COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Room 400 City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, April 26, 2000 3:30 p.m. - - - BILL 000121 - Held at request of the sponsor. BILL 000146 - Authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 128 of an area bounded by Cambria Street, 19th Street, Indiana Street, and 17th Street. . . BILL 000148 - Regulating the parking of motorcycles at metered parking spaces. . . BILL 000161 - Authorizing Anthony Lucidoni, owner of the property 39 Oregon Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to construct and maintain a sidewalk cafe awning, electric sign, and seasonal enclosure. . . BILL 000162 - Prohibiting sidewalk sales at various locations within the area bounded by Reed Street, 21st Street, Morris Street, and 25th Street. . . BILL 000166 - Amending Chapter 9-200 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Commercial Activities on Streets," by adding a new section regulating the location, size, operation, and maintenance of newsstands. . . PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO, Chairman COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES I N D E X Bill 000146 * Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager, Streets Bill 000161 * Nancy Sen, Engineering Supervisor, Streets Bill 000162 Otis Haigler, Manager Regulatory Affairs, L&I Bill 000148 D. Ostrander, South Street Headhouse District John Foy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bill 000166 * Nancy Sen, Engineering Supervisor, Streets 11 Tom Chapman, City Planning Commission. . . . . 39 * Paul Levy, Center City District. . . . . . . Debora Russo, Managing Director's Office . . . 46 J. Beller, Esq., Counsel for Newsstand Assoc. 51 George Claflen, Claflen Associates. . . . . . 53 Architects & Planners Barry Hossack, Capital Manufacturing. . . . . 58 Earl Rogers, Newsstand Association Member. . . 73 Douglas Watts, Ad Shell Street Furniture . . . 83 Advertising Specialty Company Steve Peershine, USA Today . . . . . . . . . . 105 Mary Tracy, President, SCRUB . . . . . . . . . 145 Judith Eden, Center City Residents Assoc. . . 157 * Peter Hecht, Vice President, Philly Walks. . 171 (* - Indicates also submitted written testimony.) Submitted Written Testimony Only (Bill 000166) Timothy Lidiak, Assistant Director Avenue of the Arts 3 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000146 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good afternoon, good afternoon, everyone. The Committee on Streets and Services is now in session. We have a quorum. With me today are my colleagues Councilmember Cohen, Councilmember Ortiz, and Councilmember Goode. The newsstands legislation hearings, which we reconvened to today will be held till the end. There are only three others bills before that, I expect that that will take the most amount of time, but there are a couple other bills that we'll get through quickly. As soon as Robin gets back, she'll read the title of the bill.
Bill No. 000121 is being held at the request of the sponsor. It will be rescheduled. Bill No. 000146, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill No. 980717) approved March 23, 1999, entitled "An ordinance 22 authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 128 of an area bounded by Cambria Street, 19th Street, Indiana Street, and 17th Street by striking from the City Plan and 4 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000146 vacating 18th Street from Cambria Street to Indiana Avenue, and reserving and placing on the City Plan a certain right-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes, under certain terms and conditions."
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. Bill 000146. This is not an administration ordinance 14 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Larry L. Anthonsen, President of Concord Products Company, Inc., 1951 South Broadway, Camden, New Jersey, 08104. The purpose of this ordinance is to extend the time period of an ordinance approved March 23, 1999. The purpose of that ordinance was to acquire a safe, secure parking area for the proposed new manufacturing location of Concord Products and hence attract employs to the Philadelphia area.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for this 5 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000161 witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000161, an ordinance authorizing Anthony Lucidoni, owner of the property 39 Oregon Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19148, to construct and maintain a sidewalk cafe awning, electric sign, and seasonal enclosure onto and over the north footway of Oregon Avenue adjacent to the property 39 Oregon Avenue, all under certain terms and conditions.
Is there anyone here to testify? Mr. Tayoun? Is there anyone from the Streets Department here to testify? Nancy, here you are. I apologize. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. My name is Nancy Sen, I'm an engineering supervisor with the Streets Department. I'm here to testify on Bill 6 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000161 No. 000161 an ordinance authorizing Anthony Lucidoni, owner of the property 39 Oregon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19148, to construct and maintain a sidewalk cafe awning, electric sign, and seasonal enclosure onto and over the north footway of 38 Oregon Avenue, adjacent to the property 39 Oregon Avenue, all under certain terms and conditions. The Streets Department has no objection to the passage of this bill.
Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Tony, you can continue to make those fantastic roast beef sandwiches with broccoli rabe and chicken cutlets and everything else. Jimmy, we'll do a suspension of the rules, okay? Thank you, thanks for coming. 7 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000162
Bill No. 000162, an ordinance amending Section 9-205 of Philadelphia Code, entitled "Sidewalk Sales," by prohibiting sidewalk sales at various locations within the area bonded by Reed Street, 21st Street, Morris Street, and 25th Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon. Please state your name for the record.
My name is Otis Haigler Jr., and I'm the Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. With respect to Bill No. 000162, amending Section 9-2035 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Sidewalk Sales," by prohibiting sidewalk sales at various locations within the area bounded by Reed Street, 21st Street, Morris Street, and 25th Street, under certain terms and conditions, the Department of Licenses and Inspections has no 23 objections to the enactment of this bill.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for this 8 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000148 witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000148, an ordinance amending Title of the Philadelphia 12 Code, entitled "Traffic Code," by adding provisions regulating the parking of motorcycles at metered parking spaces within certain portions of the area generally bounded by Front Street, Pine Street, 11th Street, and Bainbridge Street, and by providing civil penalties for violations of such provisions to be imposed, pursuant to Chapter 19 12-2800, entitled "Administrative Adjudication of Parking Violations," all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. Is there anyone here who wishes to testify? Mr. Ostrander, Mr. Foy, please come up to the witness table. 9 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000148 (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. Please state your name and identify yourself for the record.
Thank you very much. I am Dick Ostrander, the Executive Director of the South Street Headhouse District, and Bill No. 9 000148 essentially describes the district and changes the parking regulations within that district for motorcycles. I am here to say that we have considered motorcycle problems on the street in many ways, and we do feel that this proposed ordinance would be helpful. And that essentially is all I do have to say. I think there is no 17 disadvantages to the street in that no parking spaces are lost; it simply changes the confirmation of the vehicles. When the motorcycles park -- angle-park six, eight, ten sometimes to a parking space, it gets very difficult, and it is not conducive to the business climate of the street. John, do you have anything?
Thank you, Mr. 10 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000148 Foy?
From Brigitte Foy's, 'cause I don't want you to think that I took preference with Mr. Tony Luke, so John Foy of Brigitte Foy's is here. Great food as well.
Thank you. Also I'm the Chair of the South Street Headhouse District Public Safety Committee, and the motorcycles have just become very problematic over the last several years, particularly on the weekends, and have been very intimidating, with loud engines and so forth and setting off car alarms and scaring the Dickens out of kids walking down the street eating ice-cream cones.
I understand. I remember in New Hope, they had a very similar problem, and at a recent visit a couple months ago or whatever, I noticed the one-vehicle-per-space sign, which gave me the idea to run it by the South Street Headhouse District and thought it was something we may want to try and see if it works for us in Philadelphia as well. Thank you for coming here today and 11 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 thank you for your testimony.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? The Parking Authority has no. . . Thank you for coming, Mr. Dixon. Blame her. And let the record reflect that Councilmember Clarke is now in attendance. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
This is the bill that was continued from April 11th, Bill No. 000166, an ordinance amending Chapter 9-200 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Commercial Activities on Streets," by adding a new section regulating the location size, operation, and maintenance of newsstands on the public sidewalk and by making conforming amendments to other sections of the chapter, all under certain terms and conditions. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. I'm sorry. Please identify yourself for the record. 12 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
I'm Nancy Sen, Engineering Supervisor with the Streets Department.
Do any of you have testimony right now? 'Cause I'm trying to refresh my memory on where we left off. I know the last time we left off, the next speaker was Mr. Levy, and I apologize 'cause earlier I told here him he would be the first speaker. You want to wait, Paul? Okay, continue. And Councilmember Rizzo is also here now. Thank you.
With regard to Bill No. 166, the following is offered as follow-up to our testimony of April 11th. Our previous testimony included the proposal of six amendments to the bill. To recap, these amendments were proposed to clarify that when the newsstand is in operation, a minimum of 6 feet of clear footway and 18 inches of curb 13 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 setback should be maintained at all times. The amendments particularly address that these clearances shall be maintained for any temporary or permanent extension of the basic footprint of the newsstand. As a result of issues discussed in the testimonies of April 11th and subsequent interdepartmental meetings, a new set of amendments have been jointly drafted, thereby superseding our previous document. We believe these amendments address all Streets Department original concerns for maintaining the public footway. Additionally, a language for such features as advertising appurtenances, color, paint finish, and security gate housing have been added to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the Art Commission. Therefore, the Streets Department has no objection to the passage of this bill, with the addition of the following technical amendments. We trust that the addition of these amendments will produce legislation that compasses thorough guidelines for the design, placement, operation, and maintenance of both functional and attractive 14 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 newsstands in the right-of-way. Amendment No. 1: Delete the second sentence of Subsection 9-212(4)(a) and add the sentence, "For purposes of this subsection, a block face shall mean the street segment encompassing an odd or even hundred-block address range, as defined by the Department of Streets Geographic Information System Center Line File. As so amended, Subsection 9-212(4)(a) reads as follows: "(a) There shall be no more than one newsstand on any corner, no more than two newsstands at any intersection, and no more than two newsstands on one side of a block face. " Amendment No. " Amendment No. " Amendment No. 5) The unit which houses the gate must be think totally concealed within the newsstand. " Amendment No. 4), and provided that all racks, shelves, and shields are removed when the newsstand is not in use. 1) Two shelves immediately adjacent to the window opening shall be permitted, provided that no shelf shall project beyond the permitted 10-foot length of the newsstand, and no shelf shall project more than 12 inches from the facade of the newsstand on the sidewalk side. 2) One rack shall be permitted on each side of the window opening for the display of newspapers, magazines, and/or periodicals, provided that each rack is installed on the front of the stand and parallel to the front of the stand and no rack is hung from the roof of the 17 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 stand, and provided the rack does not exceed 24 inches in width, projects no more than inches from the facade of the newsstand on the sidewalk side, and does not exceed feet in height. " 12 Amendment No. 4). 1) Advertising may include a band on the four sides of the newsstand, not to exceed 6 inches in height, located at least 6-feet-4- 18 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 inches above the sidewalk. The band on the sidewalk side may be illuminated; the bands on the remaining three sides may not be illuminated. 2) One advertisement may appear on each of three sides of the newsstand, excluding the sidewalk side as follows: Advertising on the street side of the newsstand may be a maximum of 7 feet wide by 2 feet high and may be illuminated. Advertising on each short side of the newsstand may be a maximum of 18 inches wide by 36 inches high and may be illuminated. 3) Security gates may include a graphic logo identifying the owner or sponsor of the newsstand. The proposed design must be submitted to the Art Commission for approval. " Amendment No.
7: Add a new Subsection 9-212(5)(g) to read as follows: "(g) All newsstands shall be painted in consistent colors approved by the Art Commission. The Art Commission shall consult with any special services district whose jurisdiction includes a newsstand location before approving paint colors. " Amendment No. " And Amendment No. 4). And that's the conclusion of the amendments that the Streets Department proposes for this legislation.
Thank you. I have several simple questions. On of your testimony, number 5, the amendment to number 5, where you speak about the racks and shelves and shields. I know that on the new newsstand, the ones that we're hoping that most people will take advantage of, there's a -- the way these things are built, the air-conditioning systems are built so that they're inside and 20 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 there's no overhang. Is this enough -- is this tight enough, this legislation, that it would prohibit any modification of the newsstand at a later date, that would make certain that they could not put in an air-conditioning system or a heating system that would hang out beyond the -- I'm just wondering. I mean, I don't see any reason for that, but you never know, people do become a little creative at times. And I want to make sure don't wind up with new newsstands and have a similar situation that exists on some of the existing stands where, for comfort reasons -- and I understand why -- they've added an air- conditioning system in but, you know, the unit is sticking out 8, 10, 12, maybe 16 inches beyond the dimensions of the box.
I guess, just being familiar with the legislation, I know we covered the curbside in one of the paragraphs, but we don't address the other three -- the other three sides are addressed by particulars having to do with roof overhangs. 21 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
And in most cases, it's either end side is where the air-conditioning system, on the current boxes, are put into place. And, again, the new one has it built in so we don't have to deal with that, and that was the intention of the Association and all of the people that we worked with over the last year and a half, to have something more uniform and more clean looking on the outside and address some of those problems so -- I just don't want to make a federal case out of it, but I just want to make sure that we have as much in this as we possibly can have.
The other thing is, on the sidewalk side, when you take away the space allocated for shelving and the opening for making the sales, there's probably not much room there to have air-conditioning. So like you said, I can see it only being design-wise on the two short sides.
If they did it on the side where there's no door -- on one side in 22 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 the new newsstand, there's a door, and on the other side, there's no door, then they would actually interfere with the advertisement. So, again I don't -- I shouldn't say I don't whatever happened, 'cause I've seen some of these boxes out there and it's amazing what happens.
Excuse me, sorry. The other thing is that if any other design comes down the pike, there is, you know, specified in the original ordinance that it has to be approved by the Art Commission. So I guess that's our, you know, stopgap measure if anything else comes up.
Okay, a question from Councilmember Clarke and then Councilmember Rizzo.
As a second -- you know, once this legislation is passed, there is a need to 23 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 rewrite the regulations, and that will be jointly written by Streets -- by L&I and the Streets Department. And so if there's any concern, we would certainly, working together with L&I, make sure, as we did with these amendments, that any concern from the other departments or yourselves would be addressed there.
Thank you. The Streets Department. I have a question with respect to the content of the advertisement on newsstands versus bus shelters. Can you give me some clarity on that, as to what's allowed in the newsstands and what's allowed in the bus shelters?
Moy name is Otis Haigler, and I'm the Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for L&I. The newsstand ordinance, the proposed newsstand ordinance will only allow for newspapers and magazines and periodicals that are sold from the newsstand as well as advertisements for the Pennsylvania Lottery. Those are the only types the advertisement that will be allowed for the newsstands.
Yes, yes. Periodicals and newspapers that are sold at the newsstand as well the Pennsylvania Lottery.
Okay. And the bus shelters right now primarily have what, anything else?
I think Mr. Levy might be able to help us with that also when he comes up to testify.
Okay, that's pretty 25 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 much answers what I need and eliminates my second question.
Thank you. Just to follow up on that, if, down the road, the Newsstand Association would want to increase or change the parameters that you just described for advertising, they would have to do what?
Another ordinance would have to be addressed or amend this one once it's in place.
Okay. My question is, are the newsstands entitled to any services from the Streets Department, such as trash pickup?
No. They're -- the only input the Streets Department has really is in the very beginning, when an applicant comes and proposes a location on the footway. And, certainly at that time, there's certain things that they have to prepare -- certain plans showing all of the other furniture that's in the area 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 where they propose. The Streets Department looks at the proposed location to make sure they're not interfering with anything else and make sure that the location abides, you know, to the ordinance. So that's really where we enter. And the only other time we enter in is if your eyes or ears are out on the street doing other jobs and seeing that there might be something that has to be cited, and then working to together with L&I, we might --
So all newsstands must have - they're dependent on a private trash collector to pick up their trash?
So you should never see a situation where there's trash cans on trash day out next to the newsstand.
I believe the intention is to have storage inside for -- I don't know if there's anything addressed in the ordinance about you're allowed to have a trash receptacle. 27 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
I think they're required by ordinance, and I think Councilman DiCicco just mentioned that there's a requirement to have a trash receptacle for the patrons to discard wrappers and things like that. But I'm talking about the magazine wrappers and the boxes that are used to deliver their product. If they put it out -- they're a business and if they wanted to put a trash can out on trash day with recyclables and also other trash, would the Streets Department be required to pick it up?
I believe they would have to because it's -- it's left in the right-of-way.
No, no, I'm not suggesting that they just pick it up because it's short-dumping. Is a newsstand entitled to City services?
City services. Um, I think -- I'm not -- I believe they would, but I think I should get back to you on that question. I don't -- I am not particularly --
Because if they take advantage of those services, then they've got on 28 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 trash day another piece of a barrel, trash cans, or whatever a business is limited to on the sidewalk.
I do know that there's a sentence in here about when they're closed, they have to leave the sidewalk clean and free of debris. So that would mean -- I mean, you could surmise from that that they can't leave anything out there until next Friday, you know, the subsequent trash day for that area. I think that might cover --
Well, I think it's something that needs to be determined because if these businessmen and women are entitled to City services, they should get it like any other business and not have to be dependent on a private contractor, and if they are entitled to it, they should understand the parameters that they are required to follow to take advantage of that. And if after -- if on the day of trash collection, they're allowed to put out their trash, you need to be able to deal with that because that's another obstacle on the sidewalk that I don't think you've anticipated at least one 29 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 day, or whatever the cycle is, a week.
No, we haven't. I don't believe we have them in the schedule. And other than them being responsible for keeping the site clean at the finish of business day, I don't think it's the intention for us to have to --
The question that I would like answered to the Chair is, are these business people entitled to trash collection like any other business in the City of Philadelphia? because I believe all businesses are entitled to a minimum pickup of certain numbers of containers.
I rather doubt that if they requested, you know, to know what date, you know, the route is --
Okay. I think that's important because they should, for their taxes, get the same services as any other business, but they also have to do it in an orderly, proper way.
If I may interrupt, I think when the Newsstand Association 30 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 gets up to testify, maybe they could speak to some of the ways in which they have their trash removed. And I'm sure there are cases where people maybe abuse that, as in any situation, but maybe we can ask them that question and get it direct from them.
Fine. I'd appreciate knowing what the policy is. If I had a newsstand and I asked you, can the City pick it up? I'd like to know through the Chair.
To the gentlemen from Licenses and Inspections, did you define before the limits on the content of the advertising? And if so, if your answer's yes, then would you be good enough to repeat it?
Yes, sir. Councilman Cohen, I am, again, Otis Haigler, and what I stated before was that the types of advertising that would be permitted at the newsstands would be periodicals, magazines, and newspapers that are sold from the newsstand, as well as advertising for the Pennsylvania 31 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 Lottery. Those are the only two types of advertising that's permitted by the ordinance with the newsstands now.
In other words, if a casino from Atlantic City wanted to advertise, they would not be permitted.
Councilmember Clarke, Councilmember Rizzo wants to know if you could put up like a "DiCicco for Council" or a "Cohen for Council" on them?
Only "Cohen for 32 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 Council" -- he's at large, that's why at large.
"Landslide Clarke," that's right. A question about the placement of newsstands -- I just need a little clarity on that. Is there any difference in terms of the placement of the regulations associated with the placement of newsstands in commercial areas versus residential areas, or is it just one guideline for the entire city?
The -- it's -- there is no 17 difference between what is -- what is at the property line or the right-of-way line. The regulations just get into what is in the footway, and that there should be no interference with, say, for instance, fire hydrants or any other furniture in the footway. But, certainly, when someone comes to us with a proposed location and we might think we might feel just, by common sense, that it's 33 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 proposed at a location that might be frowned upon, we might -- we make a policy of, you know, maybe talking to the commercial entity or whatever, you know, they're going to sit in front of and --
And the other thing about these -- with the intention of these to roll out prototypes, you know, that would come into the city and have advertising on them illuminated, there is a need for electrification and phone hookups for these future newsstands, and there is stipulation that would have to be okayed by an ordinance. So that would be an avenue for all the interested parties to know up front before something is, you know, is put in front of their property, because any of these newsstands that need electrification -- which all of, you know, anything that's going to have illuminating lighting added would have -- there's an avenue that the public and any property owner near there 34 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 would certainly know about it through the procedures that we have to go through to get the ordinance passed.
Okay. I guess -- okay, my concern lends more towards the residential neighborhood. I have happen to have -- I know this is somewhat unrelated to what we're discussing today, but I've happened to have instances where individuals had just essentially put newsstands in front of a person's home and were granted permission by the Streets Department, I was just concerned about the policy related to that, but it sounds to me like it's at the discretion of the Streets Department and their interaction with --
We would try to work with the property owner, because part of the procedure is to go out and do maybe a cursory survey of it and make sure that there's nothing in the way, or make sure that the plans that someone brings in are complete. And I can't speak that there might have been some instances where that wasn't, you know, that was -- there was an oversight on our part, but we do try to look at the location and make 35 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 sure it's not going to be, you know, a problem later on down the line because, truly, the Streets Department is -- it's going do boomerang back into our laps, so we would rather, you know, try to deal with it at the onset.
First to the witness that just spoke. I wish you were right, but the Broad and Olney corner, for example, a newsstand was built -- it doesn't have to do with respect to this bill, but a newsstand got built and I guess the owner decided he'd worry later about coming before City Council. There was much community opposition and the Newsstand Association is trying to resolve the matter and are trying to be very helpful 'cause the community is up -- very upset about it, not knowing. But first, to get an approval, there has to be an application made to Licenses and 36 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 Inspections?
And then a permit -- what do you call it that's issued, permitting it, a permit?
A permit. And part of the process is L&I checks certain things and the Streets Department checks the location. So it's a joint effort before, you know, that proposed location would come across our desk, and we would check it before we, you know --
I believe in this case, the facts were that L&I rejected the application and then the proposed owner of the newsstand filed an appeal with the L&I Board of Review, and they granted it, despite the opposition of the Licenses Department, and the matter's now in court and we don't know what the final outcome will be. But is that the board it goes to on appeal if somebody --
Yes, Councilman Cohen. If somebody's denied a license or their license has been revoked, they do have the right to go 37 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 before the L&I Review Board in order to appeal that revocation or that denial. That's required in the Charter, that's a provision of the Charter that they're allowed to do that.
Okay, and then. . . and another question. We'll let the courts wind up deciding the existing problems. How much footway now is required between -- on the inside, not the curbside, but between, say, the face of the stand and the building property?
Six feet. And as a matter of fact, the amendments cleared up some maybe gaps so that that's very clearly stated, that they should be maintained at all times with any shelf or whatever the newsstand has extending from it to operate it during the day.
Yes. Once this legislation goes into effect, they will -- as I might have 38 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 stated in the previous testimony that there will probably have to be a reeducation of the inspection staff that's responsible for looking into these things, both the Streets Department and L&I, and we would anticipate that there would probably be quite a few locations cited, and we will have to deal with them, you know, to try to find a better location on the footway so that they can still operate their business but that the City would be, you know, satisfied with the location so that pedestrians can get by.
So this legislation will apply to all newsstands, no matter how long they've been in existence?
And do the newsstand operators, are they fully informed about that?
I believe through the Newsstand Association, they've been, you know, educated through their membership and networking with each other that this was coming on board.
If I just may interject for a minute. The Newsstand Association -- and I won't go through all the details of how 39 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 we got here, but they were from day one a part of this whole process to help craft this legislation, in addition to all of the other departments -- Streets Department, L&I, and others. So they're fully aware of what this legislation means to them, and they'll be up to testify later, but I'm sure that they'll testify that they support this.
Anybody else up there testifying or -- are you testifying?
Good afternoon again. For the record, my name is Tom Chapman from the City Planning Commission. Mr. Chairman, I would just testify that the staff of the City Planning Commission has been involved in the meetings where the amendments that were read into the record today were discussed, and we would support the passage of the bill with these amendments.
See what two weeks 40 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 does?
Everybody has to take two weeks off to breathe. (Laughter.)
Are you testifying? No? Thank you, I thank all of you. Mr. Levy, in the order that we left off an April 11th. I apologize. (Paul Levy comes forward.)
No problem. Thank you very much. I have copies of my testimony here too as well. Councilman DiCicco, Councilman Clarke, Councilman Cohen, and Councilman Rizzo, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. My name is Paul Levy and I'm the Executive Director of the Center City District. I first want to thank Councilman DiCicco for his leadership in developing this legislation to improve the design of newsstands in Philadelphia. The Newsstand Association, I think, also deserves a great deal of credit for their 41 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 willingness to work cooperatively with the City government and particularly for the decision to retain the services of a professional architect to develop a much improved facility. As you know, the Center City District has supported this effort by contributing financially to the design of the improved newsstands, and we're eager to see this prototype installed throughout Center City and the rest of the City. I do want to note that we are supportive of the legislation, as it was originally introduced by the Councilman, and of the amendments that the Planning Commission and L&I introduced. However, I do want to urge that the Newsstand Association withdraw the amendments it made on the last hearing, on April 11th. Those are the amendments that then proposed to move from a situation where we had simply advertising that advertised what was within the newsstand to licensing full commercial advertising. And I just want to comment why I think those amendments that they introduced should be withdrawn. I think first, the City of Philadelphia 42 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 has authorized the placement of commercial advertising on transit shelters throughout the City as a means of providing an important public amenity, without having to spend scarce City resources. The City competitively bid a concession agreement, which a private outdoor advertising company finances the construction, installation, and maintenance of transit shelters in return for the right to place commercial advertising on shelters. The City in that case bears none of the cost of construction of maintenance but gets to share in the revenues from those shelters. I think the concession agreement that the City also has a specific schedule in which the transit shelter builders are obligated to clean and maintain those shelters and has a specific set of provisions in the event of default. I think the situation with the newsstands appears to be somewhat different. First, the Association, in its proposed amendments, seems to be proposing to enter into an agreement with an outdoor advertising company without the benefit of competitive bidding. I 43 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 think the City should at least, in its own interest, consider whether the placement of additional commercial advertising on the public right-of-way will diminish the revenue that the City currently receives from its own outdoor advertising agreement with the transit shelters. I think, secondly, any newsstands that are placed on the streets should be coordinated with honor boxes on the street. And, third, I do want to suggest that while the Newsstand Association did verbally indicate in their testimony that funds from commercial advertising would be used to finance the construction and maintenance of these facilities, their proposed amendments contain no 17 schedule or requirements that they actually do so. I think you will find language in the transit shelter agreement that does require the provider to maintain those facilities. Again, if the Newsstand Association withdraws those amendments on commercial advertising, most of my comments here are a moot point because they specifically address those proposed amendments. But if they do want to 44 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 propose that, I think that they ought to propose that the City might share in the revenue, as it does with the transit shelter.
And then my final point on that point is, again, this is addressed not to the current ordinance as it was drafted by the Councilman, nor to the amendments proposed by the Planning Commission and L&I, but to the amendments that were introduced on April 11th. There is a real issue of precedent here. If you do authorize commercial advertising on newsstands as a means to finance the improvements, I would ask, why could not fruit vendors and food vendors in Center City come in with exactly the same proposal and say, Let us put commercial advertising on our fruit stands, and we will now finance improvements to those. I think that would set a precedent that I think we would not want to see. In general, I think we have an opportunity as we go forward to do something that the City has discussed at various times, which is, as it considers placing newsstands, honor boxes, transit shelters on the street, it look to 45 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 coordinate those in a way that can best facilitate the public environment. So, again, so that I'm very, very clear, I support the legislation as originally presented by Councilman DiCicco, I support the amendments that were introduced by the Planning Commission and L&I, but I urge the Newsstand Association to withdraw those proposed amendments that it introduced on, I believe it was, April 11th. Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify.
Thank you, Mr. Leave. Any questions for Mr. Levy from this committee? (No questions.)
Okay, very good. Thank you very much. Robin, who's next on the list of witnesses? I don't have an agenda in front of me, I apologize. Debora, Miss Russo? (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of City Council. My name is Debora Russo here, and I'm here on behalf of the Managing Director's Office. I'd like to say that for the past month, we have been meeting with members of the Newsstand Association, their architects, L&I, the Streets Department, City Planning, and the Art Commission to bring about some of these proposed 47 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 amendments and changes, and I think that you'll find that everyone is very satisfied with the proposed amendments and with this legislation. Now, with respect to the commercial advertising, the issue of accessible advertising versus non-accessible advertising, I think Mr. Levy brought up a lot of the points that I was going to address. The City Planning Commission, through Barbara Kaplan, Joe Martz, the Managing Director, that it was her vision to see a comprehensive streetscape with respect to advertising. There was a decision made by the City operating departments that were involved in this particular piece of legislation that with respect to the non-accessible advertising, that we would take a task force together, probably including Mr. Levy with his expertise, and to make some recommendations as to whether or not the City should, you know, enforce this type of legislation or whether or not it should be something that should be left alone with accessory advertising only. But I could tell you that we will have 48 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 a working group and we're going to explore the possibilities also with our Law Department, because there's legal issues that impact newsstands differently than bus and transit shelters.
It's probably my mistake, but I'm not sure what that effect of your testimony is. I couldn't determine whether you were saying that Mr. Levy was right or the Newsstand Association was right or something in between.
No. Mr. Levy raised a lot of interesting points with respect to whether or not the City should allow non-accessory commercial advertising on its streetscape. The purpose of my testimony here today is that the City operating departments who were involved in this particular piece of legislation, that we will be probably next week exploring the possibility of whether or not we should allow this type of advertising on the streetscape. However, due to the complexity 49 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 of the issues, because of the bus shelters, honor boxes, and also there's some legal issues that are involved, because the City does not own the newsstands. We do have a quasi-ownership in the bus shelters. So we will be exploring that possibility, and that's the purpose of my testimony.
Well, let me ask you again. You heard the representative from the L&I. In response to a question I raised, he described for the second time during the hearing the limit of advertising permitted by this ordinance.
Now, is that -- do you find any fault with that, or does that fit within your description of accessory advertising?
Yes, that does. Accessory advertising -- my understanding is that you're allowed to advertise for any articles that are sold within the newsstand itself, like the Inquirer, New York Times, those type of articles. That's what accessory advertising is, a limited form of advertising. 50 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
And that was what the gentleman from the L&I was describing?
Yes, that's what the Department of L&I was describing, yes.
-- is ongoing to see whether there ought to be other aspects of advertising --
We're going to explore those possibilities, but because of the complexities involved, we would like to have a large working group working in accordance with our Law Department to explore the possibility of allowing that.
And in addition, the lottery's allowed, lottery advertising -- Pennsylvania gambling only, no Atlantic City 51 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 gambling.
Thank you. Thank you, Miss Russo. I'm sorry, are there any other questions for Miss Russo from the committee? (No further questions.)
Mr. Chairman and members of City Council, Joseph Beller, attorney for the Newsstand Owners Association. I'd like to say, first of all, that 52 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 we're delighted with the fact that Miss Russo has indicated that there will be a full task force for studying non-accessory, because without going into all of the testimony I heard before, obviously, what drives the engine here -- that is, what builds the stand and what maintains the stand -- is advertising. And we are advised by advertisers that if it's only accessory, we'll have a problem. I'm leaving that sit now that Miss Russo has said the City is going to go ahead and look at it and study it, I think that the result will be to everyone's liking and will, in fact, make this project, which we've all worked hard on and for which I thank you, Councilman DiCicco and City Council, all of the constituent departments, I've never seen as much cooperation. I've been practicing law for 40 years and I've never seen that much help in any one project in all these years. And we are very grateful for this. And we're not here to rock the boat; we're here to say thank you, let's get started, let's get ahead with this thing. We have already discovered, just as an 53 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 aside, that when you build the prototypes, that you have somebody staying in them and working 8, hours a day, you begin to find little glitches, 5 little problems. We will probably bring those to 6 you in the future that may be an inch here or an 7 inch there or a cutoff here or a cutoff there, but 8 that's --we're learning that as we go. We're not 9 going to try to overburden you today. 10 And Mr. Claflen, who has designed it, just wants to go over one or two of the aspects of testimony you've heard today. George? (Witness comes forward.)
George, could we have that, 'cause some of the Councilmembers haven't had an opportunity to see this.
My name is George Claflen and I'm a resident of the 5th Councilmatic District. (Laughter.)
With regard to the technical aspects of this project, I want to reiterate what Mr. Beller said in terms of the cooperation that we have had from every City 54 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 agency that has been involved with this. And we have only two issues. We are in favor of the bill, as written, and we can work with it. There are two relatively small issues that I would like to comment upon. One is the wording on materials. The current wording says "No newsstand shall be constructed of any material other than aluminum, steel, fiberglass, or other durable, nonflammable material." And the way we read that, it could be a wedge to let fire-retardant wood be used as an exterior material, and we think that is not the original intent of either departments or Council. And also, we would like to point out that there are two kinds of fiberglass. There's fire-retardant fiberglass and non-fire-retardant fiberglass, so we propose the following wording: "No newsstand shall be constructed of any structural or exterior material other than aluminum, steel, or fire-retardant fiberglass. Fire-retardant wood may be used on the interior of newsstands." That's what the prototype has and we fully agree that these newsstands should be fire-retardant and nonflammable. 55 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 The other modification is in response to the air conditioner that was brought up earlier, and we've just had a little miniature consultation with Debora Russo of the Managing Director's Office and members of the City Planning Commission and Art Commission staff. And what we would propose in Section 5, that a Section g be added, that simply states that "No projections beyond those described above are permitted" or other wording to that effect. In other words, a sentence or statement that simply closes the door for unauthorized projections that haven't been otherwise described. If I might --
I appreciate what you're referring to, and Mr. Auerbach pointed out to me earlier, when I raised that question, that the legislation already provides for a certain dimension of the newsstand, and anything beyond that would be in violation. I think we're covered on that. As to the first request for an amendment -- I think Mr. Haigler's still here -- it might be easier for us to just do that by way 56 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 of way of regulation 'cause I think the intent is already in the bill. And by regulation, we can accomplish that rather than doing it in an amendment, okay. But if, again, going forward, we see there's any problems, we can always come back and do that, but I think regulations would -- do you agree, Mr. Beller?
John Rocco is the President of the Newsstand Association and asked me to acknowledge many of the news dealers who are here today to participate in these hearings. I wonder if I could ask them -- sir, is it all right if I ask them to raise their hands or stand up?
Could I ask the news dealers to stand, please. And we also have today representatives of the New York Times and USA Today.
Thank you, thank 57 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 you all for coming.
And the Ad Shell Company. I believe the President of the Ad Shell Company is here.
PNI is here also, right? I'm not going to let them forget you. (Laughter.)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have several questions. First, can you tell me what the range of the cost is, your best guesstimate, in terms of the various newsstands -- the fiberglass, the aluminum?
Yeah, I think we had a similar question at the last hearing and --
Councilman, we actually have the gentleman that's been doing the construction -- did the construction of the prototypes. He's here and he can give you probably a more accurate -- (Witness comes forward.) 58 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
Good afternoon and please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. I'm Barry Hossack, from Capital Manufacturing.
Would you spell your last name for the stenographer, please.
Not just the prototype, but there are obviously several types that would qualify under this bill -- well, actually, under our earlier bill -- the aluminum, the --
Well, I can only speak for a stand that will be similar to the prototype that was built. Going forward, it would be approximately $20,000, a little under $20,000, and that's inclusive of manufacturing and installation and removal of the existing --
I'm just trying to get a sense of what the range would be as it 59 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 relates to -- I would assume that this is the Cadillac of newsstands, or should I say "the Lexus of newsstands?" I'm sorry.
I think if I can help along those lines 'cause I think I know where you're going with that, Councilman. If we're going to conform to the new regulations, the fireproof and the adequate size and the heating and air-conditioning installed inside, even if it's not as a magnificent design that Mr. Claflen has done, if it's close, it's going to be in that range. It can't be off more than $1,000. And I must say -- and I have to add this, of course 'cause I know that you're familiar with this as a Councilman -- is that the addition of electric and so forth sometimes can run the cost up another 3 to $5,000, for the digging of the streets, the bonds and so forth and so on. So the entire package will run even -- if you take a little off of the magnificent, it's only going to be 1,000 or so dollars 'cause it's the material and the construction and the size that dictates the price. So there's not going to 60 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 be a way to do it, with all of these things, at much less.
So realistically, in order for newsstand operators citywide to be in compliance, we're talking about a minimum of, says, $15,000 to have a stand anywhere in the City, regardless as to whether or not it's the prototype.
Well, I would think that's right. I would think also, of course, that there are ways to be in compliance without doing this, and I think I've said before that probably some of the existing stands in some places are probably in compliance in terms of material and size. They wouldn't have the amenities that they have, these amenities that we're talking about you're allowing, hopefully, with the passage of this bill, and those amenities would not be in the other stands. But it wouldn't bar somebody from qualifying. It's not going to put someone out of business if they don't get the prototype. And I think what we said before obviously was that the prototype will be manufactured in mass and in 61 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 scale when we get the other programs as part of the financing worked out, and everybody can have one.
All right, let me tell what you my concern is, realistically. 42nd and Parrish, all right, the guy wants to do a newsstand. I don't think -- and I don't think you all think -- that the advertisement revenue associated with that location would be anywhere equivalent to 12th and Market. And I'm concerned as to the wherewithal of that individual with that newsstand being able to work within the parameters of this program that the Newsstand Association has put together and to be able to get enough revenue to build a $15,000 newsstand. Or would the participants of the program, as it relates to the advertising, be willing to front the cost of that particular newsstand?
Well, I would share your concern, except that I that this organization, and I also know the commitment of the people from Ad Shell, so let me tell it in two steps. First of all, it's a very democratic organization, and these are the last of the 62 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 independent people, but they had agreed that revenue would be shared equally and the benefits would be shared equally. So assuming -- and here comes the commercial. Assuming that the advertising raises enough revenue -- and that will depend on the kind of advertising that you permit. Assuming that that happens, we have been assured -- I'm going to make sure we've been assured by Ad Shell that the man at 42nd and Parrish will be treated equally with the fellow at 12th and Market. And I think that's important. Now that will be dependent on the revenue, whether we even get one stand paid for. It will depend on what the revenue stream will be. But the good places will help the places that are not quite so desirable. Is that right?
Mr. Beller, let me interrupt for a minute. Who will be controlling the revenue; is it the Association?
Well, yes. What's going to happen is this -- and we're working out the details now, but that's pending what Council does. What's going to happen is that advertising 63 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 and the generation of the fees will go from Ad Shell, and a percentage of that fee will do two things. It will come to the newsstand operators to be distributed among the members, but initially, the cost of the construction and installation at all places for our members -- and membership is 150 a year, by the way, so we don't have to worry about wherever that fellow is. All of our members will, in fact, get a newsstand, which will be constructed at no cost, and at the end of a certain period of time, after the years of advertising have gone on, will get the stand fully in his or her name for $1. I mean, we're just going to use nominal considerations. Have I stated it correctly, John?
And how will the placement of those newsstands be distributed? 'Cause I'm assuming we're going to have to do this in phases, 'cause we're not going to raise all the revenue immediately. How will that work? Is there a particular section of the City where the first phase will be placed? 'Cause I'm assuming 64 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 your members are all over the City.
The predominant membership is, in fact, what we would call "Center City," both your district and Councilman DiCicco's district.
These are, of course, the more visible districts, they're more desirable from advertising. But more importantly to you and I perhaps, they're more desirable from the way the City presents its face, and we would --
Well, not necessarily. People want to see nice-looking newsstands all over the place.
Oh, no, we will, but we think that the initial construction would go to Center City so that visitors would see that, and we would branch out as we went. And the speed with which that could be done depends both on manufacturing and revenue stream, but once the revenue stream has been projected, the commitment is that everybody will get one. Now, I have the President of Ad Shell with us, and I'd like to introduce them. 65 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
Yeah, I need to get a little more clarity on this revenue. I mean, assuming that you're going to enter into a contract with this advertisement agency, there will be a level of revenue raised as associated with the number of locations, and now you're saying that --
-- the first phase of that money is going to go only into Center City.
The first phase is production -- not of the contract. Once we've entered- - once we have the requisite legislation, and I don't want to keep hammering on that, but once we have the requisite legislation that they need to advertise to raise revenue, everybody will be on the list. The construction will be done in phases because you can only produce a certain amount a week, but it's not being done -- no delay will be 66 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 there. And Ad Shell has agreed to pay, assuming that they're on board with the advertising, they will pay for 100 percent of the stands.
But my question is that list, that list that you speak of, how is that list constructed? That's my, you know -- is it based on what? Is it based on the amount of revenue that will come from --
-- this particular -- the divisibility of these particular newsstands? I mean, are there any guidelines associated with who gets the newsstands first, second, third, fourth?
Well, the Newsstand Operators Association is going into this contract, so all of our members, and they're all over, and there's no limit on who can join. So I don't happen to know if there is one at 42nd and Parrish, but if there is and he wants to join, or he may already be a member, he's on the list. All he has to do is say he wants one.
There will probably 67 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 be one tomorrow.
And he's absolutely welcome. It's anticipated that no one will be excluded from the right to have this and no one will be treated differently. It just happens to be -- you pointed out it's a plain fact, that some places mean more than others in terms of the advertising. But the money stream will come in equally, that's what we think is important. All of our members will share equally in the revenue, and all of our members will share equally in the right to have a free stand, irrespective of where his location is. All we said is that the first few stands will be coming into Center City because that's where it's more visible, and we want to show quickly.
Is there any written regulations among the membership associated with the selection process of these newsstands?
As to who gets 68 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 what first?
I don't think they're -- let me just explain to you, 'cause Councilman Nutter, then Councilman Ortiz have questions. When we first began to talk about these newsstands, it was -- and I think I had mentioned this at the last hearing. It was as a result of the Department of L&I having regulations that now require newsstands to be constructed of a certain type of material. The Association came to me and said L&I has given us a certain amount of time to comply, we feel. And we -- "we" meaning the Association -- really didn't do what we were supposed to do. We understand that now we have to comply, because L&I began issuing citations. It started in Center City, actually. I think the first citations were issued in Center City -- they weren't even out in the neighborhoods yet. As a result of that, I went to the Commissioner of L&I, Commissioner MacLaughlin, and asked him if he would give us another three months or so to see if the Association really did mean 69 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 what they said when they said they were going to come back with something that we could all be proud of and would work for everybody and meet all the standards of L&I requirements, and we'd work with the Association. One of the first questions I asked was the same thing. I, obviously, would love to see them in Center City, but there are places in my district that I can't wait for one of these stands to be placed in because I want to get rid of the outhouse that is out there now. I mean, they're horrible conditions. So as far as I'm concerned, it was the intention when we began this to hope -- our hope is that everybody, every newsstand that is out there today will take advantage of this, I think, great opportunity to get a new newsstand, because most of them are probably not in compliance today as it relates to material. There's probably a handful of them out there. So they're going to have to do something anyway, and it's going to cost them a certain amount of dollars, even if they do -- I won't even say a Ford. I don't know, what's an 70 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 inexpensive car today? But if they do the least expensive, as you pointed out, you asked the question, I don't know if it's going to be 15,000. It may be, but it's going to be some significant cost to them. And it sounds like your question is Well, will the guy at 42nd and Parrish be put at the bottom of the list because maybe that is not as an attractive location as 12th and Market? I think the initial input -- the first group that will be done will be done in Center City, and I think we all understand that. And then as quickly as they're produced, they will be placed in other locations, not necessarily based on what is the more select corner or intersection. 'Cause, I mean, I have an intersection in South Philadelphia. Where I live, there's a couple of them down there, but one in particular, which may not be the most ideal location in terms of advertising, but it's so -- the aesthetics of the box that is out there now just really takes away from the surrounding buildings and the community at large that I really want that to happen there as quickly as Center City. 71 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
All right. I just want to be clear 'cause my concern, for the record, is that when Center City gets done, all of a sudden, they'll realize that, okay, we're not raising enough revenue associated with this advertisement in Center City, then nobody else gets an opportunity to have these new newsstands.
Councilman, there's no -- you can -- we can allay your fears by telling you that we would like to see this in every newsstand in the City if they want to avail it, and no one will be turned down, and no one will --
We can always come back and amend the bill to eliminate illuminated advertising if we had to, right?
Unfortunately, yes, you could. Now, there's no question that it's to our advantage -- I mean, I want you to understand that one of the things that happens is when enforcement goes out, as they did, the worse 72 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 newsstands get hit the first day, and the other ones who may have a marginal violation will get hit the second day, and then everybody focuses. With the new newsstands, they'll leave us alone and we'll sell papers and we'll be happy and that's it. But nobody's going to be excluded.
A lot of the worst newsstands happen to be out at the 42nd and Parrishes. And, you know, I would feel more comfortable if you had something, some regulation or something or some guideline associated with the placement of these newsstands. It's not that I don't trust you but, you know, in my limited time here --
Councilman, we'll get you an application for him to drop off at 42nd and Parrish that he will be accepted, there's no 19 question, there's discrimination here from location or any other way, and we'll take his membership, we'll take his $150 fee, and he'll be on the list.
I'm asking you, if you can, if it's not a hardship, to put something in writing indicating that the position of the 73 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 Newsstand Association as it relates to the placement or some set of guidelines or something. I mean, if that's not --
No problem. We've said it under oath, we'll say it again, there's no 7 problem.
We were pretty informal, so we've never done it. What we do is go to a meeting and say, Who wants on the list? But --
But now the flip side of that is that some of the people who are selling say, "I don't want to belong to an association" so they got to get over that too, they got to get past that. I mean, that's the flip side where there were some problems in the past and, hopefully, they won't be there in the future.
Hi, my name's Earl Rogers, 74 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 and I am a part of the Association, and our location is on 56th and Market. And we're trying to have one of these newsstands on 56th and Market. So to answer that question to what that gentleman is saying about 52nd and Parrish, I think 56th and Market would be an absolute location in terms of that diversity is what he's talking about.
And I believe it's an el stop, so that might have something to do with that. So its not quite 42nd and Parrish.
And I agree, I agree. Councilmember Nutter? Thank you, sir. Councilman Nutter?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted for a moment -- because I thought I understood this, but maybe now I don't. 75 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 What was the genesis of all this? Why are you trying to change out the newsstands? And I'm not debating whether they're in bad shape or good shape or anything like that. Where did this come from?
Well, that's exactly how it started, however, Councilman. I think, as Councilman DiCicco just said, what happened is that the members of the Newsstand Association all were faced with a regulation which declared that the wooden stands were no longer proper and the size was in question. And the regulations were such that people were getting violations one after the other. And it was our thought, those of us with the Newsstand Association, that it was time to do a look-see at what we could do. And it went from looking at what the material should be and how much of a lead time we could possibly get from the City, because these stands are expensive, and for somebody to switch in a matter of weeks or months was -- especially at 42nd and Parrish -- was virtually impossible. And from that, we just came up with -- 76 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
And then each stand, for both rain and not rain, they had -- each one was designed differently. Some people, when they opened their doors and put magazines up and down the side were in compliance with the requirements, and some weren't, because there were as many different designs as there were stands just about, and it was a hodgepodge, and we thought that this was a good time to get a liveable stand. For instance, when stands want electrification, they come to this Council, to each of you District Councilmen and women 77 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 individually, and they have to ask for electricity. Well, I can assure you, having talked to our members now -- we have a number of them here today who will tell you that it can get awful cold or awful hot in one of those stands, if that's where you're making your. So we wanted to living codify everything. We also didn't want to have newsstands which would automatically not comply by putting --
But you haven't changed anything about the process to get electricity by this bill, have you?
No and we can't, because that's by City Charter, and we certainly are not suggesting that you can sidestep that, but what we're saying is, we are building the stand so that the air-conditioning and the heating elements can be inside as opposed to -- as well as the security, that we had to beef up the security, we had a number of break-ins. And that was the genesis of it.
Right. Well, you're building the stands such that they virtually require electricity. 78 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
Why would somebody spend $20,000 on a stand that has built-in air-conditioning, possibly heating and, you know, maybe soon to be plumbing. Why would somebody buy a $20,000 if it didn't have electricity?
Well, there are two answers to it. In the first place, what I'll call is -- when I bought a TV some years ago, they said it was cable-ready, it wasn't cable.
These things are electricity-ready. And if Councilman Clarke in his district decides that the man should have it, he'll have it. If Councilman DiCicco decides, he'll have it. If you decide for it or against it, they'll have it or they won't have it. But once you say they can have it, we've got a place to slide it in, we've got a burglar alarm system to be able to be put in, and it will be -- it's cable-ready, it's electricity- ready. And I think it's the humane thing to do to give somebody heat, light, and air-conditioning. 79 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
'Cause if you go to the Zoning Board, they won't even let you have a rooming house without air-conditioning.
Well, I understand that. I mean, I want people to be, you know, cool and warm and all that, but when you bought your cable-ready TV, you didn't come in here and ask me for anything in order to be hooked up to the cable television system.
You some very long and very hard discussions about bringing cable into the City, but it was somebody else's fight; this is our fight.
I mean, it only took 17 years. I mean, you know. That's like a week in government.
I understand, all right. 80 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 So L&I was all over you and you had to figure out a way to deal with this, and you figured, Let's be in compliance by way of the materials. This thing is relatively expensive, how are you going to finance it? And the next step is, We'll do advertising and maybe even go a further step and do back-lit advertising. Or do all of those kind of coming together at the same time?
No. They, in fact, did grow as we realized the increasing cost of the project. We started out hoping that they could be built for less. At one time, we entertained our members paying at least half or more to pay for the stands, and the other half was going to be lent, contributed granted, we weren't sure how. USA Today stepped up, New York Times stepped up, I had some discussions with the folks from PNI, telling them there was room at the table, but that would have meant that every individual newsstand operator -- and somebody has said, How about the guy that only sells 50 papers? Well, he couldn't afford even to put up 5 or 7,000. So it was decided that this would be a good way to pay for 81 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 it. And that was the way it grew. It just -- as the costs grew and as the concept of trying to have everybody have it grow, we had to look for a revenue stream, and the revenue stream, we had hoped, would come from advertising.
How many newsstands are there in the City of Philadelphia?
Yeah. It's hard to know because not everybody is a member of the organization, number one. And, number two, there's some folks that do it on weekends only, people do it Sunday papers only. And so it's hard to know.
All right, okay. And how many are in Center City? Which is generally defined as river to river, Pine to Lombard.
And of the 150 to 175 newsstands citywide, how many are members of 82 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 the Association?
Okay. I'm going to need to you talk into the microphone.
It's 70 fully paid members at the moment, and we think it will be 75 within the next few days, week, or so.
And of the 70 or 75, how many have newsstands in Center City?
Okay. So there are 50 to 55 newsstands in Center City and about 40 of them are members of the Association?
And I think it was talked about or testified to earlier -- I mean, there's somewhat of an automatic economic assumption that advertising rates, if not attractiveness, would generally be higher in Center City than in most other places except for possibly along major SEPTA routes, the el, the 83 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 Broadway subway, and maybe some of the commuter rail lines; is that --
I'm going to leave that answer to the expert. Would you identify yourself for the record, please.
Okay. My name is Douglas Watts, I'm with Ad Shell Street Furniture Advertising Specialty Company, out of New York.
In answer to your question, Councilman, there are actually several ways to sell it. Our preferred way to sell the advertising is to sell it on what's called a "network basis," which means the broadest distribution, which means that no individual location has a higher rate or a lesser rate than the other rates. We try to sell it in a package format. That way, it allows for greater income and revenue, and also --
A package format would mean you would sell 8, 10, 15 signs in a broad 84 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 distribution within the marketplace, in a package, so that the circulation of people in the environment will get more impressions of the advertising. So you would not want to concentrate all of your advertising in any one locale, regardless of the geography in the city.
But if you're selling them in 8, 10, dozen packages, would you rather have 8 packages at 56th and Master, or would you rather have 8 packages at 15th and Market?
I'd rather have neither; I'd rather have a distribution in all quadrants of the City because it gives me the broadest distribution, it allows me to go to an advertiser and say, "I'm going to give you a broad, diverse circulation of eyes on your advertisement throughout the marketplace." It's why Philadelphia --
What's a newsstand in Center City generate volume-wise versus either Councilman Clarke's newsstand at 42nd and wherever or --
Well, I haven't measured 85 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 it, but at certain hours of the day, obviously, it gets a great deal of the circulation because of the foot and automobile traffic. But, obviously, on the weekend and the evenings, it gets nil, and that's where neighborhood circulation and other boulevard circulation throughout the City enhances the entire package.
How long does it take to make one of these newsstands?
I suspect after they have the tooling and such together, it's a couple weeks, but you don't work on them one at a time; you usually build six or eight at a time and add accoutrements to it and build those up, and then start another six or eight.
So in order to make an order for six to eight, I mean, I'm assuming that you have to at least give the manufacturer some kind of deposit for those six to eight --
Or you have to pay 86 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 for the whole thing at one time or --
That's correct. Generally, we offer a percent deposit and that gets 5 applied to the final cost. 6
Mm-hmm. And your 7 decision to order or not order is based on what? 8
Well, as an advertising- 9 oriented company, our decision to participate is 10 contingent on certain advertising parameters that 11 have been mentioned here. 12 And I must say, if you'll allow me just 13 one moment of background to establish my bona 14 fides here, my company is the largest such company 15 in the world. We have 3,000 street furniture 16 contracts in the world in 33 countries, and we 17 operate about 150,000 street furniture units that 18 range from automatic public toilets to bus 19 shelters to newsstands. So we have a great deal 20 of experience in the field and we've been doing 21 this for about 30 years. 22
And do you have 23 advertisements on the public toilets? 24
In some places we do and in 25 some places we do not. Generally speaking, they 87 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 are supported by a larger program, which is generally a bus shelter program.
But my point of that is to say that it is not just an advertising model that would finance your program. I would like it to be, I know that's the most successful program, the one that will keep you with high-quality newsstands in good condition throughout the term that you would like them to be on the streets. But they could also be financed by sponsorship with the news media and the magazines and the newspapers. And if that were the case and the Newsstand Association could raise that money, I would encourage them to do that if you did not want the additional advertising on the streets. And you could also have it financed by either the City or the newsstand operators themselves. But, actually, I would go a little higher in the cost estimate. I think you're looking at $25,000 per unit. And our approach would be to supply as many of the units that we can, up to the 150, 175 number, because we want the broadest distribution throughout the 88 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 marketplace. If John came to me with a proposition of give me for Center City or just for the 5th 5 Councilmatic District, I probably would reject 6 that out of hand, just like I would reject out of 7 hand a program that wasn't supported by 8 advertising. I want the broadest circulation. 9 We will establish a newsstand that fits 10 all of the specifications and codes established by 11 the City, and that newsstand will be available to 12 every member of his association with whom I have a 13 contract. I have a contract -- would have a 14 contract with his association. And there will be 15 no discrimination for geography, because, in fact, 16 we want the broadest distribution within the 17 City. 18 And so that's how we would operate the 19 program. The same, let's call it, $25,000 20 newsstand, not a $15,000 version for some and a $28,000 version for others, but the same $25,000 newsstand distributed throughout the City, with advertising to support not only the design and manufacture, but the installation and the ongoing maintenance and the additional parts, perhaps 89 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 relocation at some point in time over the years. This is how we operate in our contracts throughout the world, and this is what would we would like to do with the City of Philadelphia. Personally, I was involved the RFP that the City issued five years ago. I was working with Ganett (ph) Outdoor at the time, and that was a merging of newsstands and automatic public toilets, a way of financing the automatic public toilets. Unfortunately, that award was made to my company, with me as the project director, the day that our company was sold in a merger and acquisition, and it really extinguished the program. And I know John has been -- I've been familiar John's efforts since that time, and I know the City of Philadelphia has been trying to resolve this issue, as have some other urban centers in the country. And the best way to do it is to put together a viable partnership, private-public partnership. If the City want to charge 20 percent because that's what you charge the bus shelters for that concession, we're willing to pay that. 90 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 But there does have to be sufficient advertising to support it. And what I've heard so far, a limitation on commercial applications and a limitation on some of the format sizes really does not allow for the kind of return on investment that's necessary to support a multi-million dollar program, but we are talking about a capital program and an ongoing maintenance program that will not tax taxpayers one penny, cost the City one penny, and would not in fact cost a newsstand operator a single penny as well.
It's one of the better public-private partnership programs available in the world, and it's how bus shelters and a lot of these public amenities are happening in cities that just don't have the money for the infrastructure anymore.
Between the two hearings that have been held on this, I now have written down three different cost figures for this. The last hearing, I heard it was $20,000; today I thought there was some discussion about 91 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 $15,000; and most recently, you said it was $25,000.
There's a little bit of a range here. What will this cost?
My estimation -- and since I'm the one that would be writing the check, I have to figure out a proforma that seems to make sense. And my estimation is about $25,000 on average, installed. Some will be more because of the electrification and the telephone line, some will be a little less. But on average, about $25,000, installed.
Okay. Let's go back to the issue that was raised by Councilman Clarke. Notwithstanding your interest in -- what's your term, "dispersement"?
Dispersement. So there's 50 to 55 newsstands in Center City. Mr. Beller, I think, said that those command the greatest presence, have a sense of the face of the City on them, 40 of those 50 to 55 are members of 92 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 the Association. So, I mean, we start with the premise, at least today, that all of those folks have an automatic leg up on getting one of the newsstands as compared to the other to who are not 7 members; is that correct? 8
That's not my call but 9 that's my understanding as well, yes. 10
Okay. Well, what 11 happens -- I mean, if this started out as a L&I, 12 we want you to get your newsstand looking decent 13 program, the end result appears to be now that 14 some people will be able to get their newsstand in 15 order, and others, if they don't either have the brilliance or the temerity to join the Association, are either left in the lurch or -- I mean, can they cut a deal with you on their own?
I wouldn't do that, no. My deal would be directly with the Newsstand Association.
In terms of the 93 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 government side of this, I mean, we don't necessarily get compliance out of this or we don't get people in a better situation unless they do something with you. And I thought our interest in all of this was for the greater good of the City and making sure that people have a newsstand that's in compliance with the regulations that we promulgate.
Councilman, I've said it before and, again, I'm not selling memberships, and I don't want to be disingenuous. I'm saying that at $150 a year, there is nobody in that number of 150 to 175 that will be excluded. And, yes, that makes it something free for everybody, so there's nobody. Second of all, there are people who have signed up who are not in Center City, who will be on the list ahead of some of those who are in Center City. One of the things we're trying to attack is the ones that are out of compliance now, and they may have a leg up, even though they're not in Center City. And the other thing is, and this is important -- 94 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
But I'd like to go back to the Councilman's question. How are you going to decide who gets what? I mean --
I mean, somebody's got to be first, somebody's got to be second, and someone has to be last. And then you have a whole host of other people who are not members of the Association. And whether they join or don't join, whether they want to put $150 down or don't want to put $150, it seems to me that Commissioner McLaughlin and Otis and all the other folks have a responsibility to ensure compliance. Now, the fact that somebody has to now get into some other arrangement, which we have no 17 involvement in, jurisdiction, responsibility or anything, gets into -- you know, I mean, it's --
It's difficult for me to deal with something that is way off somewhere.
I think, if I may respectfully respect to you, that building this or 95 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 buying this or getting this is not the only way to comply. There are newsstands in the City that comply today and will comply tomorrow and will comply for as long as they stay there. They are within the parameters of four by whatever you passed. You don't have to be 4-by-10. If you're 4-by-8, you qualify.
So I think that Otis will tell you and I think the Commissioner will tell you that this is not a situation where only our members are going to be in compliance. Our members will be taking advantage of the expanded, better, more liveable type of operation that, hopefully, you will permit. Nobody's being left in the lurch. I'm using your word now. Nobody's being left in the lurch. And in terms of where and --
No. I'm saying to you that if you have a metal newsstand right now, Councilman, that's 4-by-8-by-8, and you're on the 96 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 corner of 15th and Market or 56th and Market or Ivy Ridge, I don't care where you are, you are in compliance today and you will be in compliance tomorrow.
Nobody's going to make you move to this new stand, nobody. The City isn't saying that this is mandatory; the City is saying, hopefully, that this is allowable. So you can go from your 4-by-8-by-8-by-8 to a 4-by-something else. You can have an interior gate for security. And, yes, you can have panels for advertising -- horizontal 2 by 7 and two smaller ones. And that's what it's saying.
Right. We're creating a two-tiered system of operation.
If you're with this group, you can do this and you can advertise and you can have all the amenities that go with this particular box and have it paid for by someone else. 97 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
And operate outside. Well, no, but -- I understand that. That is the person's choice. But you're asking us now to step in the middle of that and have a role in creating it, right?
If you didn't want us in the middle of it, you wouldn't be sitting at the table right now.
The president of the United States wanted to know what the word "is" meant, and I don't want to quibble about what words mean. I'm asking you, as we've asked all the other Councilmen and we've asked Streets and we've asked L&I and the Art Commission and City Planning and anybody else we could talk to. Let us design one that is slightly larger than your present legislation. I mean, Councilman, this body, from time immemorial, has changed and amended 98 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 ordinances time after time to take into account what is real and what is new and what is possible. All we're saying is, let us build a bigger, better, prettier, more responsive, civically more responsive than what you have now. And in exchange for that -- although we're not asking you to bless us, in exchange for that, we're making it easier for anybody to come into it. You can have a five-tier step if that's what you want, but there's nobody in the world that will be excluded from the one-tier. That's all. It's a question of, do you want to step up? And if you want to step up, we're there to help you. And we did it starting -- and the reason -- and we have spent not City money but --
Well, maybe the City should be having this discussion with the gentleman?
Well, I'm not sure what that means. You have to pass the legislation for 99 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 anybody to do it, and I don't see anywhere here where this --
Maybe we should create the same concession on the newsstands that we have with the transit shelters. You don't have to belong to an association.
But the City, as I understand it, Mr. Councilman, owns part of the bus shelter. These people are independents and they own their own newsstands. This is their own business. The bus shelters are partly owned, as I understand it, by the City. If the City wants to put out $10,000 for every newsstand and go in partnership, I don't know how the membership would react.
I don't believe we put out money for the bus shelters.
Yeah, and you're on the ground, too. 100 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
So what is your anticipation of the schedule of dispersement or distribution of the new newsstands? Let's say everybody jumps into the pool.
Within six months, 101 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 everybody can have a stand. Now, that's if everybody jumps in the pool, but that means City Council takes a swim with us. You have to pass the legislation before we can commit to building them.
I understand. It's a little chilly for swimming right now. If everybody jumps in, as you're saying, within six months, what kind of production schedule is that? (Mr. Beller confers off-record with manufacturer.)
The manufacturer says he could build three to five a week comfortably. And you can install how many? (Mr. Beller confers off-record with manufacturer.)
And five to seven a week could be installed, once they're made, per week. So if you take three to five a week and you want to do a hundred as the number, then, you know. . .
A hundred weeks. What's that, two years? 102 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 (Mr. Beller confers off-record with manufacturer.)
You're talking about approximately a month if he can be at full 6 schedule, and you're talking about-- if you're 7 talking about 100 stands, then that would be 8 -- I said 6 months was 120. If you do everybody, 9 so it's 8 months. 10
What happens during 11 the time that you're waiting for your new 12 newsstand if you're currently out of compliance? 13 Otis, what are you going to do with those people? 14
The City has been most 15 understanding in permitting the enforcement to be 16 withheld so long as this program, or some program, 17 will be the replacement. If the City knows you've 18 ordered one and you're getting one, then the City 19 will probably be more inclined to not enforce the 20 regulations.
Really? Oh, we're entering the realm of non-enforcement. Otis, would you like to speak on that?
Yes, Councilman Nutter. Currently, we've suspended our enforcement at the 103 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 request of Councilman DiCicco. Right now, we have regulations in place that mirror the requirements of the ordinance that you have before you. We were supposed to have enforced those regulations as of January 1, 1999. So we've suspended our enforcement so far.
I understand. The Councilman's working to try to solve a problem.
How many newsstands do you estimate are out of compliance?
I really can't give you that number, sir, I really don't know. I'm not in the business regulatory enforcement unit, so I really wouldn't know what's out there.
Mr. Beller, how many of your members or how many other people are you aware of that are out of compliance?
I'm asking the senator if he's about to invoke the fifth amendment.
That's a different committee. 104 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
I'm not about to start telling you what I think. It's up to the City as to what's in compliance, it's up to me to then go fight with the Board of L&I Review.
Well, when we started discussion, you said it came as a result of your members or other people who were getting a lot of --
Councilman, every wooden stand, every wooden stand that you see is technically out of compliance.
They've been out of compliance for the better part of what? January 1, 99.
I said that the City had been most generous in extending us the time to try to get by this.
Councilman, the alternative to this -- to scrap this, just say, 105 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 look, take it and throw it out and walk away. You will then have newsstand operators who will not be able to afford a new newsstand. Forget the Taj Mahal. I'm talking about the Hyundai -- I think that's the cheapest.
Or maybe the Kia. But there's no question in the world that the wooden stands are out of compliance. I don't know how many there are. They're waiting in line breathlessly to get a new newsstand. This is the way that we approached it. I mean, we were here to serve our members and, at the same time, hopefully, help the City.
I think we have a representative here of USA Today who heard one of your questions and felt he wanted to answer it. (Witness comes forward.)
Steve Peershine (ph.) from USA Today newspaper. Councilman Nutter, you wanted to know a 106 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 little bit about the genesis of the project and where it came from. John Rocco came to me back in -- I guess it was maybe October of '99. We knew that this regulation was going to come down, so we started talking about it. January of 1999 came by, when every single wooden stand was supposed to be constructed of metal.
Right. But then that was postponed, so it was really January 1 of '99 was D Day. So we were still putting the project together. Then I think it might have been in February, all of a sudden, L&I went out and gave out about citations, so John's phone was 18 ringing off the hook. He called us up and said, 19 "Look, we got to do something and we got to do 20 something now." So in order for those guys to be in compliance, right now, today, it's going to cost them $7,000. That's the cheapest bottom-of-the- line newsstand that they can buy from Keystone or somebody out there who makes it. That's the 107 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 blue-and-white metal one, it's going to cost 'em grand. These people couldn't afford 7 grand, 4 and that's why they were calling John. 5 So we wanted to figure out a way -- 6 John wanted to figure out a way, how can he get 7 these guys a stand if they don't have to pay for it. He came to us looking for funding. We weren't willing to fund the whole project, but we got the ball rolling. And then, eventually, that's where the advertising came in. And that's what developed here.
So to answer Councilman Clarke's question, if someone doesn't want to join the Association, if someone doesn't want to get involved in this newsstand, at the very minimum, it's going to cost them 7 grand.
You know, we wanted to -- John wanted to figure out a way, how can I get the guy at 46th and Parrish who can't afford 7 108 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 grand and get him something for free. We did talk to Frank -- or to Councilman DiCicco about, is there City funding available? would the City be interested in doing something like this? and we were told no. We were told we had to go out and do it on our own, and this is the plan that we came up with.
We look at this as a win situation for the City and for the owners.
Okay, I appreciate it. Mr. Haigler, can I have you back for a second, please. (Otis Haigler returns to witness table.)
Just a couple technical questions on the bill itself. I was looking through the bill and I was trying to -- and I know from the picture that you'll have the panels and they'll be -- and there's been a lot of talk about illumination, but I could not -- I couldn't find the illumination provision in the bill, and maybe I'm --
The illumination 109 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 provision is not in the bill, Councilman.
Excuse me, Councilman. Do you have a copy of the amendments?
No. We have a more updated copy, which, I think, speaks to the illumination.
No. These were provided by the Streets Department today.
Okay. Now, what 110 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 else do we allow advertising on out in the public right-of-way? We've got the bus shelters now, we have this proposal in front of us today. Can you advertise on a, like a fruit stand, a pretzel vendor, any of the sidewalk sales activity that is on the sidewalk or out in the street right now? Can you advertise on those?
I'm not familiar with the precise wording in the sections of the Philadelphia Code, under Title 9-204, 9-205, and 9-206. So I really can't answer that specifically 'cause I'm not familiar with that section. There maybe some language in those particular sections that would permit certain types of advertisements.
Mm-hmm. And what are the provisions in the Code with regard to illumination on buildings?
Can you put advertising on your building on the side of it that's illuminated?
You can put certain types of advertisement on your building, certain types 111 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 of accessory advertisements, certain types of non-accessory advertisements, if the Code will permit that. Whether it's illuminated or not, I really wouldn't know.
There would be zoning requirements for that to place advertisement on buildings, yes.
So to place an advertisement on a building, you have to go to the Zoning Board, but to place an advertisement on a newsstand --
You would not necessarily go to Zoning Board, but you would have to meet certain requirements of the Code.
But isn't -- certain types of advertising is already permitted on newsstands; am I correct?
Yeah, that's correct. There are two types of advertisement that we currently will permit on the newsstands and that's 112 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 the only two types of advertisement.
We will permit advertisement for newspapers, periodicals, or magazines that are sold from newsstands and advertisement for the Pennsylvania Lottery. Those are the only two types of advertisement that we will permit on --
-- could I just have a follow-up on that for a minute.
Is there any limitation to the size of the advertisement that is permitted on newsstands today, in particular as it relates to the Lottery?
We have big ads for the lottery. But I thought we were talking about illuminated signs on buildings. Is that a zoning 113 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 issue?
I don't mean to jump in, Councilman Nutter, but in certain districts --
Well, you spend a little time over at the Zoning Board, you know about this.
In certain districts, signage is allowed and lighting is allowed. The only type of lighting that wouldn't be allowed would be in certain districts -- you'd have to be careful of them shining into residential areas, into people's bedrooms at night, and so forth. But signage is allowed in various districts. Illuminated signing is allowed. Generally speaking, non -- revolving flashing is not allowed almost anyplace anymore, but other illuminated ads are allowed. And you wouldn't have to go to the Board.
You would have to pay a $20 fee for each sign as a license, but if you're in a district that permits it, you wouldn't to go get any special permission. 114 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
Can you put a newsstand in front of a house; is that allowed?
Mr. Beller, maybe someone from the Streets Department could -- I think that question was asked earlier. Can someone from the Streets Department answer that question? (Nancy Sen returns to witness table.)
Nancy Sen, from the Streets Department. There's no stipulation that it has to be in a commercial or a residential area, but part of the procedure, when the Streets Department looks at the proposed location, they would take location into account -- and not only what's in the footway, but where the proposed location is. And we make it a policy to maybe talk to the owner of the property at the right-of-way where the newsstand is. And the other thing I had said is that 115 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 --
Well, one of things that often happens -- because these newsstand, 99 percent of them, are going to need electric or phone feeds, that will require an ordinance. And because of the due process of going through and seeking an ordinance, certainly, the property owner, whether it be commercial or residential, would, you know, through due course, would know that this thing is coming down in front of them. And, therefore, they would be able to testify, you know --
Right, I understand that, but suppose you don't want electricity, and you don't want a phone, you just want your nice little newsstand. Are you saying you could put one in front of someone's house?
We do -- we have to approve the location and we would look at the abutting property. There are certain instances that we have talked to -- we have tried to find maybe a better space, not in front of, say, you know, some 116 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 commercial building or -- it hasn't often come up residential, but I know in certain cases we've had at our desk recently, trying to be in front of the entrance to a hotel or something, we've tried find another location that would satisfy the newsstand owner as well as not take away from the property, you know, at the right-of-way.
Are you opposed to a prohibition for newsstands in front of residences?
And there's nothing in the Code, I believe, that prevents it from being in front of a house. The only thing is that marketing drives -- I mean, I don't think there's many applications we get for in front of residential carries areas, just because I think these newsstands, you know, traditionally try to be where the footway traffic is, and they tend to be more near commercial strips.
Okay. Last 117 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 question. This is for the newsstand folks. Can you put an advertisement on the roof of this thing?
The location is set, and it has to be a 2-by-7 horizontal, the strip showing New York Times or USA Today must be 6.5 feet above the ground. It's preset as to which we can put on which side. And so the answer is, you can't advertise on the roof.
Councilman, I believe in the amendments that's every single type of appurtenance. I think it was like number 5, somewhere in the middle, 5 or 6, which addresses all --
It's in number 6, at the end of letter (f), is that? ". . . shall be limited to the following. . ."
And that is very close to what is out -- has been agreed upon by all the commissions and departments who have seen the prototype.
Okay, all righty. 118 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 Thank you. Thank you very much.
Any further questions, Councilman? Anyone else who has any questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? And I need -- well, I'm going to lose a quorum shortly if we don't get through this. Is there anyone else here who's going to testify today? Councilmember Clarke?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I needed to ask the question about the amendments that the Newsstand Association put forth. Are you willing to withdraw those?
You're talking about the amendments that were offered on April 119 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 11th.
So we're only dealing with the amendments that are being presented by the Streets Department today.
With what Mrs. Russo said earlier today: number one, introducing these amendments; and, number two, saying that she'll take a look at some of the things we've raised in that earlier amendment for future legislation, we're happy to withdraw those.
I think that at some point, we will be back to talk about a lot of different things here. I see some potentials here for some revenue-sharing with the City and other kinds of things that we can do. I think this is a beginning.
We're more than happy to keep this ongoing. Its been going on for two years, we're happy to keep going.
Any other questions? Councilmember Rizzo? 120 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
Mr. Rocco, later this -- earlier this afternoon, I asked the question about City services that you get. Did you hear my question so that I don't have to repeat it?
Sure. Most of our members take care of their own trash. They either take it home with them or put it in the car, what have you. They don't have any kind of a relationship with anyone, for the most part. It's basically left up to the individual newsstand owner.
What motivated me to ask the question -- do you know if you're entitled to trash pickup by the City?
You don't know that. What motivated me to ask the question is, I got a call that alleged that many of the newsstand operators use the City receptacles to put their trash in, and if that's a practice, that really shouldn't happen. 121 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
Mm-hmm. That is a possibility. I'm not going to say that that doesn't occur.
So if you are entitled, like any other business, wouldn't you want to take advantage of that for your members?
Absolutely. We certainly don't want to be out of code or what have you.
No, what I'm getting at is, if you are entitled to have the City of Philadelphia take away your refuse, you'd obviously want to -- that's savings to you. I mean, rather than load your car up with trash --
So that's something that you'd want to do, so you would have to conform to putting out your trash like every other business would.
Any further questions? 122 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 (No further questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? Please come forward. (Witnesses come forward.)
I'm sorry. I didn't see you. One more question from Councilmember Clarke.
Actually two questions. One question with respect -- I'm not sure that I heard you clear, but it sounded like to me that you said that without the ability to do the other commercial advertisements, your ability to adequately do replacement of these throughout the City would not be there. Is that what you said?
In summary, our participation would -- we would not be participating if commercial advertising were not allowed on the newsstands. And finding the 123 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 optimum level format number of advertisements, etc. is also important in establishing the viability of the program. So what I am suggesting to you is that you have three models: One which is a proprietary model paid for by the City or the newsstand owner on their own, which would have no advertising; A sponsorship model, whereby the news organizations would pay a sum of money to support the capital cost of each newsstand, and how far that money would go would be their business; And the third one, which is the one that allows for the broadest distribution and the broadest participation, is one where advertising is allowed, commercial off-premise advertising of a format that is marketable and viable. And that allows for the broadest development, broadest distribution of the newsstand. And that's the program with which we would participate.
And with the withdrawal of the amendment, that would not be allowed; am I correct? 124 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
With the withdrawal of the Newsstand Association's amendment, which was submitted a couple of weeks ago, that would not be allowed.
That's correct, that's correct. But as I said, we're withdrawing it with the understanding that -- we've already had ample evidence of good faith with the City. Miss Russo said that was going to be studied, and appropriate language might be then submitted to you for some, what she referred to as, "non-accessory," meaning commercial. So we're relying on the City to continue its efforts. As you see, the amendments that you got today were done by the City, and we think they are important for the City, but they're also proper for us, so they take in some of them and we hope you'll --
When you say you're relying, what about the advertisement agency? I mean, that -- 125 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
A lottery is permitted on newsstands. Does the newsstand have to -- is it only permitted on newsstands that sell lottery or could it be on any newsstand?
The lottery, at least in my opinion, is commercial advertising.
So we've already made exceptions. And we're not going to deal with that today -- I don't want to start a whole -- I mean, in theory, we do have commercial advertising on them.
Thank you, okay. Any further questions for these witnesses? Councilman Clarke? 126 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
Yeah, I'm just trying to get a sense of -- you're saying that you're not willing to participate in this program if you're not able to have the commercial advertisement, and we're acknowledging that we're not going to have the commercial advertisement by withdrawing the amendment. I'm trying to a sense of where we're going today.
I mean, are you operating in good faith also? Or are -- I mean, you seem pretty clear that you were not willing to participate if --
And that's correct, and I think that the effort, particularly by Councilman DiCicco and the efforts by the Newsstand Association and, I guess, the general education of other Councilmembers over time on this program, you know, has developed, has evolved a sense for what is viable program. As I said earlier, I participated in the RFP that was issued by the City five years ago. George Burrell was my counsel at the time and I worked closely with Barbara Kaplan. We 127 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 talked at that time about three commercial advertising panels on each newsstand. And all of that being said, I believe this is a promising, viable program. I expect to continue to work with the Newsstand Association, with the City. I am optimistic and confident that at some point in time, we'll achieve the formula that will allow us to subsidize the program in whole and make it work. But at some point in time, if the Council were to close the door on that possibility and lock it up tight, we would not participate. But until that last dog is hunted there, I plan to be working with this group and with you to produce a successful, viable citywide program.
Well, I kind of think we're essentially closing that door today with the withdrawal of the amendment. That's not to say that it couldn't open sometime in the foreseeable future.
Well, not really. Maybe I'm being the optimist here. You're correct that it closes it for today on this particular bill. But with the remarks, as I said, made by the 128 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 Managing Director's Office that they are currently working on what they, I think -- or are thinking about working on what they would be acceptable to this Council and everyone else. I mean, you have to remember that -- and I'm not giving blanket authority, but the Art Commission felt that commercial advertising could be allowed under appropriate circumstances and said so in its letter dated February 4th. So it's not that it's being closed all the way. I think what we're doing is, we're at least getting to the point where we understand the size of the advertising, the illumination. And then, hopefully, within the next very short period of time, something will be presented to you, which would then induce Ad Shell to stay with us. But we have to go forward with this because if we don't, we're left in a limbo situation where we have all the violations, and then we have each individual member where we got to say to them, "Go out and spend 7, 10, 15, $20,000 to fix up," and that's going to be impossible.
Yeah, but 129 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 respectfully, you're still in limbo. I mean, you have your advertiser saying that he's not sure he's going to participate unless certain things happen.
Let me suggest to you, Councilman, that -- and I don't want to say this against our own self interests, but obviously, we're trying to come up with other contingency plans, and it may then be that what we're going to have to come up with is financial participation with bank loans, maybe City loans. Maybe we can work something through PIDC. I'm not saying it's impossible to do, but it's going to be a darn sight tougher to do. And I'm hoping that we'll all come to some accommodation, just as we came to accommodations with regard to size and shape and that sort of thing. I'm just hoping that with your cooperation we'll get that.
Any further questions for these witnesses? Councilman Nutter?
I want to make sure 130 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 that I heard -- I want to make sure what I thought I heard I would have actually heard if I heard it. What did you say about general advertising in the future?
Yeah. Did you say something about general advertising at a later point in time?
I said "non-accessory" was the way it was phrased by the Managing Director's Office, and that's the way I'm going to phrase it so that I'll be exactly on board with what the City said.
That's kind of -- you're starting midway through either a sentence or a discussion. What are you talking about, "non-accessory"?
I don't know whether you were in the room, Councilman, when the Managing Director Office's representative testified.
And I believe what she 131 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 said was that at the moment, the way the bill 3 stands, the advertising which is being permitted by this bill is accessory -- that means the periodicals, the magazines and the lottery. That they will continue to study in a task force with Streets and other departments the permission, the possible permission of non-accessory advertising.
Accessory is that which we already have. That is, we can advertise the periodicals, we can advertise the newspapers, and we can advertise the lottery. That's accessory. That's what would fit into those illuminated slots that we were discussing before. Non-accessory would be the kind of ads that you have on the shelters now. That's non-accessory.
The Managing Director's Office, in a task force of some kind. I -- I'm --
Do you have an 132 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 interest in non-accessory advertising?
Of course. Of course, we do. That would -- that was the purpose of the remarks regarding --
Because the City asked, in their opening remarks, to study it and to come up with a formula because what would happen, quite simple, if we asked for if it now in a form which was general, you would probably, as all the other Councilmen would, would try to narrow it down, limit the type of advertising, which I would want to do myself, and then we would never get this bill passed, we wouldn't get the things built, and we would be another year down the line. So I guess what we're saying is, if we get this part underway, if there's no objection -- and I don't know how individual Councilmen will vote but, if there's no objection to the stand, the configuration, the illumination, the size of 133 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 the signs, that the next step would be, in fact, easier, and in accordance with what Councilman DiCicco said.
Well, I guess when you've got almost all your body through the door, yeah, it is a little easier to get the rest in, right?
Okay. So let me just -- let me -- I mean the -- Councilman DiCicco knows -- he and I have a very good relationship, so he knows that I have a tendency to ask a few questions, but we're always all right at the end of the day.
And it's better to do it in the hearing than to have it out on the floor.
And this -- for the moment, the hypothetical world that we're operating in, you're here, you want expansion of the size, you want three panels, they can be illuminated, you can advertise the lottery and 134 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 whatever you sell on the stand -- whether it's USA Today, Inquirer (with an I or an E). I guess you could probably have a Hustler ad up if you wanted, if you sell Hustler on the stands?
No, we couldn't because that kind of advertising is not permitted.
We can't even -- our members voluntarily started to cover those magazines up and put them in the back.
All right, I understand, okay. So you get the agreement, you're a member of the organization, you get your new newsstand, you participate in the -- I think last time -- I think it was another gentleman here when we started talking about a commission split off of the advertising to the newsstand operator and all of that, you have that going on.
I assume you're making your payments. The advertising is paying for the newsstand so the operator doesn't actually have to, out of his or her own pocket, pay back 135 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 any of the $25,000; is that correct?
Okay. So you have all of that going on, but at some point in time, you realize that, with all due respect to the guy from USA Today and the picture I have here, this stand has New York Times, USA Today, and it's got what I'm going to assume is a Philadelphia Magazine advertisement, 'cause it says "phillymag.com."
So you'll probably come to the conclusion that whatever Philly Mag might be willing to pay for -- I'm assuming -- is this the 2-by-7 on the back here?
Whatever Philly Magazine is willing to pay for that, so and so, xyz.com, which is not a periodical or a publication but is a real live company, they might 136 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 be willing to pay more for a 2-by-7 illuminated 24-hour, 7-day-a-week ad, and you could be back here in a year and a half saying, you know, the revenue projections on getting USA Today, New York Times, Inquirer, Daily News, Philadelphia Magazine and a couple others to advertise is not generating the level of revenue that we really needed to make this work, and therefore -- and I'm assuming subsequent to this study -- we need to come back and have the permission to do general advertising because now we have all these stands out on the street, which people can't really pay for, and before you know it, they either can't pay their electric bill, so they're going to be hot next summer, or some other catastrophe is going to happen and, therefore, we have to have general advertising because you're now going to force all these people have their stands repossessed. Is that outside of the realm of possibility of scenarios that could one day happen here in this same chamber?
It's not a likely scenario with our involvement at all. We will get in, we will know what the financing structure will be, 137 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 we'll have a conservative financial proforma, we will know what it means for the 15-year period or 20-year period or 10-year period, and the newsstands will be without any strings. Now, if you get into --
But just from a business standpoint -- I'm sorry, what is your name?
But from a business standpoint, Mr. Watts, I mean, you can't sit there and tell me that as you do a proforma today based on what you're going to derive out of Philadelphia Magazine, Inquirer, Daily News, USA Today, and 95 other newspapers or periodicals that you might sell, that as you look at this from a business standpoint and then start to calculate the advertising revenue out of Bell Atlantic, IBM, Xerox, Aramark, and anybody else around, and when you compare the proforma today of newspapers, periodicals and, you know, M & M's, compared to the other group that I just mentioned, you can't 138 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 sit here today and say, as a good business person, that you won't be compelled by your business ethics to go to someone and say, This is what we're doing today, this is what we could be doing if we had permission to do general advertising, and I think you guys -- the Association or whomever, because you have relationships and you know people, you got to go back and ask to get this general advertising and be able to show that you'd have quicker payback on the stands, you know, maybe you can, you know, add a new or bell or whistle to it, maybe you would like to put something on the top because if you're at a newsstand on the corner in front of 15-, 20-story building, the people on the 12th floor could look down and see something as well, 'cause they can't see any on the panels from up there because they're at street level. You're not going to tell me that you won't come back to us with that kind of a scenario.
Yes, I actually am going to say that, and the reason I'm going to say it is that we're going to go into the program, whatever 139 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 program we sign up for with the newsstands, with our eyes wide open, and we will have a conservative scenario. There is no doubt -- please, don't mistake anything I have to say. There is no doubt that off-premise, non-accessory general advertising is the best method for financing this program, keeping it the healthiest, the longest for the general public interest. There is no 11 doubt. Getting The Gap to advertise --
Well, you know, there's, I think, a general impression -- if you're in New York City, where you have a great number of impressions per day, which is the measurement commodity that advertising uses --
-- you can sell a bus shelter panel for $3,500 a month. That's a great 140 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 deal of money. That same bus shelter panel in Philadelphia -- not always -- most of the time sells for about $600 a month, so there's a great difference.
Yeah, but they have seven times as many people as we do, too.
And that's one of the issues. And they also have a 24-four feed on the street.
So it is not a jackpot, but it makes it a lot healthier. And I have done financial models on this program --
-- using two or three different scenarios, and I have to tell you that none of them are all terribly that rosy. Our big interest, quite frankly, is a long-term investment 141 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 with the City, looking forward to the renewal of the bus shelter RFP within a few years and programs such as that nature.
Well, the bus shelter program expires with the present vendor, I think, in the next year or two or maybe perhaps three, and the City has an opportunity to put it back out to bid for brand-new bus shelters.
But I've been involved in this program here for four, five years. I know most of the players, I know that there are 55 Center City newsstands, and I know what the opportunities are there.
It's the beauty of living in the United States of America -- everybody should have an opportunity to kind of do 142 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 their thing. I just -- I'm just trying to understand --
-- where things are today and where they could be tomorrow.
And where we might be a year and a half from now and make sure that we all kind of go into this with our eyes completely wide open.
We would contract to provide X-number of newsstands to the Newsstand Association membership -- let's call it 100, to have a number of on the table. And we would provide a hundred newsstands, period. We would keep title to those newsstands only for the period of our contract so that we could amortize them for tax purposes and depreciate them for tax purposes. And that's it. We would not be in the business of repossessing any newsstand. It would be up to us, our onus completely, to sell the advertising, whichever form or basis upon which you make a judgment. 143 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
I hadn't understood this before. For some period of time, you will own the newsstand, and at some point in time, does the reverse --
It's a similar situation to what you have with the bus shelters right now. The company that installed the bus shelter has title to the bus shelter until the termination of the contract, at which time the shelter inures to the benefit of the City -- or City's title, I believe. A similar circumstance. And it's our basis of depreciating the shelter. We obviously can't depreciate it if we don't have title to it.
Interesting, okay, all right. But you are eventually trying to get to the general advertising.
We would like that up front, no doubt about it. We would like that up front, and we think that makes the healthiest program for you.
Thank you, 144 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 Councilman. I know we have a few more witnesses. I just want everyone to know and understand that we've lost a quorum so we won't be voting on this bill or any other bill today. I will take testimony from the other folks that are here today so you don't have to come back tomorrow morning, but this committee will readjourn tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock for the purpose of voting out this bill and the other bills, assuming that they meet favorably with the other members of the committee. So whoever else has not testified and wishes to testify at this time, would you please come forward.
You decide the order in which you want to testify, please identify yourself for the -- are we saving you for last Judith, is that it? All right. Please identify yourself for the 145 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 record.
Good afternoon. My name is Mary Tracy, and I'm the President of SCRUB, which stands for the "Society Created To Reduce Urban Blight." Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, raising the standards for newsstands in our city is an important and valiant endeavor, and your leadership in working to resolve this issue is commendable. However, Bill No. 000166 which will be expanding outdoor advertising signs on newsstands proposes to accomplish this goal at far too great a cost to the public. The tradition of newsstands on the public right-of-way may have outlived its time, if the only way to accomplish this goal is to transform newsstands into outdoor advertising displays. This solution is an unwelcome departure from public policy protection set forth in 1991. At that time, City Council declared in legislative findings that the excessive number of outdoor advertising signs contributes to the visual clutter and detracts from the esthetic beauty of Philadelphia. They said that such signs do not 146 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 belong within or in close proximity to residential neighborhoods, and that the proliferation of commercial outdoor advertising signs contribute to the appearance of deterioration of commercial areas of the City and negatively impact upon the economic viability of the area. They jeopardize public safety by distracting pedestrians and, to a greater extent, passing motorists since by their very nature, they are erected in areas intended to be seen by drivers of motor vehicles. Regulation and removal of these signs will promote traffic safety by eliminating the hazards to pedestrians and motorists posed by distracting and confusing sign displays. I just very briefly would like to tell you that in my own neighbor at 63rd and Lancaster, we had a newsstand for many years, and when this law was enforced -- it was a wooden newsstand -- it did have to be destroyed, and one of reasons they destroyed it is because they simply weren't making enough money at that newsstand. We've all read -- or those of us who still read newspapers -- that there is a greatly declining rate of 147 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 newspaper readership and magazines. And so my great fear is that we are supporting buildings on public property and that maybe it's time for them to go. I'd just like to pass up on here that while I was in his Chicago, I saw their solution in their center city area for selling newspapers to the public on public property, and I think it's a very attractive alternative that has no 11 advertising on it and still would fill the need for making sure the public has access to newspapers.
I know and I'm working on legislation. Hopefully, we'll have that done before June 22nd. That's another nightmare I created for myself, yes. 148 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
Well, I know, and we do really appreciate your taking this on because it certainly needed to be.
I need to ask you a question. What public harm do you find in newsstands and the advertisements that we are suggesting in the new prototype type as compared to what is allowed on the newsstand advertising today? What is the public harm? And you mentioned that other places -- I mean, someone mentioned New York Times Square. Could you imagine Times Square without all that advertising? I could never imagine that.
Well, Councilman, that's Times Square. Philadelphia has its own special aesthetic qualities.
It does, but we're never going to get anywhere in this city unless we start thinking a little bit differently. And my question to you is this: What is the harm that you see in the advertising that 149 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 is suggested in the new prototype? And are you comfortable with the manner in which -- the appearance of the existing newsstands today?
No, absolutely. I said that in my opening statement, that I applaud your efforts in trying to redefine their look.
I think the public harm, first of all, is that you're setting a very dangerous precedent because you are using public space for commercial advertising. I think that we are trying to do all we can to promote a pleasing esthetic environment.
What -- I want to stop you. What is the harm in using public space to promote advertising?
Because the public does not need or want to be inundated with commercial advertising in areas that they pay --
And how do you derive to that conclusion that the public does not want advertising?
Well, I think -- I'm going 150 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 back to 1991, but clearly that was the consensus at that time.
Of the people who came to the legislative hearings, of people across the City -- neighborhood groups, community groups.
And you're -- I was a community -- I'm a community activist, I started my own civic association, and sometimes when I came to speak, I was really speaking for myself and maybe not the 8,000 people I represented -- not because I wanted to misrepresent people, but was there ever a poll taken across the City of Philadelphia by anyone to suggest, Do you like advertising in the City of Philadelphia today? Do you think we have too much advertising? Has anyone ever taken a policy, do you know?
I don't know. I could get back to you on the answer to that, Councilman.
I would appreciate that. And understand, when we mentioned honor boxes, and I have taken that on as a challenge to 151 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 do something about streetscape furniture in general 'cause I'm a freak when it comes to order. My mother made me this way. You know, my socks are actually rolled up and they're color- coordinated in my drawer. I'm going to make somebody a good husband some day -- two of them didn't like what I did, but maybe the third will. (Laughter.)
The point I'm making is that -- so I am very sensitive, and what lead me to really get to work on this is, I don't want to see newsstands go away for a couple of reasons. One, I think they do serve the public. It is a commodity, I think out there, and it does serve a purpose. And in addition, these stands are operated by people, people who earn a living for themselves and their families. And I think the last thing we need to do is eliminate newsstands and have another 175 people unemployed in the City of Philadelphia. I think that would be the worst thing that we can do. With that in mind and looking for 152 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 something that would be more esthetically pleasing to the public, I think what this prototype represents is something well far beyond what exists today. I refer to what exists today, for the most part, generally, these newsstands that are out there, they look like the outhouse that was behind my grandmother's house on Federal Street 40 years ago. And I don't mean that to be funny -- they do. They are shacks. And here we have something that is so much more tasteful, and it has advertising, but no 13 more advertising than is allowed today. In fact, less advertising. And if you look at the photograph -- and I'll have someone share that with you -- of an existing newsstand that has, it looks to me, I'm guessing, somewhere about a 3-by-8 advertisement of a lottery, okay, for the lottery on the back of it, and it's legal, and now we're going to reduce that to 2-by-7. I think we have done what you all want us to do. I think we are going in the right direction. But to suggest that we shouldn't have newsstands out there and we have too much advertising, I think we have to deal with these 153 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 things on a case-by-case basis. In this case, we're talking about newsstands. I mean, how many people -- you walk down the street. Could you honestly tell me that you didn't see a sign on the building that you didn't see a week ago and say, Hey, I want to go in there and maybe buy a sandwich today. Where would we be without advertising?
You asked me a question. I'm asking, where is the public harm? We have newsstands today. And if we said this legislation gets ripped up tonight, it's done, thanks for all the time, we walk away, newsstands will still be there, advertising that is permitted will still continue to be there. And what have we accomplished? Why are we opposing something that I think is better? I don't get it, I don't see the 154 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 public harm here.
My point is, we're not inventing newsstands. We're not suggesting to put something where something doesn't exist already today. All we're saying is we're replacing it with something that has more value and I think is more attractive. I mean, if you've ever been to Europe -- I just came from a vacation in Italy -- I mean, talk about advertising? It's everywhere. You talk about blight? You know the building on 20th -- and excuse me, Judith, for taking up some of your time, but I've been listening to people for the last four hours, and if I'm boring you, I apologize, but I think I have a right to say what I have in my mind today.
Have you ever taken a look at the building at about 24th and Arch? If you take JFK Boulevard going out to 30th Street Station and you look to the right, it's about a 20-story building that's been sitting 155 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 vacant probably for years, with blown-out windows. You're going to tell me if I came up -- and it's not my district, 'cause if it was, there would be a wrap-around advertisement on that building tomorrow, tomorrow, because it would eliminate the blight, if it's done in a tasteful way. So we keep talking about public harm. The harm to that community is the appearance of that blighted, vacant building and is doing more harm than any future advertising may bring to that building. Now, I'm not some fanatic out there that wants advertising all over, either. But I think what we're trying to do here today, and have been trying to do for the better part of a year and a half, is to put something out there that makes sense to the people who operate those businesses, those facilities, to make them -- and put them in compliance with what the Code wants them to do, and they can go on and make a living and we can sell newspapers. And maybe, and maybe, this will help increase the sale of newspapers, I don't know. I certainly don't think it will 156 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 decrease the sale of newspapers. Because it's attractive, people are drawn to that. We had it out on 12th and Market for the better part of six months now, and I have not received one bit of information from anyone to suggest that that thing was inappropriate or that someone didn't particularly support that. Everyone, including the Art Commission and the Avenue of the Arts, which gave us written testimony today, they want to see them along Broad Street to replace what's out there today. Now, PNI may not want to agree do that, but that's what they would like to see. Again, I just still don't get the answer to public harm. I'm sorry. I had a long day. Thank you for waiting and I do appreciate the value of what you do, but we'll disagree from time to time. On this, I think that we are in disagreement, but I respect your position. Thank you, Miss Eden, for putting up with me, Judith, come on. "The Saint," where is he?
"The Saint" will divorce me 157 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 if I am not in my seat at the opera at 7:30.
So do you want to just give us some written testimony? We'll take that and put it into the record if you'd like.
Councilman Rizzo said something. We had a playbill -- it's true, it has advertising. And what about the kiosk on the outside of the Academy of Music? Ah, advertising, we've got to do away with that stuff.
I am Judith Eden and I am here on behalf of the Center City Residents Association, one of the largest and oldest civic association in this city, with the membership area from South to Market Street, between Broad and the Schuylkill River. We have a long-standing interest in minimizing obstructions on the sidewalk and we have a long-standing interest in the control of general outdoor advertising. And we do appreciate the amount of time and effort and energy that has gone into the bill to bring it to this point. We do feel somewhat lacking in the perspective of a residents' association and a small business 158 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 perspective as well. We are concerned that the overall scheme proposed here may be creating an incentive for additional newsstands within our membership area. At the same time, we are disappointed that there is no explicit prohibition on the placement of newsstands in front of residentially-zoned property and in front of churches, synagogues, and other places of worship. That, we understood, at the beginning of this process was one of the outstanding concerns to be addressed -- not just in Center City but citywide. And why it is not addressed in this bill, I cannot say. Turning now to the sign panels. We feel that there is an issue of equity and unfairness here when a newsstand will be allowed to have more signage than the business storefront that it adjoins. Many, or most, of the newsstands within the CCRA membership area are on property zoned C4 or C5. If you were to be a 10-foot storefront in a C4-C5 area, you would not be allowed to have more than two square feet of signage for every foot of frontage. So that a 10-foot storefront would have a maximum of 20 159 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 square feet of signage. This proposal would allow 32 square feet of signage in the 3 panels in addition to the signage element that wraps entirely around the roof. So the total sign package here is probably as much as three times what is allowed in adjoining business. Similarly, in the CCRA membership area, a solid roll-down gate would not be allowed on a business, and a lot of effort and energy has gone into having businesses have the see-through gate. Part of that is to avoid communicating to everyone that kind of Beirut bunker look, and a part of it is to hold down surfaces that attract graffiti. And here you have not only a proposal, according to the amendments, to permit solid roll-down gates, but to in effect convert them also into signs, because they will be allowed to have a logo identifying the owner and/or a sponsor for the newsstand. And I don't mean to be facetious, but that strikes me as a door-opener. I mean, who is to say that Budweiser is not going to be the sponsor of the newsstand? 160 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
Something other than the lottery or something other than a publication.
So, in effect, I mean, you now have this identity band wrapped around the top of the signage, you've got the three illuminated advertising that is signage, and you have the roll-down gates being converted into signage through this provision that it can advertise the logo of the owner or the sponsor of the newsstand. And much as everyone, of course, would like to see the newsstand replaced with something much nicer, I think it's going to come as a quite a surprise to businesses all over Center City to see this done by a much larger newsstand in terms of its length and its height and outfitted with illuminated advertising panels that are all set to accept accessory general outdoor advertising, which the adjoining businesses, of course, would be prohibited from having. Thank you. 161 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
I'd like to comment on a couple of your -- I agree with you --
-- on one of your points and halfway on another one. The first point I agree on is that we should have something, and I don't recall when we began working on this legislation, that we were addressing the legality of placing newsstands -- or not placing newsstand on certain properties and stuff. I agree with you here 'cause I'm having problems with the honor boxes. I don't know what gives anyone a right to drop a box on my sidewalk, your sidewalk or anyone else's sidewalk.
Well, I agree with you there, and I think that we need to address that, maybe not in this bill, but I have no 21 problem working with your Councilperson and other people to figure out a way in which we can regulate the location -- at least maybe to make a requirement to go to the Zoning Board or something like that. 162 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 I mean, I'm working with that similar kind of legislation with pay phones. I don't think they should be just allowed to be put out anyplace. I think you should have some mechanism for some public involvement there. As it relates to the roll-down gate, I mean, it was a question of, how do you keep these things from being vandalized? And I think the only logo that would be permitted on these, if I'm not mistaken, and somebody can correct me, is the logo that just really gives you a design of the skyline of the City of Philadelphia.
We'll let George come up or somebody else that wants to address that. As to the signage, there's a location at one of the prototypes, interestingly, at Fourth and Chestnut, which is located in front of Xando one of those fancy coffee shops. And the owners of the building, who purchased the building maybe three ago, came to me and asked me to have that newsstand removed because they didn't like the appearance of it. It was ugly-looking, they said, 163 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 it was just horrible, and they got all these lottery signs stuck on it and all this other stuff on there, it's very unattractive. Xando became a tenant and it became even more unattractive. Well, now that the prototype is out there -- why do you roll your eyes when I talk to you? The people who own the building accept it, they think it is a wonderful addition. It fits into what the environment of an outdoor environment is, to put people back on the street, you know, with the outdoor cafes, to make the streets more vibrant and attractive and, in essence, really make them safer. So I mean -- I don't know if everybody else 'cause you -- and what I'm referring to is that you mentioned that some of the business people offended by this or take exception to it because these stands will, in effect, allow more advertising than the business property owner is. This is a business guy, he has a tenant who pays a lot of money to rent that space on the first floor, and everyone is happy right now so --
He also has the eight-foot 164 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 model, and there is not as much advertising on it as this bill will allow.
It is a foot smaller. Judith, we're not talking to foot 6 versus 16 feet here. We're talking about a very 7 minimal amount of difference between the 12th and 8 Market prototype and the one at 4th and Chestnut prototype. There's really not that much difference.
Yes, but the sidewalk at 12th and Market is much, much larger, and the sidewalk where Xando is where the smaller prototype is installed.
And that's why the small one's there. That's the reason there's not a larger one at Fourth Street, and that's what the legislation says. It will be that the Streets Department will look at each individual site and, where permitted, with approvals from everybody, a larger one could be installed at that site. It's not a blanket. I want to see the newsstand on the southeast corner of Seventh and Chestnut removed entirely 'cause I don't know how that thing ever 165 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 got there in the first place. There's less than three foot of sidewalk space between the newsstand and the curb -- and the curb. I don't think it should be there, and I agree with you. But all I'm saying is we have newsstands out there and I at least am -- I'm not going to lend any support to eliminating newsstands in the City of Philadelphia, but I do think we should regulate where they go and how they get placed there, and we should have a limit on maybe the number that is placed in any particular intersection, similar to what we're trying to do with the honor boxes. We need some order out there, and I think this gets us a long way in restoring some order and enhancing the esthetics of these structures that are left out on the street. Anyone have any questions?
Thank you. Do you know of any city that once had 166 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 newsstands that have totally just eliminated them and went to Chicago honor box only? Do you know of anyplace in the country? I just can imagine going backwards --
I am suggesting -- I think I somewhat suggested that I do hope that this bill 12 does not create an incentive for additional newsstands in locations that don't currently have them.
The previous witness did suggest that maybe we -- and correct me if I'm misquoting you, that maybe newsstands -- we'd be better off if we didn't have newsstands.
If the only way we can keep them is by plastering advertising on them, we need to rethink our priorities.
I think I heard in the amendment that it's very specific that there 167 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 could only be one on a particular block and no 3 more two at a particular intersection. I think it was all spelled out in the amendment. So it sounds to me that we're heading in the direction to clarify exactly what's allowed, because right now, it might be a little looser.
Well, I think right now, we have a lot of intersections -- at least in the CCRA membership area -- that have only one, and we are concerned that what this bill actually will encourage is having two at every intersection. And we are concerned about certain locations that have been controversial in the past, and we are concerned about the placement of the honor boxes in front of church properties. And we have at least two churches that are actively concerned about this.
I'm in total agreement with you on that. And the one problem that I have with honor boxes in general is --
I know, I know, but you did say "honor boxes." 168 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
But I want to refer back to the honor box thing and New York -- I can't see the photograph from where I am but I know in New York, they have a different kind of a system, like a kiosk, and it has about 28 different slots for newspapers to be where they vend their newspapers. The problem I find with the honor boxes is that there's a general lack of maintenance. You get people who are basically homeless people or whatever and are walking around the streets, and I see them open up those boxes and literally throwing stuff around. At least with the newsstand, you have someone who is in control of dispensing of the newspapers. And when they leave at the end of the day, it gets closed down and no one can have access to it unless, of course, they would break into it. So I think we have better controls with the newsstands than we have with honor boxes.
Well, if you're looking for examples from other cities, I've been fortunate 169 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 enough to travel a lot over the two or three years this bill has been developing, and what I do find interesting in many other cities is that when the newsstand is closed, the illuminated features are turned off so that it's always clear, looking at the newsstand, whether it's open or closed. And I am assuming that under this particular proposal, the illuminated band at the top of the newsstand and the advertising panels will be illuminated at night when the newsstand is closed, which, for a tourist or someone unfamiliar with the City, going to the newsstand, thinking they can buy a newspaper, will of course be a frustration. But what's sadder is when someone goes to the, newsstand thinking it's a safe space --
-- because it's illuminated, and it turns out to be closed. And we have had that experience in the CCRA membership area involving blocks that had businesses that would keep a lot of lights on at night, when they were in fact closed, and people then going onto the blocks, actually trying to escape a mugger and so 170 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 forth and actually, you know, finding this situation to be unsafe.
Well, I guess that's one of the points I would disagree with. I think that the illumination in some cases actually benefits the community because in those places where you have a minimal amount of street lighting, the illumination of these newsstands provides lighting onto the sidewalk and actually makes it a safer place. I mean, stores, as you say, keep their light on at night. You don't know if they're open sometimes until you get to the door because it's hard to distinguish whether they're open or closed. What do you tell them, to keep lights off? I'd rather them all keep their lights on because it emanates light out onto the sidewalk. That, I think, was one of the reasons for the security gate legislation that said at least 75 percent of it had to be -- you know, whatever their phrasing was, instead of the solid gate. And so it put lights out into the sidewalk. And I think, again, these new newsstand accomplish that.
Well, I think Paul Levy 171 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 would be surprised to learn that our streets are still dark after all of our CCD improvements.
Hi. I am Peter Hecht, the Vice President of Philly Walks, which is the only Philadelphia organization devoted solely to the pedestrian. I'm thankful for the opportunity to address the committee today. Some of the proposed amendments may make a few of my comments moot, so I will attempt to abbreviate them. But one thing I would note is the proposed regulations, as we have said, must apply to existing newsstands. We understand it will be up to the renewal permit before they may be -- the regulations may be applied to them. Or am I confused by that?
Whether existing newsstands that this set of regulations, this ordinance, would apply to, would that be at the time that the 172 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 renewal permits came up or --
No. Actually, if you're speaking to the materials that are required, they should have been in compliance as of January 1st of 1999, but the Department of L&I had agreed to relax the enforcement until such time we came up with a stand that may be -- not only would have complied to the materials that are required in the Code but makes something that makes sense for everyone. That's basically what this whole discussion has been about today.
I mean, technically, tomorrow, L&I can go out and cite everyone that doesn't have a newsstand that is built of the three materials that are required under the Code, technically if they wanted to, tomorrow.
Okay. Also note the '95 regulations expended the allowable footprint for newsstands from 28 to 32 feet. The proposed bill 23 would set that at 40 square feet. This extends the length of the newsstand and any blockage of the pedestrian right-of-way further along the 173 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 sidewalk. Given the historic background of somewhat limited enforcement of regulations, we feel somewhat leery of allowing the City -- or the City allowing longer stretches of the sidewalk to be encumbered in this fashion. Also, although the Streets Department amendments do address this to some extent, the proposed regulation, as originally written, had allowed racks and shields to encroach on the pedestrian right-of-way in a way that wasn't permitted by previous regulations, which leads also into the issue of security gates, which has been brought up before. The specifically solid security gates, which are prohibited on Center City storefronts, we know by history that these attract graffiti and have been discouraged for years so why would we want to encourage them or allow solid security gates on any particular building in this city?
If you're asking -- I don't know if you're asking me questions or just making statements, and I apologize. But the security gates on buildings, I'd certainly agree -- and I'm trying to get some enforcement done. I 174 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 don't think they should be solid security gates on those buildings. In this case, I don't think there's any other way you can provide adequate security for the newsstand and the materials that are in there unless it was a solid security gate. And I think the fact that there is a logo on there kind of softens the appearance of what the newsstand is all about. That's my opinion.
Okay. The major point I think I'd like to get to really deals with the pedestrian right-of-way. The Subsection 9-212(4)(b)(.4) refers to footway space, while Subsection 9-212(5)(d)(.3) refers to minimum pedestrian right-of-way. This language needs to be made consistent and clarified so that everyone understands that it applies to the whole space needed for walking, not just at the ground level. Evidently, the current regulations are defective in this or are just not being enforced. There are many locations where, as you noted, less than six feet exist for pedestrians.
Excuse me for interrupting. Have you seen the amendments 175 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 offered by the Streets Department?
They address that very issue. We'll make a copy available to you.
And I do remember the note about eight feet above the sidewalk, which is a fairly important one. But, no, I had not seen those prior. I appreciate that. And just note that the pedestrian right-of-way really should go to eight feet. We understand that the bill has been amended and certainly applaud that part, because it's not only pedestrians that we're talking about. Pedestrians don't come with -- just by themselves. There's often umbrellas, backpacks, parcels, bags that we're really talking about, plus the fact that pedestrians come in various heights and sizes.
I'm going to need you at my hearing where I'm going to try to eliminate certain vendors on certain streets in my district. I really need you to come to that hearing in support of what I'm attempting to do 'cause I'm going to get beat up badly on that 176 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 one, let me tell you.
Six feet is really a minimum width. And if you look at street vendors, as opposed to newsstands, they are regulated to six and a half feet. People need clearance from buildings, newsstands, and each other. Typical clearance for people from objects around them is usually considered to be inches from everything -- 11 that's buildings and other obstructions, whether 12 that's another person or street furniture, a 13 newsstand, or whatever. Of course, that doesn't 14 take into account the parcels, bags, and all the 15 other stuff that people come along with. 16 Six feet is really just enough for two 17 pedestrians to pass each other in opposite 18 directions -- without umbrellas, I might add. If it's raining, six feet doesn't cut it. You have to go up -- and I hung up one of my umbrellas earlier last week on one of the newsstands, which, obviously, was not high enough, trying to give someone else leeway to get through. Less than six feet means we're really -- you have to end up doing a sort of Spanish 177 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 fandango past each other, sort of twisting and -- I really could use castanets when this is done.
On my recent trip to Italy, most of the time I spent was walking in the street 'cause the sidewalks are about this narrow. But what I like about it is all the cafes accomplish what we should all be looking for. I mean, we keep talking about Philly Walks, and that to me says that we want to encourage people to walk. But unless you make an environment safe and put more people out there, people aren't going to walk, they're going to take their cars. So we got to try to figure out a balance here. What makes people -- what draws people to the sidewalk, to want to walk, as opposed to keeping them indoors or in their cars. And I think certain types of street furniture and certain types of activities that will be permitted or allowed to be permitted on the sidewalks accomplishes what Philly Walks wants to do -- encourage people to walk. But you got to give them a reason, you got to give 'em a place to go and things to see and do, not just walk, 'cause they can do that on 178 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 the tread mill in their house. And I don't mean that to be facetious. Unless we make it exciting and attractive for people to move around -- and at times, it does get to be a little bit crowded, but so what? That's what we're trying to do is, make it more vibrant, this city, create a place where people want to be. And the more you do, the more crowded it becomes, and if you had a 6-foot distance between the newsstand and the curb or a 12-foot, the busier it gets and you're going to have to make the sidewalks bigger and bigger and you're going to run out of space, but that's okay, that's okay. I remember as a kid Market Street, during the holidays, people had to walk sideways to go from one end of the block to the other, 'cause it was so busy. We got to make our sidewalks a place for people to want to come to. And I -- and they will walk. So we can't just keep saying, Well, we want to make it for them to walk to, but what are they walking to and from? or what are they going to see when they get there? That's what it's all about. It's 179 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 window shopping, it's passing the Academy of Music and looking at the kiosk outside of the Academy of Music to see who will be appearing tonight, who's appearing in a month from now. And it's done tastefully. The Academy of Music is a gorgeous building. There's advertisement on that building. And if it's done in the right way, it works it, works. We got to be careful that we don't want to prohibit everything because, oh, it's too much of this, too much of that, because we may not have anything of anything eventually.
I'm just trying to maintain a minimum pedestrian right-of-way, which often has not been accomplished in --
Two people have a very difficult time passing on that street without an umbrella. No, Judy? You're looking at me 180 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 strange.
Okay, well, there are certain blocks on Sansom Street that if two people were walking with an umbrella, one of them would either have to close the umbrella or walk into the street. And I'm just using Sansom Street as an example. There are other blocks where the sidewalks are even more narrow than Sansom Street, but I'm using that because it is a heavily-used pedestrian way. Now, would I encourage a newsstand on Sansom Street? Absolutely not, absolutely not.
I think we're talking the same thing. What I'm talking about is minimum space for people to get through, without forcing them in the street, which, in Philadelphia, is not as safe as it would be in Italy.
It depends. You might be, you may be right. There's a different habit -- I mean, people will people step into the 181 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 street, cars will stop and let them cross. Here, they look to run you over. I understand that.
Many of our busiest streets where the newsstands are, understandably would prefer to be very, are very narrow and have pedestrian volumes at the busiest times in excess of 1,000 people per hour. The bottle necks that form regularly around the newsstands are exactly because of that, because we have very narrow streets, and we don't have --
And, again, I think we're in the same ballpark -- since ballparks is a very big issue these days in Philadelphia. But if you take 19th Street -- or 18th Street, around Rittenhouse Square, if we used your explanation, or your mission is, to provide a certain amount of sidewalk space for people to sidewalk to walk, we would have the need to eliminate all of the outdoor cafes along Rittenhouse Square 'cause people wouldn't be able to fit between the tables that are outside of 182 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 Rouge and D'Avio's (ph.) or whatever the places are, they just wouldn't exist. But because there are sidewalk cafes there now, Rittenhouse Square is a much more vibrant, attractive place for people to want to come and visit and spend their money and do things -- even though, even though the sidewalks are less than the 6 foot requirement or 6.5 foot that you're suggesting we maintain. So, you know, again, it's trying to find that balance of what works. And someone could suggest to me that we would be better off eliminating sidewalk cafes around Rittenhouse Square but I think it would be -- I don't think that would be the right thing to do. I just did legislation in my district on Passyunk Avenue from Broad to Wharton Street and said to everything, Go do it. They haven't taken advantage it yet, but they should do it, and that will create business for them. And that helps everybody. It makes the streets safer.
I -- I can't -- it's not my turn, but I can't help tell you that it is painful to be sitting in one of those sidewalk cafes -- and I had this experience recently -- and watch a 183 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 man in wheelchair have to wheel himself in the middle of 18th Street. So there is a matter of striking a happy balance.
But on the other hand, there are people in strollers, people in wheelchairs.
I agree with you, Judith, but, you know, we can't design everything to accommodate everybody. There are exceptions to the rule. There are some times that it will be an inconvenience for some folks. And I'm not saying it's right, but there's no other way around it. It's the nature of what we're doing or trying to do. But would you -- I don't think you're suggesting that we do away with the outdoor cafe stuff around Rittenhouse Square so that wheelchair-bound folks could pass by.
I think that they could have both a sufficient six-foot clearance around Rittenhouse Square and the sidewalk cafes if the 184 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166 seating arrangements were such that either -- that all of the tables were placed adjacent to the building and not try to have the two lanes where you have tables at the building and another line of tables at the curb.
I know, but I'm not sure if at Rouge, it would work anyway, but I'm not going to argue that point.
But I think Rouge is a little bit more narrow than down the other end of the street. I might be wrong but --
But I'll accept it, I'm wrong. I'm sorry I keep interrupting you 'cause I'm hearing what I'm saying, I think, but we're just kind of. . .
I think we're in the same ballpark but I think we're sort of stuck on how far we'd like to let it go. I tend to agree with Judith that, you know, I think cafes are great. I'm from New York, I have grown up with cafes, I love them. 185 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
What do you think about the advertising at Times Square?
But I think we could also still have cafes and have a six-feet clearance so that people could get by.
Well, thank you, thank you for your testimony. Judith, I think you're going to be on time.
Well, I'd like to say something about advertising. I would point out to you that Times Square has its own special rules that don't apply, say, at Fifth and Madison. 186 4/26/00 STREETS & SERVICES - BILL 000166
I agree, I agree, I agree. Anyway, but I'd still like to see some -- a wrap-around on that vacant building which is in Councilmember Clarke's district rather than blown-out windows there, but that's for him to decide. Any other questions? Any other folks here who wish to testify? (No response.)
This committee will be in recess until tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. I thank you all for your testimony, thank you. Oh, one other thing. There's a letter from the Avenue of the Arts in support of the ordinance so I will give that to the -- oh, she already has it. Thank you. (Adjourned at 6:35 p.m.) - - - 187 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, April 26, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES BILLS 000146, 000148, 000161, 000162, 000166 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter