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.