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 --