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