them have Love Park, we're not going to enforce that. And it worked just fine for a few years. And then I don't know what happened. I guess he changed his mind or something.
You might want to talk to him about that. 151 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147
Most of my questions have already been answered by the other members of Council asking the questions. I have to admit that when I'm satellite-surfing occasionally, I stop at the channel where the professional skateboarding is being broadcast, and that was leading me to the discussion, whether we could reproduce what you encounter outside of this building, at Love Park and at other locations that you skateboard on public property. And I assume, watching that professional televised skateboarding competition, that that is about the best it can get. So you can reproduce in an environment, in a location pretty much getting -- I see you shaking your head so I know you're going to disagree with me. But you can get it almost there, to be as competitive and as challenging and as all -- what of the things that make this such an exciting activity? Am I correct?
Well, I see what you're saying, but that's because -- I mean, like -- like 152 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 what has already been mentioned, there's a difference between street-skating and what you see on ESPN. Like that's mostly vert skating that you see on there; you know what I mean? Like, that's like ESPN, and they don't really know that much about skateboarding, and so they're more excited about the vert skating, so that's what they put on TV. But like Josh Kalis said, 90 percent of the skateboarders are street-skaters; you know what I mean? Like, we don't -- we have videos and magazines, but you don't really see us on ESPN or on TV really much at all.
If we could build a facility, and I think you've already covered this and I think this issue's been addressed.
If we can build -- if a architect can design a fountain that's really neat for you guys and ladies to skateboard over, that could be reproduced at another location, with a more durable product that would not be subjected to damage and require a lot of maintenance, 153 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 whatever the product is, I don't know, but I guess my question again is, can there be a satisfactory design that would give you all the things that you want and make it as exciting as possible, but in a location that would satisfy Council, satisfy the police, satisfy the Administration?
Absolutely, but it might cost a lot of money. You know, like a replica of Love Park would be great, yeah. I mean, I'm sure -- I mean, I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure a lot of people would rather skate a replica of Love Park rather than getting chased and beaten by police; you know what I mean?
Right. We're here to be -- we want to be accurate with you, and we want you to be that way with us, okay?
I've been slammed on my 154 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 face by the police, I've been kicked in the gut, I've been punched in the head; yes, I have.
I tried to complain about an officer once but it just -- whenever I called back, they were, like, Oh I don't know what you're talking about. You know, they just -- they just ignore you 'cause you're just some punk kid on a skateboard.
My name is Brian Lathrop. I'm speaking on behalf of Friends of FDR 155 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 Skateboard Park. I'm a member of Friends of FDR Park, I work with the Fairmount Park Commission, and I do want to thank them for designating that land. There were imperfections but we made the most of a -- an acceptable situation. If you go down and take a look at it, you'll see we've progressed monumentally. And I'm in that percent that Josh 10 Kalis referred to. I don't skate street at all, but I sincerely would hope that you vote against this ordinance without sincere and extensive further discussion on providing some other alternative, as has been discussed for the past hour or so, about how you can't take something away without providing some alternative. We can't ignore the popularity that skateboarding has in this country. It's a multimillion industry; it may be in the billions now, I'm not sure, I couldn't find the figures to present to you but it's up there. That's not something that's going to go away quietly. You've addressed some important issues in terms of the appeal that the urban environment has to kids, and they're realistic. I think it's 156 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 realistic for us to consider an alternative. If we can do a replica affordably of a park, that would be great. It would probably substantially lessen -- radically lessen the amount of damage that's occur there. I don't think anybody, in good, clear conscience, can realistically sit here and say, on your behalf as well, that you're going to completely eliminate street-skating. I don't think that's realistic. However, I think you can substantially reduce it. You know, the FDR -- I did want to address a couple points that were made about FDR Park because it, too, is a world-class facility. And I've met people from Australia, England, all over the world who come specifically to skate the park. There's some people here who have been on magazine covers at that park several times. You know, it has brought Philadelphia a lot of acclaim. Philadelphia, in general, is a big, big draw for skaters, and they are a part of the economy. We pay taxes here, I live in the City, I live in West Philadelphia. I vote, I pay my 157 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 taxes, and I would like to see some of that designated in the way that we've been discussing over and over about, why can't we have the same kind of opportunities, have input in the design of parks at areas designated throughout the City. We can take our lead from multiple communities out in California, who are building -- municipalities and townships who are building all kinds of public parks. Some of them are better than others. You know, some of them are mediocre. The important thing, if we're going to take this initiative, is, if you're going to further discuss it and you're sincere about making these alternative skate areas, the skaters have to be involved. It can't be a talk-down type of initiative where you get a landscape architect in who thinks he knows what he's doing, or she, and makes these places so that the kids don't not want to skate. You know, I respect Josh Kalis' lack of desire to skate transition. I happen to love vert skating down at FDR, that's my first love. And there are hundreds of people who use that daily, particularly in the summertime now that school's 158 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 out. But you'll see, you go down there on any given day when the weather's nice, and it's a phenomenal thing. And if you make it visible, let me tell you, the tourists will come. There are people who from all over to stop at FDR, take a look, and they are mesmerized by what's going on down there, the level of skills and ability that's going on. It's a magical place. And we can have -- and there's no 11 reason why this has to be such a -- I mean, I understand that there has been damage, and I understand that street-skating does inflict some damage.
It's not intentional damage, and, you know I think there's a way we can turn this into a positive instead of, you know, trying to chop it off and cut skating off cold, without looking at the comprehensive picture. And if you have any questions, I'd be -- feel free to ask them.
If this bill becomes an ordinance and you're prohibited from skating in the area or skateboarding in the areas that you presently do and there is no alternative, where 159 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 will you go?
I think -- personally, I'm not a street-skater, I'm going to speak my opinion and turn it over to the guys who I know are street-skaters. You're going to have problems, kids are going to continue to do it.
They'll continue to do it right where they've been doing it.
I think that you're going to find a persistence in finding new street areas to skate. If they're not doing it in Love Park --
Other than telling me that you'd break the law, tell me where you would consider an alternative location that would be legal.
There are none, there are none. There's FDR Skate Park, but that just fulfills the needs of a small percentage of 160 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 existing skateboarders. You know, we'd love to expand that at some point, to have maybe a street area; however, you know, it's -- we already addressed the issues of remote location and it's kind of in a No Man's Land down there under the bridge, with the rats and stuff.
Oh, it's definitely urban. But I think, you know, my answer is fairly -- I'm being honest with you. I don't see that there's an alternative. And that's why I say I think kids are going to persist because there is no alternative. You've heard countless skaters here talk about that FDR does not fulfill my needs.
Well, the alternative, then -- and, again, I'm not trying to be cute with you, but the alternative is to not skate there. That's the alternative, other than to break the law, but I don't want to debate that with you. I was just trying to find -- I was thinking you might go to Ardmore or King of 161 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 Prussia.
No. I think that, you know the whole -- the Councilmembers -- I can't remember specifically who mentioned it, but they were talking about the appeal of the urban environment. You know, that's a draw. I mean, I'm 36, I'm still skating. I know that the 18-year-olds and the 16-year-old's are digging on the urban -- they want to get down and get into the city, and that's fine, and, you know, that's a big draw. And that's not going to change.
Okay, very good. Are you keeping up with those year-old's? 15
Just for the record, if people think that Philadelphia laws and ordinances are restrictive, try skating on public property in Ardmore, you'll find out that your fine will probably be substantially more than $300 and you may even spend some time locked up. One of the problems that we face as a 162 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 city is that some of us who run the City and live here believe that we are a lot less restrictive for public-behavior issues than our surrounding suburbs, and I guess that's one of the things that kind of angers me on personal level, is that the level of behavior that's expected and demanded in the surrounding suburban counties is not the way it is here in Philadelphia, even though people may feel we are restrictive and tough.
May I comment on that? I think that you need to consider a lot more of a mishmash of socioeconomic backgrounds in the city; and, therefore, you have to be more lenient, 'cause I think in terms of a lack of education, those are issues you need to consider as well. You talk about surrounding suburbs, you're talking about wealthy areas that are higher education and, you know, that's a different ball of wax.
I understand but, I mean, it's the same thing we face when we're dealing with public-behavior issues at our sports complexes, which do not have anything to do with the people in this room, but people who arrested for disorderly, drunken behavior, public 163 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 urination, and other issues at the Veterans Stadium and Eagles games, for example, turn out to be three-quarters non-City residents. And I guess the frustration is that it's the City residents that get the reputation Philadelphia fans and drunk and rowdy and booing Philadelphia fans, when they're really not; they're from Springfield and Easton and the Poconos and the surrounding suburban counties. And it's very frustrating for us and our reputation, but that's a whole another issue. Councilmember Blackwell.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I appeal for the sake of a compromise. And I think that all I've heard today points out that that certainly is what the skateboarders are opting for, and that's a compromise. I totally agree with that and certainly am ready to volunteer on any committee that you may form to do that. I have to make a presentation outside of the office, so I have to leave, but I would like to be reported as voting aye, if there's a 164 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 vote on all bills, with the exception of this one. If you opt to vote on this, then I'll be voting no on this one, on Bill 147.
I don't know what the result of the vote is going to be but one of the things that I will recommend, as chair of the committee today, is that we will introduce a resolution on Thursday, asking for the Public Property Committee to investigate available public-owned land throughout the City and in the Center City area and outside the Center City area, to determine what may be available and appropriate, to spread out, so to speak, the developed FDR-like or Love Park-like possibilities, whether they be in the fringe of Center City, whether they be on the border, for example, in Councilman Nutter's district, in the border of Philadelphia and Montgomery County to kind of spread out the opportunities and to look at what is publicly owned, and we'll introduce that resolution on Thursday to give the committee a chance to do that, maybe it will be a joint resolution between Public Property and Recreation.
Thank you. 165 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 We'll be happy to support that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Is there anyone else to testify on this particular bill? (No response.)
Okay, seeing none, that will conclude the hearing of the Public Property and Public Works committee. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter, I believe, for amendments. Councilmember Blackwell, could I ask you for the possibility of leaving your "yes" vote on all bills with the exception of Bill No. 147.
Let the record indicate that Councilwoman Blackwell is voting yes on all bills, with the exception of Bill No. 147.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In fact, that's what I thought I had said. Unfortunately, I do have to leave to make a presentation, and but certainly I would like to be reported as voting aye on all bills and resolutions, with the exception of Bill No. 147, for which I vote no. 166 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147
The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a motion on Bill 7 109.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 000109 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session.
The bill's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 20 000109 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 178. 167 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 000178 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session.
The bill's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 14 000178 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 315.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 000315 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. 168 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 (Duly seconded.)
The bill's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 000315 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a motion on Bill 341.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 000341 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session.
It's moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. 169 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 Bill No. 000341 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a motion on Bill 352.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 000352 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session.
The bill's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 000352 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. 170 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a motion on Bill 353.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 000353 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session.
The bill's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 000353 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 370.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that Bill No. 370 be reported out of committee with a favorable 171 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 recommendation and a request for a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 000370 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Rizzo for a motion on Bill No. 414.
I move that Bill No. 16 000414 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the rules.
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. 172 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 Bill No. 000414 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for the purposes of offering amendments to Bill No. 147.
Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments, which I would like to read into the record on Bill No. 000147. The first amendment, which is listed as amendment number one, is deleting c on the first page of the bill, Section 10-610(1)(c), the wording on any public sidewalks where the use of a skateboard has been prohibited pursuant to the provisions of Section 10-611 (relating to sidewalk behavior). The second amendment replaces that deletion with the following language, this would be listed as amendment number 2, which was passed out: (c) on portions of private property, including but not limited to, outdoor plazas that 173 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 are dedicated to use by the general public, where the owner of such public property has posted a notice indicating that skateboarding is prohibited on the property. Those are the two amendments.
You are correct, Mr. Chairman. That was on number one.. The third amendment is to Section 12 10-610 on , number (3), letter (b). The amendment would make that section read as follows: An additional penalty for violation of Section 10-610(1) shall be the forfeiture of any skateboard used in violation of this section, unless it is proven to the court by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant does not own the skateboard and the owner did not or could not have reasonably known that the skateboard would be used in violation of this section. Additional new language: Further, the total amount of any penalty assessed for each violation, taking into account the value of both 174 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 the fine and forfeiture, shall not exceed $300. Those are all the amendments to Bill 4 147, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for the purpose of moving the amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the amendments as read into the record.
Move and seconded. All in favor, aye? There is one opposed. That's Councilmember Blackwell leaving here "no" vote. The amendments are, therefore, approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion to move the amended Bill No. 20 147.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 000147, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit 175 6/13/00 Public Property - Bill 000147 first reading at our next session.
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There is one no-vote, that is Councilmember Blackwell. Bill No. 147, as amended, will be reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. That will conclude the business of the Committee on Public Property and Public Works. Thank you very much for your attendance. (Adjourned at 4:25 p.m.) - - - 176 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, June 13, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PUBLIC WORKS BILL NO.'S 000109, 000147, 000178, 000315 000341, 000352, 000353, 000370 000414 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter