COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, December 2, 2024 10:20 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN MICHAEL DRISCOLL, CHAIR COUNCILMAN MARK SQUILLA, VICE-CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN JAMIE GAUTHIER
COUNCILMAN JIM HARRITY COUNCILWOMAN QUETCY M. LOZADA
Good morning. I now note that the hour has come. Ms. McDonald, will you please call the roll to take attendance. Members that are in attendance, will you please indicate that you are present when your name is called.
Present. Thank you. A quorum of the Committee is present and this hearing is now called to order. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Licenses and Inspections regarding Bill No. 17 240430 and Bill No. 240665. Ms. McDonald, would you please read the title of the bill.
Bill No. 21 240430, amending various provisions of The Philadelphia Code to authorize revisions of various fees by regulation, including license and permit fees under Subcode "A" (The Philadelphia Administrative Code); license fees for food establishments under Title 5 (Health Code); license and permits 6 under Title (Regulation of 7 Businesses, Trades and 8 Professions); license under Section 9 10-722 (Use of Dumpsters); license under Section 11-610 (Construction Equipment); and license under Chapter 19-600 (Amusement Tax); all under certain terms and conditions. And Bill No. 240665, amending Title 10 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Individual Conduct and Activity," by adding a new chapter concerning vehicular mobile service providers and providing for penalties, all under certain terms and conditions.
Ms. McDonald, will you please call the first panel we have to testify this morning on Bill No. 240430.
Morning, Sarah. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Chairperson Driscoll and members on the Licenses and Inspections Committee. My name is Sarah Adamo and I'm the Legislative Affairs Manager of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I'm here to provide testimony on Bill No. 240430, introduced by Councilmember Driscoll for Council President Johnson which, if enacted, will amend various provisions of The Philadelphia Code to authorize revisions of various fees by regulation, including license and permit fees under Subcode "A," (The Philadelphia Administrative Code), license fees for food establishments under Title (Health Code); license and 6 permits under Title (Regulation 7 of Building Trades and 8 Professions); license under -- 9 sorry, license under Section 10-722 (Use of Dumpsters); license under Section 11-610 (Construction Equipment); and license under Chapter 19-600 (Amusement Tax); all under certain terms and conditions. Since Bill No. 170165 was enacted in 2017, L&I has been authorized to revise by regulation, permit and license fees under the following conditions: The fee shall be based upon the cost to administer and enforce the applicable programs and services and no fee shall be increased to an amount higher than the fee as it existed on July 1, 2017, multiplied by the Consumer Price Index, CPI multiplier. Since 2017 L&I has authorized these code provisions to increase fees based on increased operational costs and the CPI multiplier. However, fees established after July 1, 2017 are not able to be increased in the same manner. If enacted, this legislation would add the same provisions to fees that were established after July 1, 2017 and fees established before July 1, 2017, that were inadvertently omitted from the previous legislation. This legislation will create a more uniform and predictable method for all permits and license fee increases. It is also important to note that passing and enacting this legislation will not immediately result in the modification of permit and license fees. Fees will only be increased after appropriate analysis is performed and associated regulations are promulgated. The Department is supportive of this legislation. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the testimony for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. I'm happy to answer questions at this time.
Thank you, Sarah. I would like to note the presence of Councilmember Jamie Gauthier who joined us this morning. Good morning, Councilmember. This is important legislation and I was happy to introduce it on behalf of Council President. Getting some uniformity into this and predictability I think is really important. And I'd like to ask if any of our Councilpeople would like to make a comment? I recognize Councilmember Phillips.
Good, good. Thank you. Just some quick questions that can help the public understand what's about to transpire. So I want to be helpful here. Could you provide examples specifically or in terms of programs or services that would benefit from this fee adjustment authorized by this legislation, like how -- there you go?
Sure. So currently all of the permits and licenses that L&I issues that the fee was established prior to 2017, we already have the authority to do these increases. What this legislation would do is take some of the more recent fees and ones that were inadvertently omitted from the last legislation such as dumpster fees and it puts them into the same bucket as the other ones. So when we do our fee increases, we'll analyze how much our cost to administer the services has gone up and we'll compare that to CPI multiplier. We'll take the lesser of those two things, whether it's the price index or our cost to administer, whichever one's lower, and we will increase our fees across the board evenly. So this way we're not increasing some fees one way and some fees another way. This way it's all uniform across the board. And like I also mentioned in the testimony, which I think is important to reiterate, this bill itself doesn't increase the fees. We still need to go through the regulation process to do that, so there still is transparency to the public before these fees are increased.
Thank you. And just two quick questions. One, I want to thank the Chairman. He's absolutely right, this is a really important piece legation for our city. I just want to also understand so our city understands that -- I'm completely aware this transparency is really important as you just mentioned. How does the department plan to ensure transparency and public engagement during the analysis and regulatory process for adjusting fees under this legislation?
So they go through the regulation process. We do an analysis. But when our regulations are posted, there is a 30-day period where a hearing can be requested. In the past that hasn't happened. Most of the time when we go through this regulation process we don't have hearings requested, but we also put this information on our newsletter, on our website, so there are different ways that the public would be aware that the fees are increasing.
Okay. And are you taking steps to ensure that the fees remain affordable for small businesses?
Our fees, so the way that this would work is that they're pretty much in line with the CPI multiplier, so if there's inflation across the board, it also applies to us. But also, our fees can never be more than the cost to administer the service. So we're not working at a profit here. We're only covering the cost that it takes to actually process your permit to do inspections, that type of thing. So our fees can't be exorbitant.
Councilmember Phillips, that was insightful. Thank you for that. Hearing no further questions from our Committee up here, Ms. Adamo, thank you for your testimony.
We will now call witnesses on Bill No. 240665. Ms. McDonald, will you please call the first panel we have to testify this morning on Bill No. 5 240665. 6
Good 11 morning, Chair Driscoll, Vice-Chair 12 Squilla and members of the 13 Committee on Licenses and 14 Inspections. My name is Dr. Frank 15 Franklin. I'm the Interim Health 16 Commissioner of the Philadelphia 17 Department of Public Health. Thank 18 you for the opportunity to testify 19 regarding Bill No. 240665, 20 introduced by Councilmember Lozada. 21 The bill proposes 22 restrictions on the locations where 23 vehicular mobile service providers 24 can operate within the 7th Council District. These providers would be prohibited from operating on residential blocks. PDPH or the Philadelphia Department of Public Health recognizes that the residents of the 7th District are exposed daily to harrowing conditions related to the opioid crisis. We appreciate the dialogue initiated by Councilmember Lozada's office with PDPH to address the impact of these conditions on her constituents. The definition of vehicular mobile service providers includes vehicles from which medical and social service professionals provide care to individuals with opioid use disorder and other medical issues. PDPH provides technical assistance to mobile health care providers operating in the 7th District. We support their work to medically stabilize people, including those experiencing the effects of fentanyl use who need wound care and prescriptions for medications for opioid use disorder. PDPH also supports the stated goals of this bill, which are reducing the accumulation of waste and hazardous materials from vehicular service providers, reducing nuisance behavior associated with the congregation of people receiving services from mobile providers and preventing traumatization of children in the neighborhood. We welcome continued dialogue to ensure that Bill No. 19 240665 achieves these goals. As written, the bill will be difficult to enforce in a way that achieves these goals. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have at this time. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony, Doctor. We do have the maker of the bill here I think that wants to interrogate.
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to make brief remarks. Thank you, Commissioner Franklin. Thank you to all of you who are here today. Mobile service providers play a critical role in delivering the much-needed support to individuals experiencing homelessness and addiction. Their efforts have undoubtedly provided relief to some of the most vulnerable members of our community. However, the way many of these services currently operate has had unintended and deeply concerning impacts on the quality of life in the communities where they conduct their work. Their presence often results in excessive litter, large unmanageable crowds and disruption to everyday life. These problems are not confined to one area. They occur in front of homes, schools and on public sidewalks creating concerns and straining the resources of both residents and local offices and local officials. In some cases these providers are operating without the proper licensing, further complicating efforts to ensure their services are delivered in a way that respect both their clients and the neighborhoods where they operate. This has been an ongoing concern that is a product of the mismanagement of the opioid crisis. Today you will hear stories from the residents who have experienced the consequences of inadequate oversight. Their experiences underscore the urgent need for action. An underlying common theme of their testimonies is that this does not happen in other neighborhoods so why does is it allowed in theirs. This isn't about denying critical services to those who need them. It's about making sure that these services are provided in a responsible, sustainable, coordinated manner that consider the needs of everyone involved. The lack of oversight and clear guidelines has created a fractured relationship between the service providers and the communities they serve. Residents remain unheard, overwhelmed and frustrated by the lack of communication and accountability from these organizations and the dangers and the trauma they have to live through. We can and must do better. This legislation we will consider today is one step in providing the regulation that is needed. These two bills will ensure the proper disposal of waste and limit disruptions to public spaces. These changes are necessary to rebuild trust and create a framework where life- saving services can coexist and thrive in the communities. In these chambers we are here to do the people's work. I remember or I look forward to working today with each of my colleagues to ensure that the people we hear from today are able to live with dignity and standards just as residents from the neighborhoods they serve. I just want to be sure that we understand or that everyone here understands that the goal is not to end mobile provider services. We understand that they're life-saving services. We recognize that the work is absolutely necessary in order to continue to have conversations with the individuals who come to receive services. The goal of this bill is to ensure that we are not disrupting the day-to-day lives of the people on residential blocks. We often hear that when these services are being provided on residential blocks it causes residents to have to fight people off of their steps, right. It causes them to have to fight for parking spaces. It causes them to have to put up with the excessive amount of litter that is left behind. And so, I just wanted to make sure that I'm clear about that, right. I think that we have talked for a long time about coordinated services. In 2022 when I arrived here, I attended a meeting on behalf of Councilmember Squilla where there was a commitment by the City of Philadelphia and the Administration that we would coordinate mobile services, that we would do the necessary work to make sure that these services were provided in a way that was responsible.
And here we are 2024 almost 2025 and we still have not done what we committed to the people, which was to work towards coordinating services in a way that didn't disrupt quality of life. And so, I hope that this bill puts us on the path to being able to coordinate those services in a way that people feel both the dignity of those receiving services are respected as well as those who live there. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilmember Lozada. And I know it's not a lack of compassion. I've been working alongside you down there. These are not incompatible. I think we can do both. I think it needs to be orderly. I think it has to be regulated. So this is the beginning today. Let's just get this out there. Let's have a robust conversation. Let's get it right. I do note that Councilmember Phillips has a question for the maker of the bill.
Thank you, Councilwoman Lozada, for working on this for your District. It appears to be a serious concern. And I just want to ask you can you describe for the public who's listening how this is impacting -- examples of how this is impacting residents, things that people have said and they've seen and they've come to you about in terms of mobile services being near their steps and so forth?
Yeah. Thank you, Councilmember. In your packet there are some photos that have been shared with us in the office around what people have to go through. We've received calls from multiple people about, listen, there's mobile providers on my block. There are people on my steps. I can't get my kids in and out of school. I've asked people to move multiple times. The individual obviously is incoherent and he won't move, right. How do I get my kids in without causing any further harm to this individual, right, because it gets to the point where people are so frustrated that they feel like they have to start some kind of a fight. In some of those photos we have a facility that is for low -- it's low-income housing and individuals are afraid to come out of there, right. And most of the people that live there are seniors. And so, they struggle with being able to come out to go to the doctor, to just do their basic chores, right, or travel, grocery shopping. They can't come through because they have to go through these long lines or they have to ask people to move out of the way before they're able to go to and from doctors' appointments, supermarkets or work. The kids, right, we've heard multiple times from some of our kids in the area that they are afraid to come to and from school because of the lines or just because of the activity that's happening there. So it really depends on where we are and what the stories are, but the stories are all the same, right. We don't want to go or we shouldn't have to go through all of this in order to have basic quality of life or just go through our day-to-day.
Thank you, Councilwoman. I'm looking at these photos right now and I wish the public can see these photos of what it looks like, and it is pretty disturbing. I will tell you that if you lived near this, you'd probably be at a point of disgust too. So I want to thank you, Councilwoman, for addressing the needs of the District. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you. Doctor, before you leave, any questions from any of the Councilmembers? Councilmember O'Rourke.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this is my first meeting with the L&I Committee. Thank you for your grace and allowing me to join --
Yeah, this is my first time. Yes, indeed. And blessings to you, Councilmember Lozada, as well. Mr. Commissioner, blessings to you. Thank you for being here with us. Can you provide with us an overview of the types of services and goods that are provided by the vehicular mobile service providers in the city?
That'll be a yes and a no, right. So I can give you an overview of the services that are provided among the individuals or those mobile health care providers that we could provide technical assistance to. As the Health Department, some of our partners some of the services they provide could be wound care, could also be connecting individuals to treatment, connecting individuals to prescriptions for medically- assisted treatment who are experiencing opioid use disorder. There are also among the other providers when we say mobile service providers, that includes a broad array of people or broad array of providers. From what I understand, and I don't have firsthand knowledge, but some of the other providers may provide things as blankets, food or any other items that they feel that this population may need or may be helpful in their journey towards recovery.
You mentioned that the City provides technical assistance to mobile health care providers. Why does the City find their work in particular valuable? And is there evidence that suggests that these methods of care delivery are effective?
We find it valuable because most of this work, although providing acute medical care services in many instances, it also operates as a tool for community outreach and connecting individuals to the services they need at that moment or those acute care needs but also moving individuals into treatment, those treatment services that they desire. There is evidence that services such as this or any other type of harm reduction services as well as an array of outreach strategies improve individual's outcomes for dealing with and managing opioid use disorder.
Why do you believe that the bill will be difficult then to implement and enforce?
I think 4 the challenge comes into play where 5 a lot of the definitional scope or 6 some of the definitions within the 7 current bill or the bill as it's 8 presented makes it difficult to 9 execute and if it's difficult to 10 execute, it's difficult to enforce. 11 There's some ambiguity in some of 12 the definitions, so that's where 13 the challenge comes into play. 14
15 Okay. The restrictions imposed by 16 this bill will appear to make it, 17 as you pointed out, already 18 extremely difficult for service 19 providers to determine where they 20 are legally allowed to operate. 21 Will the City provide any resources 22 to help providers determine 23 locations that are compliant with 24 this legislation?
After talking with some of my partners across other departments as well as some of the mobile providers that we work with or provide technical assistance, they're all in agreement and open to supporting --
They're in agreement or they're open to having the conversations -- the department and the providers that we work with actually are in line with Councilmember Lozada's bill 16 and her understanding of the problems that it may cause for day-to-day life for individuals who live in the community. So they're open to working with Councilmember Lozada. They're open to working with the Health Department to sort of how can we develop a consensus and the best way to execute this so two things can coexist, if that answers your question. I'm not sure if I --
It does enough. Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilmember. And I'd like to recognize Councilmember Jamie Gauthier.
Good morning. So we heard from Councilmember Lozada on her perspective of sort of the request that she's made of the Administration and not really seeing results. But I wanted to hear that from your perspective. Can you talk a little bit about -- and I know some of this predated you. But can you talk a little bit about how the Admin has tried to or if the Admin has tried to meet some of the Councilmember's requests over the last two years and what that has looked like? And additionally, I definitely understand your comments around the bill being hard to enforce or your opinion on that. Is there something that the Admin would like to do instead? Are you offering up something instead of the bill? And if, so can you expound on what that would look like?
Thank you for the two questions. I'll speak to the former question first. I think it would be a misstep or wouldn't be prudent for me to try to speculate on what was done predated to me. So I would respectfully prefer not to engage in that dialogue.
But you all understand that's why we're here, right?
I do, I absolutely do. I absolutely do. But I've been around long enough to understand although this predates me, it doesn't change the merit to Councilmember Lozada's concerns so I have -- so we're fine with that. What we have offered up as the Health Department -- and again, this bill as it's introduced implicates other departments as well, but I'll let those other departments speak for themselves.
As the Health Department, we have spoken with our mobile medical providers. We've also connected them with the legislative representative or, what's the position called, Legislative Director for Councilmember Lozada's office to speak with our mobile providers or our mobile health care providers. We've offered to sort of coordinate with them. I've had frank and candid conversations with them explicitly asking would they be in agreement, would they be open to having the Health Department have more of a direct hand in coordinating these providers as well as considering some way to permit or provide a permitting opportunity, just a permit that verifies that these providers are licensed by the state and they are legitimate providers or "less of or not a bad actor."
When did these conversations start? Was this in response to the Councilmember introducing the bill or did these conversations around coordination start beforehand? And then have you thought about some of what -- I understand that you're asking for conversations and you're asking people if they would be willing to coordinate. But have you thought sort of tactically about what that could look like on the grounds that could maybe alleviate some of the concerns being addressed today?
I think 14 the conversations probably started 15 after Councilmember Lozada's bill 16 given to when I stepped into this 17 role, right, technically the bill 18 had been introduced. But prior to 19 these hearings, we have gotten 20 other complaints and have heard 21 other concerns, so it has been a 22 priority for the Health Department 23 prior to us getting to this point, 24 but not specifically prior to perhaps when the bill was introduced. And your second question is have we thought about --
I understand that you have made yourself available, right, to the Councilwoman's Legislative Director. I understand that you said that you've asked the mobile units if they're willing to coordinate and sit down at the table. I think that's a good thing. I'm asking since you all do this work on a routine basis and kind of oversee this work, have you thought beyond the conversation tactically what does this look like? Does it look like maybe the Public Health Department getting the Streets Department to trail behind some of the services so we don't have sort of the trash situation? Does it look like having folks out there at certain times? I'm guessing that the Health Department has enough of an overview of this work beyond offering up a conversation. You could offer up specifics about how you might address some of the Councilmember's concerns.
I believe the most specific thing that we've offered up or put on the table for consideration is some type of permitting scheme. However, the logistics or the procedures beyond that becomes difficult to sort of speculate on because of the ambiguity of the bill. So one concrete thing that we've offered up as a department is some type of permitting scheme to see what that would look like in conjunction with conversations across our other departments in the city that are also implicated by this bill. Does that make sense or --
To a degree. Sometimes I think that we land in these situations where we're kind of at a legislative impasse where they're not effective conversations happening just outside of this arena. I would want to see Health and L&I and others come to the table with something to address the concerns if you don't like the bill. But I think that you've answered to the best of your ability. Thank you.
So I just wanted to respond I think to both Councilmembers O'Rourke and Gauthier. I just wanted to put on the record that we have started to have conversation with the Administration about possible locations of where we could move some of the providers to -- we're looking in coordination with the Administration and the community to figure out what we would consider safe spaces for individuals to be able to receive these services as well as we started the conversation about having some mobile providers be in the community but not all in the same location, right. So if we're doing wound care on the southern end, maybe we can have wound care on the northern end. If we're having a food provider, maybe have one in the middle somewhere. I think that the problem that we have had consistently is that we can have three mobile care units in one specific area and it just draws everybody to that space. Originally when I attended the meeting for Councilmember Squilla in 2022 the conversation was supposed to be about the Administration getting everyone who was actually providing these services, getting data on who they were, what type of service they were providing, whether they were officially licensed or permitted or not, right, and what days were they looking to provide these services, so that once we gathered all the information we could figure out a schedule, right. That's what we thought we could do. Unfortunately, because that didn't happen after multiple requests, we needed to push legislation that will now force everyone to be able to coordinate the services where, yes, they're being provided but they're not all being provided on Ruth Street, they're not all being provided on Somerset, on Kensington, on Boudinot Street, right. They're separated in a way where people know I can go here on Wednesday to this location or this location or somewhere in the middle and I'm going to be able to provide these services or I'm going to get services but food providers also come to follow or somebody comes with clothes. So the goal is to kind of spread them out in a way where they're not impacting one specific neighborhood, they're not forcing people to have to travel outside of their neighborhood to be able to go do their necessary day-to-day work.
Member Lozada, you said after multiple requests, requests to who just for clarity for me?
You said after multiple requests you decided to proceed forward with legislation. Who were the requests to?
We were requesting them to the Opioid Response Unit, Noelle Foizen and Keli is her name. I don't know Keli's last name -- McVoit.
Point of information. The Opioid Response Unit was who we were meeting with at the time.
Yes. But we've also had conversations with people like the Health Department, we've had conversations with L&I, we've had conversations with just the MDO in general, right. We've had multiple conversations. This is something that we've been trying to figure out for a long time. I think we're in a better place right now as a result of us putting the bill on the floor because now we know we're going to have to legislate it, right. It's unfortunate, but we're going to have to legislate it in a way that we're making sure that there is structure and that there's order and that there's respect to the neighborhood that they're in, because we've heard from multiple providers that have said that they provide services differently in the Kensington, Harrowgate community than they do in other neighborhoods. And they don't even have to say it. We can see it ourselves, right. Community residents see the way services are delivered in our neighborhood as opposed to others.
Okay. Well, hearing no further questions for this panel, thank you for your testimony. Ms. McDonald, would you please call the second panel we have to testify this morning --
Good morning. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning to the chambers. Good morning to Councilmembers. My name is Robert Evans and I came to speak about the Bill 240665 about mobile providers. My name -- I'm a resident of Kensington community and at the same time I work as a Commercial Corridor Manager for Impact Services CDC. I'm here today to advocate for small businesses that are deeply concerned about the state of our community. While I recognize the good intention behind distributing food and other goods to those in need, the reality is that these practices have been devastating consequences to our neighborhood. The food and the goods often became waste, creating litter that attract rats to our environment and exacerbating the already difficult condition in Kensington. Much of the assistance provider is not utilizing acts intended, leading to tons of trash accumulating on our streets without ever being picked up. This waste cause serious public health hazard for complicating the challenge we face due to the open air drug market, and its associated issue, individuals openly use drugs, inject them in plain sight and more even defecate on the sidewalk, living in unsanitary conditions. Children walk to the school, encounter scenes not children should even have to witness, while family and business owners insurance those (inaudible) every day. It's a heartbreaking reality that the community should not have to face. The Kensington community has been grappling with those problems for a long time, and we need effective solutions like Bill 240665 to address those issues rather than temporary fixes and worsen the situation. Bill 240665 is not about denying assistance to those in need. It is about restoring dignity to our neighborhood. This proposal can help us restore order and cleanliness to our streets. It represents an important step toward reclaiming Kensington as a place where families and small businesses can thrive. Children can grow up safely and residents can take pride in their neighborhood again. I urge you to support Councilwoman Lozada's proposed bill as a critical step toward reclaiming our Kensington community and protecting the health and well- being of all our residents, families, businesses and especially our children. Thank you so much for your attention and allowing me to speak about today. If you have any questions.
11 Yes, we do. Thank you for your 12 testimony. 13 I'd like to first 14 recognize Councilmember Phillips. 15
I 16 just want to thank you so much for 17 your testimony. I want to read you 18 a statement that I found quite 19 compelling from Roxy Rivera of the 20 Somerset Neighbors for a Better 21 Living, and I want to get your 22 perspective on it because I think 23 it kind of is in concert to what 24 you just said. She notes in this letter -- which is by the way well- thought-out and written -- she writes, Hundreds of thousands of addicted people are flooding our sidewalks in front of our houses. They are competing drug dealers flocking with the providers to target these locations. There are houses and residential blocks being littered with trash, food, human waste. There's widespread predatory practices. And she goes on to say that with providers flooding the streets about six to seven days a week multiple times a day, the poorest of the poor Black and Brown children in our community watch out of their about 64 windows of their buildings as hundreds of unhoused and addicted people are flooding the street shooting up drugs into people's necks and legs and other places. The last thing that I thought was really interesting that she noted and I'll end here, she said, How is it that Fishtown can enact legislation to get rid of food trucks in certain locations but Kensington residents can't have a voice on whether or not trucks with needles, crack pipes, mobile showers can park in front of their houses and invite hundreds of people to their block, how is it that Kensington residents are denied block party permits but mobile providers can have block parties on their streets every day? And she says it's about time that people start to recognize that real people live and work in Kensington and that we deserve the same basic quality of life afforded to any other taxpaying community in Philadelphia. We recognize that no one has an absolute power to end the crisis and many theories and treatments have been implemented. However, it cannot be at the expense of those who live and work and play here. When you hear that, what are your thoughts in terms of is that something that's translating into the business community as well?
Since I came 13 to the community about five, six 14 years ago, this is the daily basis. 15 We see a lot of challenges. We saw 16 a lot of businesses that they close 17 the door. We see a lot of people 18 on the street. We see a lot of 19 drug dealers and we see a lot of 20 community fighting, neighbors, 21 children when they go to the school 22 that they see all this crisis 23 specifically in Kensington. 24 And what I understand for your question and the testimony is that with this bill we can control. Basically one of the first problems is the trash. Impact Services provide services along the Kensington community and we pick up a lot of trash every day. If you came pass after we pick up the trash and minutes 10 later, there is a ton of trash. And the mobile provider, they help in some way but at the same time they create a lot of litter, waste and trash which attract a lot of problems to the community, especially health issues. And it's really impact when you go to other cities and when you go to other parts of Philadelphia which does not look the same as Kensington. One of the highest problems that all business owners has is all insurance companies they don't want to go to Kensington, they don't want to go to provide service or any food or any (inaudible) who provide delivery in Kensington. They don't want to do it. Why? Because there's a lot of challenges in Kensington. And with this bill this will help Kensington community to survive of all those problems.
Thank you so much, Chairman. And thank you. We're so sorry that you have to go through this every day.
I just want to note that Councilmember Harrity is in the house. And that would get all four members of the Kensington Caucus in this chamber. So would you like to say something, Councilmember?
I absolutely would. Thank you, colleagues and everyone who's come to speak on this subject. I get that this may be a little controversial for some. We on the Kensington Caucus, and I'll speak for myself, me, I am not against the services, some of the services that they are providing. They are needed services. Nobody is saying that this stuff isn't needed. My concern is when my kids -- and when I say my kids, I mean the kids in my neighborhood, my kids are grown -- but when my kids have to come up and these people are out there servicing people, some do them inside their vehicles, some service them right there on the street. Now, there's all kinds of forms of trauma. There's firsthand trauma, trauma that you get from something you experience and then there's secondhand trauma. Trauma like a kid walking to school while these people are out there servicing these people on the street and they walk by and see this gaping wound on somebody's arm that goes right down to the bone and maybe they overhear the person saying that if we don't do something about this, they're going to cut your arm off. Now, we may not think that that doesn't affect that child simply because they were walking by, just happened to see it, just happened to hear it, but that is trauma. That kid will not be able to get that picture out of their head because that's the way kids are. They think things, their brains are very active and they see something like that, then they go home and they start having nightmares because of what they saw thinking about somebody having to actually get their arm cut off or their leg cut off in order to save their life because they are not taking care of themselves, because they are not in the right frame of mind. The drug these people are doing affects them in ways that normally they wouldn't be. You know, the addicts, again they're just like us except they have a problem, a problem that they cannot stop. It is mental as well as physical. And you've heard me talk about it many, many times before. And I'm always open with my recovery. I'm somebody who's been there. I get what they're going through. I feel the pain because I was in that pain and that's what we call it. We say that when somebody has enough pain, then they'll do something about it. But until that point, I have children and seniors that have to walk past. Now, these -- we're talking about 130-something thousand residents that live in that immediate area where kids and seniors have to walk over that every day. Seniors are afraid to go to the corner store because they have to walk past 10 drug dealers standing out there, guns showing, no consequences. Right now I live on G and Allegheny. Right now you have a cop posted up right on the corner of G and Willard supposedly to kind of obstruct the business that's going on there, but it doesn't obstruct anything because they know even if they get arrested, they'll be out in a short time frame so they don't really care. It's not like when I was a kid where the drug dealers on the corner actually came from the corner so there was a chance that they might run into their aunt or their mother or their grandmother and they kind of treated people on those blocks a little differently because they came from that neighborhood and people knew who they were, where they lived. Well, that's not the case anymore. In my neighborhood they rent the corners. Two corners around the corner from me go for about $60,000 a month. Do you know how much money a drug dealer has to be making in order to pay somebody else $60,000 a month? This is a billion dollar business. This bill while I believe in it, right, because certain things that I know from being in recovery, one of which is that if you keep giving addicts stuff that they don't have, they have less of a reason to get recovery.
So what I'm saying is people always think that drugs and alcohol keep the people out there on the street, and that for whatever reason that's going to -- the lack of is going to chase them into recovery. That's not how this works. Drugs and alcohol are easy. They know how they're going to get that. They're going to do what they have to do in order to get it through a lot of other illegal things. What usually sends somebody to recovery is when it's raining out and it's cold and the person there hasn't had a fix in a little while and they're starting to come down and they're having that what we call moment of clarity where they say, why am I living like this, I don't have to live like this. But if people are out there giving them all this stuff, that's what usually sends them into recovery, not the drugs or alcohol or lack thereof. They know how they're going to get that. We know what to do to get that stuff. It's being out there in the cold and the rain like I said without sneakers, without a shelter, without food. That's when they sit there and they say, oh, wait a minute, why am I doing this, I don't have to live like this, I can go to so-and-so. This stuff is needed but it has to be done in a controlled environment where not only do you have people providing services, but you also have someone like me walking around saying, hey, I get it, I was there, I lived on that corner over there. I know you're not ready today, but when you are, here's my card and I'll come get you. That's how you plant the seed. That's how you do it. But you can't do it out on a street corner. You can't do it while they're out there thinking about other stuff. It has to be when you're in a facility getting services. Pulling up on a street corner and giving services, while noble it does nothing but destroy the neighborhood. The kids have to see this going on. They have all this stuff going around. They leave trash everywhere. And we already had my colleague Quetcy Lozada already got them to admit that they do it differently in other neighborhoods. They take their stuff with them. They take their trash with them. But in Kensington, they leave it right where they were. And we get all these other things that come with people out there giving stuff out. So they're up on Allegheny Avenue at G Street or on Kensington Avenue and they set up and they have clothes. So you walk down the line and you need clothes they figure, so they give them some clothes. So they take the clothes, they put it in the bag and then they walk down the line further and they get food and they take the food, and now they got a bag of clothes and a thing of food. And then they walk about 100 feet and they get into their nod because the drug takes effect. And then they start in their bow and the clothes go here and the food goes here. Now, I got a massive rat problem because the rats not only have a place to live but they have a food source right next door. These are the things that we don't think about, the things that the neighbors are definitely thinking about, the kids are thinking about. I just believe that this needs to be organized. Information needs to be shared. And I think this is just one step in getting control of this situation. And again, none of us believe that these services aren't needed. We just don't believe that they should be pulling up into a residential area where you have kids, seniors and everybody else walking around into a business area where somebody's trying to support their family with a business. You know, it pisses me off when people say Kensington's been like this for 60 years. That's bull. I've been living there for years. And granted 7 when I moved around there, it was a 8 little rough neighborhood, but I 9 came from a rough neighborhood and 10 that's nothing new for me. We 11 didn't have this stuff. We didn't 12 have this until COVID hit. Okay. 13 COVID hit. Jim Kenney 14 figured, okay, they're all in one 15 spot.
We know where the hell 16 they're at so we're just going to 17 let them stay there until we get a handle on this. We got that. We understood that because people weren't out anyway. It wasn't affecting anybody. But now COVID's over and people have to go about their business, kids have to go to school. If you come down to Kensington Avenue and stand out there with me in the morning when those kids are going to school, you'll get a new education, a real new education. If you're for the people, this is what the people want. We didn't come up with this on our own. This is from us going to meetings and getting screamed and yelled at by the neighbors because they don't think that we get their issues. They know we get the addicts' issues, right. 700 to 1,000 of them we have out there. But again, we have 134,000 residents that live there. How many kids do you think that is? How many seniors do you think that is? So when you go to pass this out today, I want you to think about the people out there suffering for sure. But I also want you to think about my neighbors who themselves are suffering. The average salary in my neighborhood's about $19,000 a year. I don't know how they do it, but they do and they're trying to raise their family. They're trying to show their kids another way. They're trying to do it the right way, busting their ass every day for peanuts and then have to come home from work and see what they see, not being allowed to let their kid go and play on a street because you don't know what's going to happen. I have kids that have to get HIV tests every six months because their parents made a mistake. You know what that mistake was? They let them go outside to play and they kicked a needle and now they have to go and get tested every six months. It's not right, man. None of this is right. But there's ways to do things, organized ways inside where you're giving these people -- they say they want to give them dignity. Well, give them dignity. Bring them someplace where they can take a shower inside, get a hot meal, wash their clothes, whatever they're going to do, and then have people walking around talking to them about what it is to be in recovery. But you cannot just allow these people to pull up nilly-nilly on a corner, leave all their trash, disrupt the neighbors, disrupt the community because they think they're doing good. And, you know, in reality they are doing somebody good, they are. And that is the truth of the thing and that lies the problem. We know that it needs to be done, but we also know that it doesn't need to be done the way it's been done. They need to be good partners in the neighborhood and these kids, seniors and my neighbors deserve more. So I'm begging you, do the right thing.
Thank you, Member Harrity, for your heartfelt thoughts. And I just do want to, Roberto, compliment Impact Services. When I was in the private sector, I chaired your board for six years. Big fan of what you guys do down there. Thank all the team members and thanks for your testimony.
Hearing no further questions for this panel and there being no other panels to testify, we will now transition to our public comment session. Ms. McDonald, will you please call the first person making public comment we have to testify this morning on the bill before the Committee today.
Reverend Philip Geliebter. (Witness approached Witness table.)
Absolutely. I'm Reverend Phillip Geliebter, G-e-l-i-e-b-t-e-r. I'm the Arch Deacon for the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania. I'm also a member of the Clare Project, which is an outreach ministry and an arm of the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania. As a point of reference, I have been in Kensington for many, many years. I was a Philadelphia Fire Department paramedic in the 1990s. I have volunteered with ministries, including St. Francis in Kensington for the last 9 years. The Clare Project is a 10 street outreach not by vehicle but 11 by foot and backpack and a cart, 12 and we are out multiple times each 13 week working with the unhoused 14 residents in Kensington. 15 What I will say is that 16 as a Philadelphia Fire Department 17 paramedic in the early '90s the 18 Kensington section of Philadelphia 19 was the biggest use of Narcan for 20 the Fire Department in the city of 21 Philadelphia. So this issue is not 22 a new issue for Kensington. It has 23 become on steroids quite obviously. 24 And I would disagree with the City Councilman that it happened -- that it got worse during COVID. When it got worse was in 2017 when the city --
You've worked there since, you know. Let me tell you, it wasn't like it is now and it did happen during COVID and --
I'm not disrespecting your neighborhood. I'm saying that it has gotten much worse, but it didn't happen as a result of COVID. In 2017 when the railroad tracks were cleared on Gurney Street, things came up -- all of that problem came out and was on the city streets and was horrible. We have a parrish that is near McPherson Square. And so, we've ministered to both the unhoused residents in Kensington and the housed residents in Kensington and it is very difficult. And I feel for all those people who live in Kensington. They were my parishioners. And everything that's been testified to is true. They have woke up and had feces on their front steps and they have had issues with the unhoused residents. But to say that this bill is not ostensibly to end mobile services, the way it is written it basically prevents mobile services from most of the areas in Kensington. What that's going to do is harm and kill unhoused residents in Kensington. Stopping the mobile units is not going to address the root problem. Everything that you said is true. We have walked on those streets and seen people with horrible wounds, open wounds from Tranq but those mobile services are helping to get those people treatment. If you prevent those services from being there, folks are still going to be in that neighborhood. They are just not going to have access to that care and to those resources. And I know from the partners, some of whom are here today, that we work with, that they every day work on making people better spiritually and physically and getting them into treatment when they're ready. The items that were mentioned in the bill that are called for as being problems are in fact problems. But again, they are not going to go away if mobile services are stopped. For some of us, providing these services is a religious act that the Bible tells us to step up. And what you do for what some people considered to be the least of these is what you do for Jesus. And so, that is part of the reason that we are on the street providing that care. I would say that this bill being put forward so close to Christmas when those who worship a baby that was born basically unhoused and to have this hard- hearted bill is hurtful to many, many people. I would say that there are many groups, some of them are here, and religious groups within Philadelphia that want to help solve this problem and would like to be at the table to discuss that. The person from the Health Department mentioned having perhaps somebody come through and clean up in coordination when services are provided. I think that there are many ways that we can address this, that we can look at the humanity of these people while looking at the humanity of the people who are living amongst this problem. It's not an either-or problem and preventing the mobile services is not going to make this problem go away. And all the things that have been said about the problem are absolutely true, but this is not the way to stop those issues. And I'm happy to meet with anybody in City Council to try to work on a solution with our partners where we're able to do both of those things.
Well, thank you. I just want to note the intention is not to get rid of the mobile service. It's to organize and create some order. So just wanted a point of clarification. Councilmember Phillips.
Yeah. Just a question. You said -- for how many years has your organization been working in Kensington?
-- the Episcopal Diocese had 8 this program since 2017. I have 9 been in Kensington in one form or 10 another since 1991. 11
12 Okay. I just want to ask, you 13 know, this legislation has come 14 from the ground up from residents 15 who have asked for this, and these 16 organizations including yours have 17 had a lot of time to work on how to 18 solve this particular issue. What 19 has prevented you all from solving 20 this issue with individuals, the housed residents, having to deal with loitering, trash and other issues and concerns such as drug activity on their steps? Why haven't you all settled this by now?
I would toss that question back to City Council, like what has the City done to prevent -- this is a huge problem. And what you're seeing here is the end result of a failure of multiple systems. Okay. So you're seeing people in their worst moments who are suffering from substance abuse. Okay. And so, yes, our organization has worked with other organizations to do street cleanings. But to ask us what we're doing about the drug dealing, I can tell you that at Kensington and Somerset we have a partner that we work with. And Kensington, Somerset, the SEPTA police have been ticketing folks for loitering and being on the street, confiscating their goods and giving them summary citations. Well, with a summary citation you are not allowed to have a public defender. And giving a summary citation is just an evil, evil way to get people into the system. So you have people that are unhoused that get a citation that they're not able to pay and they're not going to walk to the district to fight that ticket, and then eventually that's going to go to a warrant, and then you're going to arrest somebody who's been in active addiction and they're going to go to CFCF, and we just had somebody who died recently at CFCF because of a drug reaction. So this is just very hard-hearted and I think there are multiple organizations that are very willing, including religious organizations and the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania are willing to work with the City of Philadelphia to find a solution and this is not it.
Yeah, I understand. You're absolutely right, the City has a responsibility. And that is why this particular Council and this particular Mayor have been really focused on really finding those solutions but more so than previous administrations and also previous Councils. So I just want to be able to say to you that, yeah, we're doing our part. It's just now we're going to need an equal partner as well in this battle, and we can't have people -- we got to have folks to help contribute to cleaning up Kensington, not causing more of the filth. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony. I wanted to make the same point of clarification, right, that this bill is not to end mobile services in Kensington. It is to coordinate services, that's my first point. Number two, I also come from a faith-based background or foundation and I live by serving the least of these. I also believe that I am my brother's keeper, right. And understanding them and living my life that way, I recognize that I have to look at this from both lenses, right, understanding that neither one of the two populations is less than the other. And so, for a really long time the City government created a situation where they were focused on one population while consistently hurting another, hurting a population of people that are just trying to live day-to-day, raise their families, conduct business. Some of these individual people that Mr. Rodriguez just testified about have spent their entire life savings on a business in order to be able to put food on their table, in order to figure out how they are going to eat every single day. And we as a government have consistently caused trauma for that group of people. At what point does everyone that provides services in that particular footprint understand that. At what point do we say that we have a responsibility to do something, that we have a responsibility to remove people who are losing their limbs on the street that can't think about a real opportunity to recover because their wounds are in such poor condition, at what point do we believe that we are our brother's keeper and we have to get them off the street. We have to be able to heal them physically so that we can have an honest conversation with them about recovery. At what point do we do that. I have a pack of testimony from students and staff from Conwell School that talk about their experience every day, right. What do you say to these children?
What do you say to these children who in 20 years from now, Pastor, will come to you and I and say that we were leaders in their community and that we had an opportunity to do something and that we failed them --
-- and that we failed them. We have to do something in this city. The --
-- way we have been doing it up until now has not worked. We have prioritized harm reduction and the harm reduction way for a very long time while --
But you can't go the opposite -- you can't go the opposite --
-- ignoring, while ignoring an entire community of people, right. We've ignored an entire community of people --
-- because we focused on providing services to those who are living in addiction. It is time we have a responsibility as a government and as people of faith to respond to the needs of both populations.
That is what this is. That is what we're trying to do, because we allowed for government. I sat in a meeting where we agreed with government that we would do something and we failed them again. Time after time after time we continue to fail people.
Do you think that these people, the folks that are living on the street, by preventing -- this bill, we are talking about a huge, huge problem --
This bill will coordinate services and not allow you to come on to your block. You want me --
Would it be okay for me to bring providers to your block?
The way the bill is written it prevents it anywhere in Kensington.
Would it be okay for me to bring mobile service providers in groups to your block?
I'm asking you a very specific question. Would you want them to receive services in front of your home?
Then what you've just testified on is not appropriate, it's not factual, it's not truth. Because people -- every single day these mobile services show up to residential blocks and provide services there. Yes, they are crucial services. Yes, they are serving the least of these. However, they are impacting negatively an entire community of people that we have a responsibility to serve. People have spent their entire life savings on homes. They pay property taxes. We have a responsibility to serve the same people.
I'm not arguing any of that. My question is if the mobile services stop, okay, or there was some talk about having them in coordinated locations, but do you think that what the people are exposed to is going to go away?
(Inaudible) coordinate these services. We are saying that these services have to be structured. We are saying that these services are vital, they're important, they're necessary. But they cannot continue to be provided in the way that we have allowed them to be provided.
And so, can we sit down with the organizations that are here --
In order for us to be able to sit down with all of these people, we need to get the Health Department, L&I and the City in order. We need to get our own house in order first. We need to figure out a process and then we can come to you all, because we did. We gave providers an opportunity to organize and coordinate themselves and they did not do it. What they did was started to fight amongst each other because they wanted to choose a specific area on a specific day. You know what happened? They all showed up on the same corner on the same day at the same time. You know what happened? They created more trauma for people. We cannot allow you all to structure and organize yourselves because you don't want to. That's not what you're interested in. We need to get our own house in order first. Government has caused trauma in that community and we have a responsibility to fix it. And then we will put forth a process and a plan that will work --
And it's the responsibility of government to care for the housed and unhoused.
-- to improve quality of life for people while still addressing the needs of those who are suffering from addiction. And I'm offended that you will come in here with scripture, right, acting like nobody here has any kind of sense of faith.
Ma'am, that's not what I said. What I said is for some of us who are doing the --
For a lot of us, for a lot of us in this chamber on this day believe that we have to serve the least of these. All of us, a lot of us --
-- in this chamber, we have a different kind of Council. We have a different kind of Council in this body today where many of us are believers, where many of us believe that we have a responsibility to take care of people --
-- that is what we are trying to do every single day.
That is not what I said. What I said was for some of us that are providing those, that the reason we do that is because it's a matter of faith. I did not call into anybody's -- I'm not saying anything about your faith or where, you know, where you're coming from in doing this. My comment was that for me providing these services on the street is a matter of faith. I was not talking about anybody here. Okay. So I'm not questioning anybody's faith.
Well, Pastor, thank you for your testimony today. Thank you for being here.
I should note we have multiple testifiers so just be respectful of everyone's time please. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)
Good morning. Please state your name and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Lore Elisabeth Blumenthal. Hello. I'm here today to speak to the humanity that is missing from this bill. I agree with the pastor that just spoke that this is going to harm people further and not do what this bill is proposing. I've been working in Kensington for seven years providing life-sustaining services. And what this bill does is takes away basic human life-sustaining services. We're talking about -- I couldn't reach my hand out with a bottle of water to someone who's dying in the sun without getting a fine. This winter I can't give out blankets to people who are going to die in the cold, and that is what this bill is going to stop. It's going to stop the services. There's nothing about coordination. There's nothing about structure. This is just ending the services to these people who are people just like you and I who deserve the same respect that you and I deserve. I don't see this -- this bill does nothing good for the Kensington community. And I understand when you say how am I going to get my kid out to the doctor. Well, how are the people in the street able to get any of their services. They deserve the same medical services as the people who are housed and are able to pay taxes. This looks to me more and more like how do we get rid of people that are a nuisance to us so that we can develop, make new homes, put more money in our pocket. This city is looking more and more like a business finding ways to make new construction, to make more money and the Kensington homeless community is just in the way. And one of the ways to get rid of these people is to kill them by taking away these life- sustaining services. This has been the trajectory of the city for many years. And if you want to talk about cleaning up, that is something that absolutely can be organized. But what I've seen since 2021 the cleanup is taking leaf-blowers and blowing the sidewalk, which is filled sometimes with needles, and throwing those needles in the faces of our homeless community. That is not cleaning it up. Sorry, just want to bring myself down a moment. This bill will only take away life- sustaining services for our homeless population, which will murder them. This is a death sentence. This is terror and this is genocide on the Kensington population. Just like people who are housed, the people outside need food, water, medical services. You spoke of the Kensington homeless community needing respect, and I can promise you they feel respected and heard by the mobile services that are currently out there. I'll just make one more point about this bill, that there is great intentional vagueness in what mobile services means. So I don't even need to be working out of my vehicle. I could just be myself standing on the corner trying to give a blanket, a bottle of water, food that I'm allowed to give to a friend, I'm allowed to give to a friend if I see them in any other neighborhood but Kensington. We see the development that is happening. Just up Lehigh we see all of the high-rises happening, and we can see the connection between murdering these folks who are human beings so that more developments can be made, so that more money can be made, so that more people who are not seen as people can be murdered in the street, in prison, as we have seen recently. Rest in peace, Amanda. The services that are currently provided need to be funded more. We have been defunded. Were we to have more funding we could provide more services, life-sustaining services. We all deserve to live. Instead of a bill that takes away these services, ask for a bill that funds these services to human beings. All of us are one trauma, one job loss, one injury away from being on the street. I ask for your humanity in this moment. If you take away these services, there will be more dead bodies in the street for the children to be traumatized by. This bill does not organize things. There's nothing about organization. It's just about taking it away. Thank you.
Thank you. We can go left to right then. Please state your name and proceed with your testimony.
Certainly. Good morning, Chairman Driscoll and Vice-Chair Squilla, Councilmember Lozada and Councilmember Harrity. My name is Dr. Candice Player. I'm the VP of Advocacy and Street Outreach at Project HOME. I'm joined here today by Kara Cohen, who's the Associate Director of Integrated Health Care at Project HOME and also a nurse-practitioner and a member of our Street Medicine team. Residents of the 7th District are understandably alarmed by the accumulation of toxic waste, litter and discarded drug paraphernalia in their communities. No one should be expected to tolerate the accumulation of litter and waste on their streets. For many reasons, including encampment closures and orders to move along, we know that people who are experiencing unsheltered homelessness in Philadelphia are moving from busy city streets like Kensington Avenue into surrounding neighborhoods. But in order to address the rising presence of people who are homeless in residential neighborhoods, our goal must be to connect every unhoused person to housing and services. The Biden Harris Administration has specifically identified street outreach as a best practice and a key component of our response to homelessness, and for good reason. According to All In, the federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness, an effective homeless response system should include outreach to unsheltered people as well as coordinated entry, targeted homelessness prevention and diversion, shelter, permanent housing and wraparound services. Too many Philadelphians have become disillusioned by a system that is not serving them. And for that reason, we must meet people where they are, by bringing certified peer specialists, mobile housing assessors and importantly, street medicine teams to them. If Bill No. 240665 were to become law, it would impede our ability to connect people who are homeless to housing, health care and other vital supports. In partnership with the Department of Behavioral Health and other service providers, Project HOME operates a 24-hour homeless outreach hotline. If Philadelphians are concerned about someone who is homeless or at risk of homelessness, we encourage them to call the hotline. However, if a resident of the 7th District were to call the hotline and request assistance for someone on a residential block or a sensitive public area, under the rule proposed in Bill No. 240665 we would be prohibited from responding to their call. Importantly, that means we would be prohibited from providing the very services that those residents are paying for. Our outreach services are funded by a combination of both public and private dollars. If street medicine teams like the one that Kara leads were unable to reach their patients, we know that those patients would, as the pastor pointed out, still be there, and likely sicker, with more complicated medical conditions and only to find themselves in emergency rooms where we're providing care that's more costly than it would have been had Kara and her team been allowed to provide necessary medical care and meeting people where they are. We appreciate and welcome the amendments to Bill No. 21 240665 that have already been provided, but we would recommend further amendment to Section 24 10-2802 regarding definitions, specifically the section concerning the definition of a mobile crisis response team. As currently drafted, the amendment notes that teams operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual Disability Services for the purposes of providing community- based behavioral health services perhaps are exempt, but we would recommend that that definition is broader and includes teams that are out there not only to provide behavioral health services but also exist for the purpose of connecting an unhoused person to housing, health care and supportive services.
At a minimum, teams like Kara's Street Medicine team must be able to provide health care to patients who are critically ill and on our streets. Thank you.
Thank you. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Kara Cohen. I'm a certified register nurse-practitioner and a certified wound specialist. I'm the Associate Director of Project HOME Street Medicine team, and I work with Candice here at Project HOME. I did want to just talk a little bit about what it is that I do in a day because I think there might be some misconceptions or people might need clarification about the types of services that we have. I work on a nurse-run team. We are all nurse- practitioners and nurses street medicine team and we partner with Project HOME's outreach team that again is partially funded by the City and partially funded privately. That is if you were to call the Outreach Coordination Center, I have my little street jacket here. So if any citizen calls this number, 215-232-1984, the chances are one of my colleagues would be dispatched. I recognize -- so sometimes we are along with them to provide medical services. The services that I provide are primary care, low-barrier primary care through a holistic and trauma- informed lens. What that means is we treat people's high blood pressure, diabetes, thyroid disease, untreated HIV, gender- affirming care, pregnancy care, women's health care. We've worked with the Health Department before to ensure that people who have been exposed to syphilis complete the three-shot regimen of penicillin to avoid spreading of health emergencies. We do have two wound care specialists on our team, so we do provide wound care. We are also there to connect people to brick- and-mortar facilities. In Project HOME health care services we have three brick-and mortar clinics. All of our clinicians are located at another clinic. My goal is never to permanently provide services for somebody on the street, but I've been doing street medicine for seven years in Philadelphia. Been working with people experiencing homelessness for about years, 19 but 7 in Philadelphia on the 20 street. 21 My goal is never to 22 provide -- I don't think I provide 23 excellent care under a bridge or on 24 a sidewalk, but I do think that a lot of times it's the difference between someone living and someone dying. I think that I hear the bill. The intention of the bill is not to eliminate mobile services. However, my team would not be able to function. I have several hundred patients in the Kensington area that I see for all of the things I mentioned. Another thing that had become an issue in the last couple years is the number of unhoused pregnant people, which in 2022 I believe resulted in 13 street births, which is where someone delivers a baby on the corner. So we have made it a mission of our team to connect with people who are unhoused and experience pregnancy. And I'm really proud to report that everyone we have worked with who's pregnant has delivered in a hospital. And I worry about the increase in not just maternal mortality but in infant mortality were our services to be eliminated. I mentioned before that if you call this number, you get my colleagues. One of whom Sam Santiago is partially funded by DBH and Monique Taylor who is a certified recovery specialist, and they go out -- Sam has worked for years doing outreach. Monique 12 has like over seven years of 13 experience and lived experience as 14 well. 15 We receive calls from 16 Kensington all the time in the 17 community asking for us to engage 18 people and help move them along. 19 Under this bill it is so 20 restrictive that we would not be 21 able to provide those services. So 22 I worry about the language of it. 23 I hear the spirit is to 24 protect the people in the Kensington community and I do appreciate that. However, the way that the bill is written right now, to shut down the wound care services, to shut down the MOUD services, I wish I could say that people were flocking to Kensington for excellent free health care, but that's not what's happening. They're there because of an open air drug market and they're there because of the drug dealers.
The things that are mentioned as nuisances, the needles people are injecting in their necks, all of those things, they're not doing that because of us. We had come there because of them. Unfortunately, I feel that -- I mean, I don't feel that, I know that Philadelphia is the epicenter for the Xylazine epidemic in the United States. And when we started to see that drug introduced into our community, and now it's in almost 100 percent of the supplies, that's when we really began to see people not being able to move off the block because the withdrawal is so severe. And I think that is when we started to see an influx of services that are going to help people or trying to help people. I've heard the need for responsible and sustainable services which I think is something that we provide. In my backpack I carry which is about 45 pounds. I do carry an array of wound care supplies. I do carry some things for procedures. I carry Depo. I carry some, you know, which is a medication to help people with unintended pregnan -- or to avoid pregnancy, I'm sorry, a contraceptive medication. I provide the injections to treat syphilis. I provide blood pressure checks. We sometimes do labs. I take everything with me when I leave. I double-bag my trash because it's biohazard and I do two bags, and I take it with me if I can't find somewhere to dispose it that is safe. I take all of my needles. I do all of that. I take exception to that I provide care differently in Kensington than I do anywhere else. I work all over the city and my team works all over the city, including in Aramingo, South Philadelphia, Center City, and I provide the same care and trash disposal, provide the care with the same caution, the same everything that I do no matter where I go. Just as no matter where I provide services, whether I'm providing it in a brick-and-mortar clinic or if I'm providing it on the street, I attempt to provide as much dignity as possible. I hear the controversy about treating wounds on the street. Most of the folks that we work with are not able to leave where they are. They are stuck there. Sometimes we don't even park. We drive to them where they go, so that's how we end up under a bridge because a lot of times they won't even walk up the block to get that care. So I do worry about being cut off from our several hundred patients. We make every effort to provide dignity and privacy getting in the back of our SUV if we can. We try to bring someone into our brick-and-mortar space. I'm not always able to do that. If we were not to be present, my patients will still have gaping wounds but wounds will be uncovered and more infectious. They will still have diseases, but those diseases will not be treated and can spread. There will still be addiction, but there will be lack of connection to MOUD, which is the medications for opioid use disorder, and a lack of connection to recovery. And I believe in the way this bill is written right now it will likely increase death, but it will absolutely increase suffering. In the entire time that I've been a provider I have never seen a medical problem solved by taking away resources. I have not seen a problem solved by isolating a person and having so much suffering that they feel compelled to go do something. In fact, a lot of times that isolation makes people care less and they give up and that is part of what we do, is that we care about people and we let them know. So I do hear what the spirit of the bill is, but I do think more amendments are needed to carry that spirit out. Thank you.
Thank you. I note that your suggestions are on the record for consideration. I do note that Member Harrity has a question.
Yeah, just one quick question: How many homes has Project HOME given to the homeless addicted population out there? How many have you put into housing? As you say that's your main goal, but how many of the homeless addicts out there in Kensington have you placed in housing?
I asked how many people have you taken off the streets of Kensington and put into housing, simple?
Again, that's not what I asked. I understand. I know all about Project HOME. I actually like Project HOME. But what I am asking you, ma'am, is how many of the homeless addicts, not the 1,000 units, I don't care. I want to know how many units you gave to these homeless addicts that are out there to be in? How many of them would that be?
I'll let you answer as long as it's not 1,000 properties. We know how many properties that Project HOME does. Again, I am a fan of Project HOME. But I would like to know a number of homeless addicts that you took off the streets of Kensington and placed in housing. That's it. It's not confrontational. I'm just asking for a number of how many people you housed out of that Kensington homeless population that are now in housing? How many?
-- and all of that housing is open to people who are homeless --
How many people did you put into housing from the Kensington area? That's it. Don't want to know what you do --
-- in the rest of the area. Don't know what you do anywhere else --
You're supposed to be getting people off the street into housing.
Yes, and that is what happens. But what you're asking is not how it works.
The bottom line is you haven't done any of that, have you? Have you gotten anybody off the streets of Kensington into a Project HOME house, yes or no?
How many? How many? Yes, the answer is yes. You took a homeless addict off the streets of Kensington and you put them in housing. That's what you're telling me on the record here, right? That's what you're telling me. All right. Do --
No, I don't. The answer to your question is yes. The units that I mentioned include new units of housing, including the Inn of Amazing Mercy, the Fitzgerald Residence and --
Okay. I would just like to note for the record I would like to have her put in -
-- writing how many actual people. I want names. I want to know who they serviced from Kensington and put into housing. That's it.
If you could provide the Chair at your convenience an answer to the Councilmember's question, if you can.
We can certainly provide you with that number. But the fact of the matter is that our housing is open to people with histories of homelessness, people with histories of addiction and we have also added -- because we are committed to addressing the opioid crisis in Kensington, we have also added Philly Home, we have added the Maguire Residence and we have added the Fitzgerald Residence to make sure that we have units --
-- of 8 housing to address the needs of 9 people with opioid use disorder, 10 and I am happy to give you the 11 number of unique individuals who 12 have been housed in those 13 residences as well as the other 14 1,000 units of housing -- 15
I 16 don't want to know -- I want to 17 know specifically who you housed 18 from the 7th Councilmanic District. 19 That's it. 20
Member Harrity, you can't talk over the testifiers. You'll be recognized if you'd like to be. And we do have a lot of other folks that have public testimony today. I'd like to --
So in addition to the units of housing that Project HOME offers, the Project HOME Outreach team that I mentioned before goes around and they do this thing called Contacts. If someone's not familiar, any time they encounter somebody who is unhoused in the streets of Philadelphia, they get their name, birthday, Social Security number. That goes on a list to the City where there's multiple organizations, including Project HOME, that do refer to various housing organizations so that Outreach is directly causative of housing those folks.
I think part of the problem and we're going to hear this consistently, right. I think that part of the problem and part of the great frustration is that we're not able to capture some of this data, right. We're not able to capture the dat -- we're not able to capture the data of who is out there providing services, but we're also not able to provide or capture the data of who they're providing services to, right. I think there is great frustration. There's great frustration on behalf of the provider. There's great frustration from the Kensington Caucus and this legislative body, right. But I think that a great part of that is that very important piece of information of who's out there, what is the service that they're providing and how many people are they providing it to. Continuing the conversations will allow us to be able to create I don't know if it's a dashboard, I don't know if it's a mechanism where we're reporting on a quarterly or, you know, whatever the frequency is that will allow us to really capture the information around that critical information, right. We are hearing that there are more people today in Kensington than there were last year, right. And so, I think that the frustration, especially from someone like Councilmember Harrity who lives there and who can see it, is it's real, right. It's a real emotion. We need to figure this information out, right. This bill 7 is just a beginning, right. I don't want people to think that this is an end. This is the beginning. We unfortunately had to legislate this process because as a government we were not able to do it without it. But that type of information, how many people are each of you providing services to, are there individual people, are you serving the same group of people, you know, what is the success of your services, all of that information is extremely important for us as legislators and for the community that you're in. And so, yes, there's frustration. Yes, there's anger, but it is all as a result of the fact that a government we did not do our due diligence, right. I don't want people to think that we're blaming the provider. We're not. This is a government issue. Government has caused this situation to be created. And now, as a government we need to figure out how to fix it. The only way we're going to fix it is through legislation, is through conversation, is through amendments. All of these things are possible and necessary in order for us to continue to move the restoration of quality of life in that community. And so, I want people to understand that, right. I want people to understand that the frustration and the anger that's here is real, but it's a result of what we as government have allowed to happen.
May I respond just briefly. Councilmember Lozada, I agree with you and I will tell anyone who will listen that there is a clear need in the city for not only a more coordinated approach to our operations but the collection and reporting of data. One of the reasons that it's actually quite difficult to give an answer to the question that Councilmember Harrity fairly asked is the way we collect data in outreach, that it is divided or operated by different City agencies. Some of those databases are maintained by the Department of Behavioral Health. Others are maintained by the Office of Homeless Services. So to figure out who specifically came from Kensington and was housed requires looking across that data set. That's not an insurmountable problem, but it absolutely is one that we need to address. And frankly, it's a problem that cuts across not only issues in Kensington but throughout the city. So I 100 percent wholly agree with you.
Okay. Project HOME, thank you for your testimony. Ms. McDonald, would you please call up the next testifier.
Jonas Levy, Norome Finnell, Sam Stern. Again, Jonas Levy, Naromo Finnel, Sam Stern. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)
Good afternoon. Just whoever would like to go first please state your name and proceed with your testimony.
Sure. Good afternoon, and my name is Sam Stern. I work as a physician with Temple's Begin the Turn. I'm going to come closer to the mic.
So good afternoon. Thank you, Councilmembers, for the opportunity to speak. I really appreciate it. I really do appreciate it. Again, I am a physician working with Temple's Begin the Turn mobile clinic, although my remarks today represent my own perspective and are not those of my larger institution. I want to make that clear. Our program Begin the Turn includes a team of physicians, counselors and certified recovery specialists, people who themselves are in recovery. My hope is to share a few key points during a brief statement this afternoon. I'd like to express appreciation for the Councilmember's comments about the life-saving importance of mobile units. I'd also like to share concern and opposition to the bill 11 as written. I'd like to state that we are in the midst of an unprecedented local and national overdose crisis and that the people most likely to die during this public health crisis are least likely to access care in traditional health care spaces such as brick-and-mortar clinics and the hospital where I work. I might mention that people who use drugs are treated poorly, experience tremendous stigma and often do not have social support systems in place such as housing, transportation, identification and phones. For that reason, I'd like to share that Begin the Turn and mobile providers more generally function to provide access to life-saving and evidence- based care to people most in need of these services. This includes provision of medical services and referral to clinical and recovery care and spaces. I'd like to make the point that these services meet people where they are already and that rather than causing the neighborhood's overdose crisis, Begin the Turn, for example, started coming to Kensington based on an existing overdose statistics and in response to an existing overdose crisis. And then in addition to the importance of our programs to our existing patients, we frequently respond to overdose events in the vicinity of our clinic and provide emergency medical care and assistance. The most important thing I'd like to state clearly today is this: Mobile clinics are a response to an existing problem, not a cause. The situation in Kensington is dire and the trauma that the Councilmember described is undoubtedly very real. Mobile clinics are not the cause of this crisis and rather a response to mitigate this crisis. I'd also like to state for the record that we clean up after ourselves. We bring our trash. I'd like to make a plea for collaboration and partnership and to offer to help develop policy that protects the quality of life of residents in the 7th District which has clearly suffered, but I'd ultimately like to state that the legislation as written is too broad and would restrict the provision of life-saving services to people in need. I am a doctor and these are patients with a life- threatening medical condition. And I do believe sincerely that this bill as written will prevent me from accessing my patients. I do not believe that restricting mobile units will resolve the problem or accomplish the goals of improving the lives of people residing in the 7h District, but will rather serve to further isolate people with substance use disorders and risk worsening an existing overdose crisis. Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Doctor. State your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yep. My name is Jonas Levy. I work with Penn's Rock. We have our Director here, Norome Finnell. Thank you, Dr. Stern. I will keep my comments brief to respect everyone's time. We would like to say that we began operating in the Kensington region of the city starting in January of this year, January, continuing a previous initiative with Kensington Hospital. Since January -- from January until July, of 400 unique individuals served, not all of who had substance use issues, there were many primary care, general medical patients that we saw and encountered. Of 400 clients, we had placed 75 for specific addiction recovery services. The vast majority of those 75 were for wound care, but it was 75 nonetheless across a range of addiction services. We were able to do this successfully by collaborating with Begin the Turn with Dr. Stern. And as mobile service providers, neither one of our operations really produces large amounts of supplies or handouts or goods. It's predominantly service-based. We will administer Narcan or hand out Narcan, but we don't provide large supplies of goods. Did you have anything else?
Additionally, with the bill as written it would prohibit all medical mobile service providers. I want to be clear that is not just substance use. As written, this would prohibit mobile flu vaccination services on residential blocks. It would prohibit individuals coming to schools to provide sports physicals if they do so from a mobile unit. Granted I know with the recent amendments, it specified that you could get approval or exemption to operate in a special area, but there is no such process for a residential block. If there were a mobile urgent care that intended to serve members of Kensington, even though the urgent care could be providing urgent services, as written those are not emergency services. Those are not emergency medical personnel. It would be prohibited in operating in residential blocks. Additionally, the definition of residential block is vague. While one can say the spirit is pretty clear, it doesn't clearly define frontage. Is it specified by the length of the street? Is it specified by the number of unique parcels divided by total parcels? Is it specified by the number of doors? You know, if there's one big building that operates a whole half of the block and then you have six little houses, is that a residential block or is it 50/50? So while we support Councilwoman Lozada's efforts to improve quality of life in the 7th District, we feel that it needs to be more specific and more clear what services are allowed to be rendered by whom, under what conditions and what we're looking for. Thank you.
Well, thank you. And that's why we're here today to hear this valuable information. I do want to know from my observation is we do have some very committed serious service providers and then some are not. So we're just trying to absorb as much information. We all come from different perspectives, and we appreciate what you've done. And congratulations on those 75. Well done.
Thank you. It was in partnership with Kensington Hospital and the Be Well Center at Girard.
Ms. McDonald, would you please call our next testifiers.
Elena, Milin, Ana Lucia Riojas, Raani Begum. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)
Morning. State your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Elena Milin. So hello. My name is Elena Chelfan Milin. I am a second-year medical student at Lewis Katz School of Medicine. I am here to provide my own individual perspective and I'm not speaking on behalf of Temple University or Lewis Katz School of Medicine. I am here to comment on the bills under discussion today, which propose to restrict vehicular mobile service providers in Kensington on the grounds that they, that we contribute to an unsafe environment for Kensington residents. I have worked with several of these vehicular mobile service providers and therefore find myself in a position to comment on some of the myths that are being propagated about our work. First, the idea that we or our participants leave extra trash around is in my experience untrue. Every single organization that I have ever worked with brings a Sharps container and goes around blocks where we operate to get rid of discarded needles and other paraphernalia. Every single organization that I have ever worked with makes sure to clean up trash around the area before leaving. If anything, we try to leave the streets cleaner than when we arrive. Second, the idea of increased confrontation from our participants is also I think unfounded. Most of us who serve people who use drugs in Kensington have learned how to deescalate conflict. And participants who come to us understand that there are rules, that we will not tolerate yelling, fighting or other disruptive behavior. We also respond to people who need help so that they are not left suffering and dying on the streets, which I would argue is a way of reducing the amount of disruption to the surrounding community. I have directly witnessed individuals who work with us making sure that participants stay off the stoops and the streets of nearby residents. The final reason that the bill gives for banning -- for restricting, excuse me, vehicular mobile service providers is that we expose residents' children to traumatic and frequently unsafe conditions arising from the fentanyl crisis. Again, I hear what our Councilmembers are saying, the testimony that has been given by people who live in Kensington, as I do not. Okay. I understand that. And as a student who is trying to help this community, I want to make sure that we're doing that in partnership with housed and unhoused residents. So I understand that that trauma exists. But again, the mobile service units, we are not the cause of that. And without our services, more people will be there with open wounds, more people will be dying, will be struggling, will be traumatizing people who live in the area if we are not there to help to connect them to services. I also want to point out that some of the people who get help from these organizations are children and are seniors. They are children and seniors who live in Kensington. It's depriving them of these services of food, of hygiene products, of connections with health care providers they might not otherwise have. Is that reducing their exposure to the conditions arising from the fentanyl crisis? That is my question. Finally, I will say that many of these vehicular mobile service providers are, in fact, health care providers and health profession students like myself. We want to work with our communities and not against them. We share the goal of making a happier, healthier, cleaner Kensington. Thank you for listening to my remarks. I beg you not to pass this legislation as written.
Thank you. Next testifier, please. State your name for the record and proceed.
My name is Lucia Riojas. That is spelled L-u-c-i-a, R-i-o-j-a-s. Thank you, everybody. And good afternoon, Councilmembers and everybody here. And my comment is against the Bill 14 No. 240665 introduced by Councilmember Lozada. By the way, I get what you say about seeing the reality from both lenses. That's your job, yes, but this bill isn't that. It isn't providing that. Also, I don't get why here we've heard Councilmembers asking the organizations and people that dedicate their life to serve in Kensington what the solution should be because that is your job. That is the government's job, and that is why you represent the people, all people. And accountability is something that should be provided from the government to the people and not the other way around. This bill will eliminate life-saving services by banning organizations to help people that live in a very deplorable way due to issues that concern us all. I don't believe that banning mobile life-saving services will be the solution to a much more profound problem, a public health problem. And it also lacks any propositions on how to seriously address the problem from the root, not only to try to put a band-aid on a really deep wound. I think that that is something that has to be worked on, the bill that is introduced. Banning the services would limit access to Narcan, medical care and basic necessities such as food and water. I mean, it's that simple, you know, basic life, basic dignity. It is also worth to say that we serve not only people without a home but also people who have a home in Kensington. And as my colleague here or whatever, we're not colleagues, but my new friend here, I have to say that, yeah, when we go and provide these services, we try to leave the space that we're working in like cleaner than we found it before. So that is very important because it's been an issue to address here a lot. Councilmember Lozada has decided to introduce a bill that tries to implement a decade-old strategy that has been proven to be a failure with scientific evidence available from all over the world. I don't have it with me right now, but I mean, again, it's your job as lawmakers, as representatives to study all that evidence and take in account scientific evidence so that you can represent the people that got you here in a better way. In the current political climate, the City of Philadelphia should be an example of forward- looking politics that put people and dignity first. And I just want to repeat this is a matter of empathy, dignity and caring for the people who need us. Mobile units are not the problem. They are part of the solution actually. So I think it would be a mistake to pass this law. Thank you.
Thank you. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Hi. My name is Raani Begum spelled R-a-a-n-i, last name Begum, B-e-g-u-m. And I have been living -- I've been a resident of Philadelphia. I've been organizing in Philadelphia for the whole time that I've been here. And I've actually been living in your zip code since 2014 to 2020 after which I was displaced out of it because of developers and rising rents. I've also been organizing in the Kensington area since before 2018, so I'm actually very familiar with all of the arguments, both from the residents' side, the harm reductionists' side, the Councilmembers' side. I've actually been there for all of it, including for when legislation for safe house was being pushed and people said that they didn't want it in their neighborhood. I'm bringing it up to say that this idea around, oh, you know, services should be here and not here, here and not here is a very, very, very old argument that has been happening in Philadelphia, and it is extremely clear that the unhoused population, not just the drug-using unhoused population, but the unhoused population in and of itself is unwanted by the "residents" of every single neighborhood, which I don't believe is true. And so, part of what I'm trying to do here is testify on both sides of the lens that you keep saying, Councilmember Lozada, not only from house residents which I'm very lucky. I have family, I've always had help. I'm very lucky to be a housed resident of Philadelphia even when I was displaced out of Kensington, but also as a person who's been organizing with unhoused members and who's been on the brink of eviction and on the brink of houselessness way too many times since I've been alive, right. And I think that it is in fact really important to talk about what we can do to restore dignity in our neighborhoods in Philadelphia, right. The first one is housing. So I think it's really interesting to me that right now you, Councilmember Lozada, and you, Councilmember Harrity, were arguing with representatives from places like Project HOME. There has never been actual legislation forwarded by any Philadelphia government, any Philadelphia government that does anything about the rent, about developers and how people are displaced out of the spaces that they are living in, right. Inflation in the United States right now is one of the high -- Philadelphia has the highest inflation in the United States. Developers are coming in, they're actually displacing people out of their neighborhoods, out of their homes. And so, I'm really glad that we're talking about children and we're talking about the elderly and the trauma that they experience, because I know having done mutual aid in Kensington since 2018 that a lot of the people that I'm talking to are actually historical Kensington residents. The elderly, a significant portion of the elderly people in Kensington are historically Kensington residents that have been displaced out of the home that they were living in these neighborhoods. I don't hear any concern for them. I just hear the concern for residents that are already there, who are again either in Kensington because of new development, because so much new development have been pushed since I have arrived, which again I've been here for at least 10 years, right. A lot of concern for these developments and these residents, who then are not actually local to Kensington, are not actually historical to Kensington. They're just people who have a little bit, just a little bit extra money to be able to gentrify Kensington, and those are the residents and their children that you seem to be really concerned about since they're the only ones who seem to be able to hold on to their housing because I wasn't. A lot of my friends were not, right. I actually also want to talk about actual real, meaningful commonsense harm reduction services.
People keep talking about Kenney and people keep implying, vaguely saying that maybe something whatever Kenney did was harm reduction and it was terrible for Philadelphia. I said earlier that I've been organizing since 2018 because one of the things that was proposed in 2019 got cut off and then reproposed in 2020 was PAD, Police- Assisted Diversion, the idea that a cop will come to an unhoused person and connect them to all these magical social services that exist in the city of Philadelphia. They don't exist. They don't exist. What ends up happening is that people end up at a precinct. They get maybe two bottles of water. They do not get connected to any services. The services that they do get connected to are places like Salvation Army, which don't have housing. I know this because I ran a relief fund program from late 2020 to late 2021 just to get people cash. And all of these services that Police-Assisted Diversion were supposedly connecting people to, all of these services ended up servicing people to me, one person who is just fundraising on her own and trying to get people indoors trying to get people to safety. The City of Philadelphia has never ever, ever actually have had real services, real resources around housing, and we have been asking for housing first models since before 2016, since before 2016. So I don't understand this conversation that is happening right now about, oh, COVID changed the game. People have been awful to unhoused people, myself included, since way before then, right. It is also really important to talk about these things because like I said, these are arguments around, oh, when we have services in the neighborhood, all of these people flock and then the residents can't stay safe or whatever. We've heard it since Safehouse, since before Safehouse. It's a very old, age-old argument, right, and it is not true because if you actually listen to commonsense things, you know that when services are actually connected in the same place a couple miles within the neighborhoods, a couple blocks from each other, a lot of services in neighborhoods actually really enriches the neighborhood, not only the unhoused people but the housed people. Housed people also have medical services that they can get to if housed people are experiencing not being able to pay their rent, not being able to pay their bills, not being able to pay their mortgage. They also themselves know that they have these services available within a couple blocks of themselves. It does not actually deter them. I do want to talk about harm reduction services again because I'm hearing a lot of, oh, there's needles everywhere, people are pissing and shitting everywhere. Since that conversation around Safehouse, Kensington has at this point eliminated every Sharps box that used to exist in Kensington, which means that people don't actually have anywhere for their trash to go, right. Porta-potties have been eliminated from the neighborhood. And so, now people don't have anywhere to actually just go to the bathroom. And public bathrooms, there's only one public bathroom that exists in the city of Philadelphia and it's in City Hall. The cruelty, the absolute cruelty of asking somebody in Code Blue weather where there is no more services -- it used to be that in Code Blue weather Philadelphia would roll out warming stations and buses and all of that, that has been eliminated since I think the last two years. That doesn't exist. The absolute cruelty of making people go from neighborhood to neighborhood to neighborhood, hey, you can't go to the bathroom here, hey, you cannot get medical services 17,000 miles from over here, the absolute cruelty is actually astounding to me. It is astounding to me that you're sitting here saying that you're trying to look at it from both sides of the lens or whatever because you're not, you're not.
And lastly, I again want to talk about commonsense actual harm reduction services, and not the ones that fancy suits in City Hall pretend that they're talking about, right. A couple months -- I think it was in September a couple months ago, Kendra Brooks organized an entire session for harm reduction people to come and have a conversation about what services are needed and why they're needed. You walked away from that conversation. You are not actually listening to us. You're not actually coming to the table for any commonsense conversation. You walked away from a public hearing that happened right here. So to come here and say that you are trying to, you know, you are not trying to eliminate services, you're just trying to make sure that everybody's coordinated, you have historically walked away -- both of you. Both of you have actually historically walked away from these conversations, right. Because had you been in these conversations, you would have heard how Prevention Point -- in New York City, in Harlem, New York City OnPoint NYC has changed the game for the entire neighborhood so that they went from thousands and thousands and thousands of needles on the street to zero, to zero within the first week of their opening. We can have that. We can have that here. We have been asking for this since before 2017. Harm reduction organizers have been talking about safe supply so that this issue around drug dealers and whatever violence happens on the street gets reduced and eliminated, but we don't -- but nobody actually listens to us. Some fancy suits come in here, talks about recovery and then it's like, oh, you know, like I'm doing it all. Do you know -- since you seem to know a lot about services, if they have true services or not, recovery services do not take in anybody if they have wounds. In fact, emergency departments in the city of Philadelphia will often turn away people if they have Xylazine wounds, especially in the cold because they have so many other patients coming in and they look at this person and they'll be like, oh, you're just coming in here getting drugs when there are wounds all over their body. And so, they end up back on the street. So, yeah, I imagine it's traumatizing for your kids because I cannot imagine being a child and then watching the adults around me look at another human being and say, oh, that's terrible, it's their fault, they should be left out to die just as long as they're not outside of my home, just like they're over in that other neighborhood, just like they're not outside of my home, but also not outside of City Hall because then developers cannot come in, because then developers cannot come in and have these new trashy buildings that are sinking. The buildings that they're building are sinking in Fishtown and Kensington. But, hey, we have to develop these neighborhoods for them so that they can make money. The fact that this is a city -- that Philadelphia is supposed to be a city of brotherly love and sisterly affection has been dying in City Hall and your bill is a nail in the coffin. Your bill is a nail in the coffin because it hasn't just started there for the last however many years. You want to talk about why people are on the door stoops of people's residences? Because the police keep shooing away unhoused people. Again, there's no housing. There's nowhere for unhoused people to go. So if the police is going to come and harass and terrorize people out of the parks that they were living in -- and I get it, I get it. We want to use our parks for the kids, for this and that. So if the police come and terrorize people out of the parks, then they're going to go somewhere else and that's going to be on your doorstep. They're there because you and your police evicted them out of the places they were living in, evicted them out of the tunnels, under the bridges that they were living in.
You are 19 reaping exactly what you sowed, and 20 now you're here coming and talking 21 about trauma and how it's so sad 22 that people don't get services when 23 you're the one taking those 24 services away. It is bone-chilling, bone-chilling how an entirely cruel bill is sort of being cushioned, is sort of being sugarcoated with conversations around trauma and care and this and that. It is bone-chilling how this is happening. Thank you for your time.
Well, thank you for that passionate testimony and all your testimony. Thank you very much. Ms. McDonald, are there any more testifiers this morning?
Yes, one more. Silvana Mazzella. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)
Good morning. State your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Silvana Mazzella. I'm with Prevention Point Philadelphia and I wanted to just express some concerns and also clarify some things that were said. There are many mobile units in Kensington, but it was stated that there are no 10 mobile units in other communities. There have definitely been other mobile units in different communities across the city. We've operated several units in other parts of the city and we've collaborated with other people in other parts of the city. But it's also worth pointing out that we place mobile units in areas that have the most need. In fact, many of the mobile units that are operating in Kensington and other parts of the city are operating specifically "following an overdose spike," so the Health Department or others might set out an alert about an increase in overdoses in a particular community, and this has certainly happened outside of Kensington, and a mobile unit will place there either immediately to distribute Narcan, do overdose prevention education, meet with pharmacies, community block captains or it will stay there for a period of time to saturate that neighborhood with Narcan and offer people substance use treatment. There are also units that specifically follow HIV incidents, right. So we know that in different parts of the area and part of the increase in mobile services in Kensington was paired with increases in new outbreaks of HIV infection, but that happens in other parts of the city as well. And in addition to Narcan overdose prevention, HIV testing, there are also offers of PrEP or HIV primary care. I also want to point out that there are people here that have been coordinating a mobile service provider meeting since at least 2020, 2019. Before that, the Health Department and DBH co-facilitated a mobile service provider meeting. The first one that I went to was held at the Health Department and after that, it was held at Rock Ministry and then moved to other parts of the city. It's now I believe mostly virtual, but there are two people here that coordinate that. And a range of mobile service providers meet there. Sometimes people from City government units meet in that. And I say that to say that all of us that provide mobile services want to collaborate with the City. We want to be good partners. We want to be better partners. And part of the discussions that happened today have been had at these meetings, negotiations with other service providers around not necessarily being on the same block the same day of the week the same time, but trying to coordinate in a way that we are hitting multiple areas across a week or across a month and not necessarily providing duplication of efforts if we can do slightly different things. The discussion of being long-term, most of the mobile service unit providers are not trying to replace brick-and-mortar services. I do agree with the Councilmember that brick-and-mortar services to me at least are ideal. We can provide a range of services under one roof in the most dignified way, but there are many people that are still not going into brick-and-mortar facilities. When we enroll people in mobile medical care as an example, we do a PDMP lookup to see where else they've gotten substance use treatment and how often. We gather records, we consent them to contact their managed care entity to find out a recent hospitalization or something else, and there are many people that we find that have not had care even in the last year or two. So for some people brick-and- mortar is ideal, but for many people mobile services are their first engagement with care. I can also tell you that, for example, for our service, and I would believe that most of the mobile providers here that use an EMR on their mobile trucks, will find people that since their entry to substance use treatment or wound care or some other health care service on the street are actually still engaged in care. They're still adherent. They are housed now. They're either employed.
They're on Social Security and they are living stable lives, and that happened through that initial engagement that may have then a month, three months later transitioned to brick-and-mortar services. So it is not always meant to be a long-term service. We respect and accept the need for more regulation, and we do clean up after ourselves. I think it is only right and reasonable that providers that provide mobile services do that and show respect for the community. And I just want to restate that we are -- the ones that participate in regular meetings are interested in partnering with the City, are interested in being the best neighbors possible, but these services have to continue. If there are going to be regulations around where a service can be provided, I think someone earlier talked about there are many mixed-use blocks with residential and commercial services. We would expect some type of blueprint but also some engagement with mobile service providers, with the Health Department, with DBH and Council to really look at where need is so that we're not just looking at residential and commercial but looking at placing services where there is the most need so that they can operate.
Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm not going to testify.
I did want to add one more thing about homeless outreach that I meant to add that was discussed before. The mobile outreach, we have a Homeless Outreach team. When calls are made into the Project HOME hotline, we are one of the service providers that goes out and responds, and we did over 400 placements to shelter last year. It's also notable that there are times where there is not an eligible placement for someone, where there just is not a spot, and that's definitely more extreme in the extreme winter and summer, but that happens. It's also notable that at least the outreach teams, part of the job is documenting the chronicity of people's unsheltered status and trying to make them eligible for placement. It is not possible for all of the mobile service providers, ourselves included, to take everyone off the street. It's simply not realistic. But the best that we can do is try to offer care, provide life-saving medical care in that moment, especially for people who are not going to get care elsewhere. And as I said, we often find every day that we're out on the street people that we treat that have not gotten care elsewhere and then to try to make them eligible for other types of placements.
Thank you and thank you to all our testifiers today. This was very, very, very helpful for this panel. There being no further questions from members on the Committee and no other witnesses to testify on Bill No. 240430 and Bill 9 No. 240665, I will ask if there is anyone else present in this hearing whose name we have failed to call?
(Inaudible). UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Speak in the microphone. (Witness approached Witness table.)
Good afternoon. My name is Katherine Abrams. I work for the Health Federation of Philadelphia. Thank you, Councilperson Lozada, Squilla, Driscoll, Phillips, O'Rourke, and Hannity -- Harrity.
Good afternoon. I know it's been a long morning. I'll try to keep this brief, but I feel like my work has been mentioned a couple times. I do training and technical assistance on behalf of the Health Federation of Philadelphia. My program is contracted by the Substance Use Prevention and Harm Reduction Division of PDPH to do training and technical assistance. We host monthly meetings for mobile medical teams, and this came as a result of a request from one team about three years ago. So Silvana was -- there were -- what she mentioned, the meetings, they were going on and on, and then it kind of fell apart and then we responded to the technical assistance request to meet with the medical teams, and these are the licensed teams. So our outreach was directly to the medical teams. Over time our group has expanded and we have relationships with some of the harm reduction groups that are here today. What I thought the groups would talk about when we first started meeting and the initial request was around location, I thought we would talk about location, where is the best place to go. And we really went with the data about where overdose was the highest. And so, Kensington became the priority. Over time I thought that what the group would talk about was how to provide the best services for addressing Hepatitis C, for example, which is hard to do on a mobile van, but trash has been on our agenda for two years. And there is consensus among these groups that trash is a priority. We don't want to add to the problem. I cannot control what these groups do, but I can offer a space for them to meet and try to discuss the concerns of the community and we do that often. Frank Franklin had introduced me over email recently to Mike Cameron, your Legislative Director. We gave him the date of our meeting. I asked to meet with him beforehand just so that I could learn more about what was going on. We didn't hear back. And I know it's a busy time. We thought maybe this legislation wouldn't be on the table and maybe that's why we didn't hear back. We are -- I think the groups would welcome a discussion, a sit-down. It's just the way things happen, you know, the neighborhood meetings that they go to a lot of yelling happens and it feels hostile. So I have to say I'm not here to oppose the bill or support it, but just to make sure that you know that there is some coordination happening. The groups respect each other. They like each other. And we try to support the best practices. And really one of those best practices is making sure that we're doing good in the community. They want to do good. That's all I have.
Thank you. Thank you very much. This concludes the public hearing of the Committee. We will now go into the public meeting to consider the action to be taken on the bill before this Committee today. Ms. McDonald, will you please call the roll to take attendance. Members that are in attendance, please indicate that you are present when your name is called.
Present. So before we make a motion, I just want to thank again all the testifiers today. This was important. We wanted to get this on the record. This is not the end of the process. This is the process and we want to get it right. And I think I can speak for the members that are here and I think I can speak for the maker of the bill. The maker, do you want to say anything, Member Lozada?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd also like to thank everyone that came out today to testify. I appreciate, I've heard. You know, again, I think that this is the beginning of a long-awaited conversation and a long-awaited process that needs to happen, and it's a process and a structure that we as government have to establish in order for us to ensure that both populations are receiving the absolutely necessary services, right. And so, I look forward to continuing the conversation. I've received some text messages from individuals who were here today who testified who want to continue the conversation, who want to be a part of the process. I welcome that. And again, I think it's important for us to ensure that both populations are heard and respected and that we're able to deliver for both of them as a government, as elected officials because that's what we're responsible for.
Thank you. I just want to recognize, Vice-Chair Squilla.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Councilmember Lozada. As we heard, there's a lot of good points on both sides of this argument. And the challenge is what do we do to make it work. And I think a lot of people understand hearing from the community side of it and hearing from the unhoused side of it that we have a lot more work to do. And I want to thank the sponsor of the bill for her commitment to continue working on this and to work not only with the colleagues here but also work with the providers, the Health Department, L&I and all of our departments to continue to work on this until we get it right. So thank you for your passion, thank everybody who testified and knowing that we will continue to work on this as it moves forward. Thank you.
With that, the Chair recognizes Councilmember Squilla for a motion on Bill No. 240430.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill No. 15 240430 be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended as to permit the first reading of this bill at the next session to Council.
The Chair notes for the record that Councilmember Squilla seconds the motion -- no, we need a second. (Duly seconded.)
I'm sorry. Councilmember Phillips seconds the motion. It has been approved and properly seconded that Bill No. 240430 be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Let me just get it on the record. So the ayes are Councilmember Squilla, Driscoll and Phillips. Councilmember O'Rourke, a nay and can now proceed to comment.
Thank you, Chairman. And also, I want to send my regard -- well, give my salutations again to Member Lozada as well as Member Harrity as well as the other colleagues, and also thanks to all of those who did come out and give their testimony today. I know we're about to wrap up, but I did want to share this. I'm a freshman and I'm new to this, and this is my first day on the Committee --
I just want to clarify. The bill 7 that we voted on was the L&I bill. You want to be a nay on the other bill, correct?
All right. So let's just for the record I'll put the -- let's do the motion again. This was on the L&I bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill No. 9 240430 be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended as to permit the first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
The Chair notes for the record that Councilmember Phillips seconds the motion. It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 22 240430 be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended as to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it unanimously and the motion carries. Now, this would be an amendment to -- this is an amendment to Bill No. 240665.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer an amendment to Bill No. 240665. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of the Committee. I move that the amendment to Bill No. 22 240665 be approved. (Duly seconded.)
The Chair notes for the record that Councilmember Phillips seconds the motion. It has been moved and properly seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 240665 be approved. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. The amendment to Bill No. 14 240665 has been approved. Now, on to the bill as amended. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Squilla for a motion on the bill. Did you want to speak, Councilmember O'Rourke, before we vote?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, my salutations to those making these mistakes as a freshman. Let me just say that we have clumsy tools in trying to do civic surgery. This has become evident to me in the last months 10 of lawmaking, which makes 11 interpreting the moves, the actions that are taken a bit difficult without explanation, which is the reason why I wanted at least a little space to say this. I want to be clear that I care deeply about this bill's goal of creating better living conditions for the residents both of your dist -- excuse me, of the 6th District and the 7th Councilmanic District. That has to be remembered, I think, in lawmaking. There is the letter of the law and then half the writing of the New Testament calls the spirit of the law that is also active in that. And so, capturing that spirit within the law is essential I think if we're going to do the right or righteous thing. However, as the Health Commissioner mentioned in his testimony I fear this bill will not accomplish that. Research consistently demonstrates that harm reduction practices are the most effective way to deal with the opioid, mental health and homelessness crisis that humans and citizens continue to face in our city, saving more lives and tax dollars in the process. That doesn't mean that the community's relationship with harm reductionists is perfect or regulated well, as we've kind of ironed out here today. But since these methods are the ones that actually preserve life, before we get to the question of the quality of life itself, I believe that we're tasked with improving relationships and improving regulations. At its core, this bill 10 regulates where these vital services can take place. It does not address the underlying causes of the issues faced by Kensington which did come up in this conversation in the 7th District and too many other neighborhoods in our city, as has been articulated. There is common ground in this legislation. That became evident as well. For instance, the amendment requiring better spacing. Member Lozada talked about that. That makes a lot of sense to me, about spacing it out so there's not hard concentration in certain areas. Multiple providers on a residential block is a challenge that very few people can deny, I think if we're being honest in our lawmaking. The pictures are compelling enough. The testimonies even more so because I see the pictures today, but I was in the meeting at McPherson Park in the summertime and I heard that come from folks. But again, if this is the work that is keeping people alive, giving them the opportunity to survive a dark time, we can't just sweep it off the board. Philadelphians who choose to help those in need do not need more hurdles to jump through. They need our help, and I consider that to be essential work for those of us who are tasked to etch out a common life together as hard and as difficult and as intense as this thing can be. I look forward to continuing to work with all of my colleagues on finding ways to address these and many related issues facing our city, but I must urge us all to pursue a different course of action here. My hope is that you believe my desire to find what that right course of action looks like. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Member O'Rourke. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Squilla for a motion on Bill No. 240665 as amended.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 23 240665 as amended be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended as to permit the first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
The Chair notes for the record that Councilmember Phillips seconds the motion. It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 12 240665 as amended be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended as to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Motion carries. This concludes the business before the Committee on Licenses and Inspections today. Thank you all very much for your attendance. (Committee on Licenses and Inspections concluded at 1:03 p.m.) C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence noted are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me in the foregoing matter, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. __________________________________ TANEHA CARROLL