COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, 5/30/01, a.m. 6 - - - 7 BILL 000629 - Amending Section 14-1807, entitled "Appeals to the Court," by amending language 8 regarding appeals. BILL 010129 - Changing zoning designations of area 9 generally bounded by Rhawn Street, Whitaker Street, a certain railroad right-of-way, Kendrick Street 10 extended and Dorcas Street. BILL 010302 - Changing zoning designations area 11 bounded by Frankford Avenue, Linden Avenue, the I-95 Expressway on-ramp, and Torresdale Avenue. BILL 010368 - Deleting certain uses from list of uses permitted in a C-7 commercial district. BILL 010371 - Amending the R-2 and R-3 residential zoning classifications. (Full text of all ordinances appear herein.) PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Vice Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILWOMAN JOAN KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 5/30/01 - RULES I N D E X Page BILL 010368 Richard Lombardo, City Planning Commission BILL 010371 Richard Lombardo, City Planning Commission BILL 010129 Richard Lombardo, City Planning Commission 8 BILL 010302 Richard Lombardo, City Planning Commission M. Avergan, Esq., Counsel, trust of . . . . James D. Morrisey and James D. Morrisey, Inc. Alice Morrisey, Esq., General Counsel . . . 28 James D. Morrisey Inc. Pat Costello, Committee Person. . . . . . . 29 65th Ward, 23rd Division BILL 000629 Joanne Phillips, Special Assistant. . . . . 31 to Managing Director Sam Stretton, Esq., attorney for SCRUB. . . 44 Jean Wrobleski, Director. . . . . . . . . . 94 Center City Residents Association (CCRA) Lenora Berson, President, CCRA. . . . . . . 103 Janet Potter, Foundation of Architecture. . 172 Melvin Owings, Friends of Fernhill Park . . 182 Joseph Schiavo, Developments Committee. . . 185 Old City Civic Association Marcus Saitschenko. . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Housing Association of the Delaware Valley Elizabeth Armour, Society Hill Civic Assoc. 208 Jean Gavin, Fox Chase resident. . . . . . . 210 Stanley Krakower, Esquire . . . . . . . . . 212 Ashley Montague, Concerned Resident . . . . 232 Janet Benedetto, Overbrook Farms Resident 239 Fred Maurer, Taxpayer . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Raydell Fisher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition Yvonne Hicks, Zoning and Code Enforcement 252 Committee, Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition Elizabeth Lowe, Rittenhouse Row . . . . . . 255 3 5/30/01 - RULES (Index, cont'd.) Marjorie Greenfield, Vice President . . . . 258 East Falls Community Council Siobhan Gephart, Secretary. . . . . . . . . 267 Tacony Civic Association Hal Schirmer, Treasurer . . . . . . . . . . 272 Friends of the Manayunk Canal Jerry Boris, Philadelphia Resident. . . . . 274 Dennis Winters, Clean Air Council . . . . . 279 Ruthann Madway, Philadelphia Resident . . . 286 Gerard Pescatore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation Carolyn Sutton, President . . . . . . . . . 298 East Falls Development Corporation Bill Faust, Philadelphia Resident . . . . . 305 James Kates, Greater Bustleton Civic League 309 Harry Hyde, Jr., Executive Director . . . . 311 Concerned Citizens of the Delaware Valley 4 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010368 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing of the Rules Committee. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 010368.
Bill No. 010368, an ordinance amending Title of the Philadelphia 9 Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending 10 Section 14-306.2, entitled "7-C Commercial 11 District," by deleting certain uses from the list of 12 uses that are permitted in a C-7 commercial 13 district, all under certain terms and conditions. 14 (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Richard Lombardo, Director of Development, Planning and Zoning for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill No. 010368. Councilmember O'Neill introduced this bill on May 24, 2001. This bill amends the 5 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010368 provisions of the C-7 commercial zoning classification. It removes automobile showrooms and automobile sales lots from the uses permitted in the C-7 classification. Currently, an automobile sales showroom is permitted as a matter of right while the outdoor sales lot requires a certificate; that is, a hearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. If enacted, both of these uses would require -- in the future, would require variances from C-7 commercial. The Planning Commission is scheduled to consider this bill at its meeting of June 21, 2001. We have not yet considered it. It was introduced last Thursday, the same day as our commission meeting. It was after the meeting that we got the bill so we couldn't put 'em on our agenda. We would request that the Council give us an opportunity to review this bill and try to talk to the Councilman on what exactly the issue here is. If the issue is somehow the impact of automobile showrooms and automobile dealerships, lots, then maybe we deal with the impact and not the blanket exclusion of the use. C-7 is a district that we use on arterial roadways, roadways like Roosevelt 6 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010368 Boulevard, Bustleton Avenue, Broad Street. I mean, those seem to be the places, if done properly, that would appropriate to have auto dealerships. And we would just ask the Council -- not to make a judgment on the bill, I' don't mean to sound like I'm doing that. I'm just raising why we would like an opportunity to review this bill.
Have you attempted to contact the sponsor of the bill?
We talked to him prior to the introduction of these bill. One of the two bills before us, he actually asked us to draft for him to get it into proper form last week.
Do I understand you to say your office drafted this bill?
Not this bill, one of the other bills. He's had a number of bills he's been talking about that amend the whole zoning code to deal with individual uses. There are at least two more on today's hearing list to do that, so we have been talking about the general concept of looking at impacts rather than looking at the uses and dealing with the impacts. If the impacts are parking, if 7 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010368 the impacts are noise, if the impacts are odor, then let's amend the zoning code to deal with that rather than throw the whole use out of the code. For that reason, the Commission is asking for an opportunity to review this bill before it's passed by Council.
Well, it's my understanding that Councilman O'Neill is on his way in. Perhaps before the hearing is over, he will arrive and we could discuss this with him.
Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 010371.
Bill No. 010371, an ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-200, entitled "Residential Districts," by 8 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 amending Section 14-203, entitled "R-2 Residential District," and by amending Section 14-203, entitled "R-3 Residential District," and by making certain technical amendments, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Richard Lombardo, and I'm the Director of Development, Planning and Zoning at the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Excuse me, Mr. Lombardo. Do you mind pulling the microphone closer to you. We're having difficulty hearing you.
Excuse me. I am the Director of Development, Planning and Zoning for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission and I am here to testify on 010371. Councilmembers Krajewski and O'Neill introduced this bill on May 24, 2001. This bill 21 amends the R-2 and R-3 residential zoning classifications. It also makes minor technical amendments to the R-20 residential district. Currently under the provisions of R-2, a long list order, known as "Residentially-Related and 9 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 Nonresidential Uses" are permitted; some as a matter of right and some with conditions, with certain conditions, and some only with a Zoning Board of Adjustment public hearing and certificate being issued by the Zoning Board. Most of the other residential zoning classifications also permit these uses by referring back to R-2. Presently, the R-1 and R-1A districts only permit detached single-family dwellings and limited-accessory uses such as garages. If enacted, R-2 would become like R-1 and R-1A in that the only uses that would be permitted in R-2 would be the detached single-family dwelling and accessory uses. The list of residentially-related and nonresidential uses would be shifted into the provisions of the R-3 district, and other residential zoning classification would then refer back to R-3 for the uses permitted in those districts. This bill only affects the uses permitted in R-2, and no other classification would be changed by it. Once again, the Planning Commission is scheduled to consider this bill at its meeting of June 21, 2001 and we ask that the Council not pass this bill until we've had an opportunity to review 10 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 it and send you our recommendation. And, again, our concern is the same. There are a lot of -- there's a lot of property in the City zoned R-2 residential that affects all R-2 properties and takes out uses, which -- I mean, it would make a lot of uses nonconforming, and we would like to get a better understanding and discuss with the sponsor of the bill exactly what their problem and whether or by adopting some kind of performance standards or surgically looking at particular individual uses that may be a problem and looking whether they belong in R-2 rather than this sort of blanket removal of all of the uses from R-2. And that's really why we're asking is for time to review the bill. And I'm here to answer any questions the committee may have.
Yes, Mr. Lombardo. I'm sorry I missed the beginning of your testimony but I was brought up to the speed by the President. On the C-7, it's a pretty simple exclusion. I mean, C-7 is basically neighborhood 11 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 shopping strips, small neighborhood strips; am I correct? At least that's how I --
It's also used as a lot of arterial roads. That's what I was trying to explain. If the problem is with the relationship between the use and nearby residents, then let's try to deal with that problem. We have a lot of --
Well, let me tell you, the problem is real simple. If you're in C-7, you live next door to a pretty quiet little strip store that has, you know, a drugstore and a pharmacy or something or a gas station on the corner, you know, and, you know, you wake up one day and you got a car lot on your corner, it's not a nice thing. I don't think we have to have a long meeting on that. People want a variance if they're going to go from having a nice little strip center that services them to having a car lot that impacts very negatively on them, and they want to be able to meet, they want to be able to talk, they want to know if it's something they can -- first of all 12 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 maybe they don't want, but if they do want it, they may not want the cars right up against the street. It's a use that I don't think should be in C-7 as any kind of matter of right or certificate, and right now, that's where it sits. And usually the variance is only if there's a setback problem. And the setback problem or the setback issue is much different in weight than the use itself when going before the board. So I don't want to wait the whole summer. I'm loaded with C-2 right next to -- I mean, if you want to, over the summer, revising the zoning codes, fine, if there's some modifications, but this isn't a complicated issue. It's basically to take car lots, most of which are used-car lots, out of matter of right in residential neighborhoods where there are quiet uses prior to that and change it so that they have to go to the Zoning Board and meet with neighbors. I don't think it's real complicated. And, you know, I would ask -- you know, first of all, I thought there was a meeting of the Planning Commission tomorrow.
No, we meet once a month, 13 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 and our meeting is June 21st.
To sort of go on what you're saying, I share your position that, you know, a used-car lot or even an auto dealer operation with the things that go on there, the readying of cars, the repair of cars, the minor -- you know, is not appropriate to be separated by a cedar fence in a residential rear yard. And that is not what we are saying. We are saying we also, unfortunately, tend to use C-7 on Roosevelt Boulevard and, you know, on Broad Street and on streets that are arterial streets, and there are auto dealerships that are, you know, full-blown auto dealerships that are C-7 will become noncomforming by that. And all we were saying was if the problem is used-car lots, then let's make used-car lots not -- if the problems is the proximity to residences, then let's deal with the proximity of residences by saying --
It's having this use as a matter of right or a certificate where the neighbors really have no power at the Zoning Board. And, you know, if there's a legal problem with the 14 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 Planning Commission's meeting on the 21st and our last meeting on the 14th, you know, I'm willing to hold it on the calendar and not interfere with that, but I think it's a critical enough issue to get it out of committee. I don't think anybody would disagree that a small little shopping strip in a residential neighborhood shouldn't have to wake up -- those neighbors shouldn't have to wake up the next day and find out that car dealers were legal on the same property.
'Cause that's happened, and I don't think it should continue to happen. People just want to be able to have some kind of ability to negotiate and not get told that they have no say in the matter.
We're not asking you not to report it out of committee; we're asking you not to pass it. My understanding is if it's reported out of committee, it has the standing with L&I, so we're just asking you not to pass the bill until we've had an opportunity to forward you our 15 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 comments.
I can do that, report it out and then hold it on the final calendar until they're ready, even if it has to sit all summer.
I want to support the position taken by Councilman O'Neill. All sorts of questions and problems are developing in neighborhoods close by these used-car lots. And I think in all these cases, the residential community nearby certainly ought to have a voice to be heard, and maybe communities beyond that too. But certainly, the Zoning Board is a place where everybody has an opportunity to be heard and then to go further if the action seems to be warranted by any interested party. So I'm certainly supportive of the view by Councilman O'Neill and support his notions.
I want to take this opportunity to agree with my colleague Councilman 16 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 Cohen, which will probably be the only time today that we agree that the communities that are immediately adjacent and would be affected by this kind of zoning should have the say on what goes on in their community. So this will probably be the last time, as I said, that I'll agree with him, and maybe others, and maybe others if they are aggrieved, naturally. Thank you.
Everybody can be aggrieved because all of us know in one community that it's always pointed out to us by a developer that so-and-so has it; what makes your community different?
The other community already has it, and that's the reason why communities throughout the City are always interested in what's happening in any community.
I'm so happy that we're all agreeable. 17 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. The other bill, 371, 010371 that Mr. Lombardo was talking about, testifying on, that's a bill that is sponsored by myself and Councilwoman Joan Krajewski. And what we're trying to do there is make R-2 in terms of the uses allowed like R-1. Let me preface by saying R-1 zoning is the largest lot, biggest home -- some people refer to it as "Chestnut Hill zoning." It's the biggest lots we have in the City that are 10,000 square feet. It's your big lots. I have a few in my district. Most of the lots don't come close to conforming to R-1. Since the beginning of time, R-1 has been a pure residential district. Anything requires -- anything that goes in that's not purely residential requires a Zoning Board variance. The residents -- in Joan's district and mine primarily, R-2 exists, which is a very small single-home lot, but it is all singles; you can't put twins or row homes in R-2, but the lots are half the size and 18 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 much smaller. And what people have asked for, and Joan and I are in agreement with, is that the R-2 homes in Somerton and East Torresdale and Bustleton not have any different classification on their uses. Maybe their dimensions are different, but any different uses than R-1. And I think that's an issue that should be the same, whether you live in a big single home on a large, large lot or a small single on a small lot. And so we're asking that this be treated that way. And the way the code reads is all the uses, professional and other uses that are now allowed in R-2 be dropped down to R-3, the same way they were originally dropped from R-1 to R-2 some time in the distant past. And that's all. So it would require the Zoning Board so that somebody living in small single wouldn't be treated any differently than someone living in large single in terms of what their zoning rights are. And I would ask the same thing: report it out of committee and meet over the summer. I don't have a problem with that and would be glad to meet with you more before the Planning Commission 19 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 meeting on the 21st. And we also have a amendment to this bill that Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown has that would make sure that any R-2 that existed outside of our districts would allow family day care. And I don't have it with me, but I did see it this morning and we talked about it yesterday. We have no problem with that.
As I said, our request is to meet with the Councilman over the summer and look at what the impacts are.
We don't disagree, again, on the issue that there are some uses. These uses were put in the code in the 1930s. The nature of the uses have changed in the 60-some years we share, that some of them may no longer be appropriate to be in residential dwellings. Whether they are small single homes or whether they're row homes or whether they're twin homes, they don't necessarily belong in those homes [sic], and we would like to take the opportunity to discuss that over the summer.
Madam Chair, can I read the amendment? 20 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371
The amendment is to Bill 010371, and it reads as follows: Insert a closed bracket at the end of Section 14-203, Subsection (f), Subsection .4. 14-203(g) will be deleted and replaced by a new Section 14-203(d). 14-203(d) will become 14-203(e) and 14-204(h) will be deleted and replaced by the language below. And this is really the amendment. The following language should be inserted in 14-203(d) and 14-204(h), and it reads as follows: "The providing of family day care to six or fewer children. Except that for properties within the 6th and 10th Councilmatic Districts, family day care may only be provided to four or fewer children for periods of less than 19 consecutive hours, provided that such day care 20 providers conform to all relative licensing and/or 21 registration requirements of the Commonwealth of 22 Pennsylvania and the City of Philadelphia, and 23 further provide that such day care be conducted in 24 completely enclosed structure containing no more one than one family in a manner incidental to the main 21 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 purpose of the residences. However, nothing in this subsection shall be construed to restrict uses customarily and traditionally conducted in dwellings as an accessory to the main purpose of the residences, including the providing of day care for less than hours per week or the providing of day 8 care without charge or without reimbursement." 9 And that's consistent with the bill we 10 just passed last week.
We don't have any comment on the amendment. We haven't looked at it, but everything, as far as we're concerned, is technically correct, and it puts everything's in the right place. So we have no other comment on the amendment.
Thank you. Are there any questions or comments by members of the committee? (No questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of 22 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010129 Bill No. 010129.
Bill No. 010129, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia zoning maps by changing the zoning designations of the following area of the City: area generally bounded by Rhawn Street, Whitaker Street, a certain railroad right-of-way, Kendrick Street extended and Dorcas Street.
Good morning. My name is Richard Lombardo. I'm the Director of Development, Planning and Zoning with the Philadelphia Planning Commission, and I'm here to testify on Bill 010129, which was introduced by Councilman O'Neill on March 1, 2001. This bill amends the zoning maps by changing the designation of a 19-acre parcel of ground in his district from R-5 residential to R-1A residential. The rezoning will allow for development of this ground. The Planning Commission did not consider this bill, nor are we intending to consider it since we've seen this development a number of times under other forms. We've seen -- we've done the preliminary plat, we've done streets bills, we've 23 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010129 done a number of other actions on this property. And because we didn't know this bill was going to be scheduled for a hearing, so we're not going to ask you to hold it up because this is basically verbiage of development we've seen a number of times. So that ends my testimony, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the witness? (No questions.)
Any other members of the committee have questions? (No questions.)
Anyone else in the room to testify on Bill 010129? (No response.)
Thank you very much. The next bill for consideration is Bill 20 No. 010302, which is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Frankford Avenue, Linden Avenue, the I-95 Expressway on-ramp, and Torresdale Avenue. Please identify yourself for the record 24 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010129 and proceed.
My name is Richard Lombardo. I'm Director of Development, Planning and Zoning for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 010302. This bill was introduced by Councilmembers Krajewski and O'Neill on May 3, 2001. Bill 010302 amends the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of 38 acres of land in Councilmember Krajewski's district from G-2 industrial and partly recreational and partly R-5 residential to partly R-2 residential and partly recreational. The R-5 residential portion of this site is City-owned ballfields and is operated as part of the playground up there and, therefore, is more appropriately zoned recreational. The remainder of the site includes a City fire station, a SEPTA turnaround, and a large property owned by Morrisey, Incorporated, which is used for the storage of construction vehicles. A portion has been marketed for sale, and the community believes that it represents an 25 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010129 opportunity to have future residential market-rate residential development in the community. The history of this site indicates that at one time, it was zoned residential, and I believe it was rezoned in the 1960s for the Morrisey operation, which was a general industrial, since it was an outdoor storage use, a general industrial use. The Planning Commission at its meeting on May 24, 2001 reviewed this bill and recommends that it be approved. The Commission also believes that we are constantly hearing -- not that we believe, but we are constantly hearing that developers are looking for large tracts to do market-rate single-family homes in this area of Northeast Philadelphia. And we believe with its proximity to 95, a good highway access, as well as being located in a stable neighborhood, a quiet neighborhood, that this would be an appropriate -- that residential would be the appropriate reuse. The Commission did ask that at the time development is being considered, that consideration be given to other types of residential zoning other than R-2. And specifically we hear a lot of people that are talking about wanting to do age-restricted 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010129 residential. There are a lot of folks in the Northeast that want to stay in the Northeast, but that sort of niche in the marketplace is not readily available, like condominiums or something for older folks, and we'd like to at least keep the options open for developers to look at that site for that type of development as well. That's just our comment; it's not a recommendation. We're recommending that the bill be approved, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
Anyone else in the room to testify on this bill? Please come forward. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Councilman. My name is Mason Avergan (ph.), and I'm an attorney representing the trust of James D. Morrisey and James D. Morrisey, Inc. in this proceeding. 27 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010129
Along with me is Alice Morrisey. Ms. Morrisey is a beneficiary of the trust of the owner of the property, also vice president and general counsel of James D. Morrisey, Inc. Members of Council, we're here to voice our opposition to this bill and I'd like to explain why. This bill is directed at changing completely the entire tract of land owned by the trust of James D. Morrisey, which is currently leased by James D. Morrisey, Inc. It's a change from a current G-2 to a wholesale change to an R-2. We believe that this will fundamentally affect the use of the property potentially currently and certainly going forward as to any future changes in use of the property. We're here to ask this committee to hold this bill and not take it out of committee for the following reason: The Morrisey Company and the trust have not received any prior notice of this bill prior to coming before Council. We respectfully request on that basis that this be held to give us an opportunity to come back here to explain to you what the changes are, how it's going 28 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010129 to affect the company, how it's going to affect the use. Miss Morrisey is the company's general counsel. She receives all legal notices, any communications of a legal nature affecting the property or affecting the company. And she can testify now as to the lack of notice to the company. Alice?
My name is Alice Morrisey, and I'm general counsel of James D. Morrisey, Incorporated and I'm also a beneficiary of the owner of the property.
Last Thursday, around 3 o'clock, I received notice in my office that this property -- or this bill was going to come before this board today for rezoning of our property. Prior to that, we had no notice. I went out and looked around the property to see if the property was posted at all, and I found no posting. So the first time we received notice about this rezoning 29 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010129 was Thursday at o'clock. 3 So I respectfully request that this be continued so we can look into exactly how this affect our rights.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. The committee will take it under advisement. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? We have an additional witness. Thank you. (Witness comes forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record. Good morning.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Pat Costello. I am the committee person of the 65th Ward, 23rd Division. I am here on behalf of my neighbors and ask your support of Bill 010302 introduced by our Councilwoman. Torresdale has been the home of many of its residents for 40 to 50 years. They have made 30 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010129 their first homes here and their children have continued to stay and raise their families in the neighborhood. It is an area of single and twin homes, fostering athletic programs, churches, youth and senior groups and civic organizations. All of this creates for a strong and safe neighborhood. It would only behoove the members of Council to rezone this piece of ground to conform with the surrounding community of Torresdale. This will allow Torresdale to expand and welcome in residents that may be contemplating leaving our city. A great city demands great neighborhoods. Positive planning for the future will ensure Torresdale remains strong. We urge your support for Bill 10302. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? 31 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now consider Bill 000629, an ordinance 5 amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1800, entitled "Zoning Board of Adjustment" by amending Section 14-1807, entitled "Appeals to the Court," by amending language regarding appeals, under certain terms and conditions. I believe our first witnesses are from the Center City Residents Association. Oh, I'm sorry. (Witness comes forward.)
Thank you. My name is Joanne Phillips. I'm a special assistant to the Managing Director, and I was asked to come over. I had previously testified at the last hearing and had offered written testimony and we were here to support the amendment and answer any technical questions again. I am a zoning practitioner and, I just wanted to reiterate that we do not believe that the passage of this bill will in any way affect the rights of neighbors, residents, interested groups, 32 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 aggrieved parties to bring any case before the Zoning Board or the Court of Common Pleas. Despite what people have read in the paper or have been told, this really won't fundamentally change how the zoning law has been practiced in the City up until the decision that came down in 1999 by the Commonwealth Court. We view this as making it consistent with the rest of the Commonwealth, and as part of our charge by the Mayor, we were asked to look at business practices, and we'll hopefully be delivering a report later in the year. This would be one of the recommendations to make. We really see it as a cleanup matter to take care of a decision made by the Commonwealth Court.
Thank you, Madam Chair. At this time, I would like to offer the proposed amendments. And just for the record, at the last hearing, Mr. Krakower, who represents a lot of community groups in a number of groups throughout the City had made some recommendations, and one of 33 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the recommendations was to include the word "or." I believe, if I'm reading from the testimony from the last hearing correctly, that the word "or" be pleased up in front, right after the words "decision of the board." So that's one of the recommendations that I took from the last hearing that would be incorporated into the proposed amendments that I'm offering today.
Councilman DiCicco, do you mind reading the amendment so that everybody would know exactly what it contains.
The proposed amendment to Bill No. 000629 reads as follows: "Any person or persons jointly or severely aggrieved by any decision of the board" and we will delete "or any taxpayer" and include "or any aggrieved taxpayer, including as a matter of right, a community or neighborhood group or organization as defined in Subsection (7)(c) or any officer or department." That is the extent of the proposed amendment that I'm offering today. And if I may, Madam Chair, I know a 34 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 number of community groups have written to me or e-mailed me as a result of this bill and the last hearing, and we made every attempt to respond to those inquiries and gave our explanation as to what we thought we were attempting to do with the bill, and we did include a copy of these proposed amendments. If you don't have one, behind us, the clerk has additional copies of the proposed amendment that I've just read into the record. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And to make the record eminently clear, the Law Department is in favor of this proposed amendment?
The Managing Director's Office, Law Department, whatever.
One other question for this witness, Madam Chair, if I may.
The Managing Director. 35 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I was sent here by the Administration on behalf of the Managing Director.
Well, you're speaking for the Administration, Mayor Street.
Okay. One other question for this witness, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Councilman Kenney had raised a question to me at the last hearing. We want to make certain -- at least I know I do want to make certain that when it comes to historically-certified buildings, that any attempt to do something within a reasonable proximity, that any taxpayer would have a right to file an appeal. You wouldn't have to show that you live -- I mean, Independence Hall is an example. The closest resident could be several blocks away, but it's a national institution, it's a treasure, 36 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 and we certainly wouldn't want something that would be offensive to those buildings or that complex of buildings in any way be -- you know, we don't want anything offensive to happen there. So we would want to make sure that any taxpayer would have that status. Could you tell me if this proposed amendment is -- or should I do something in addition to this proposal?
Any historic property that comes under the Historical Commission's jurisdiction is subject to different rules than this bill would address, because this really is only going for zoning appeals and not any kind of proceeding before the Historical Commission. Those appeals go to the L&I Review Board, and there is separate language and provisions that govern who may take that appeal. Frankly, I don't believe the language "taxpayer" is in that section, and in fact, it adopts what the law is of the Commonwealth that you would be aggrieved. However, "aggrieved" doesn't mean you have to live next door; it's that you show an interest that you're being harmed. And I think 37 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that the courts have always looked at it on a case-by-case basis. And arguably, anyone living in the City that's affected by a change to a national treasure would be able to make a case before the Court.
So the "taxpayer" language isn't even in that section really in most other places where you can take an administrative appeal. It only appears in this zoning code.
So in your opinion, the proposed amendment would not exclude anyone from speaking on behalf of their interest at the Zoning Board, as does, as an example, when a liquor license application is posted in the community, either a new license or a transfer, the Liquor Control Board has a much more restrictive area, a defined area in which people are allowed to appeal or intervene. And I think it's generally around 500 feet from the place that the application is proposed. And in this amendment, and correct me if I'm wrong, it does not restrict anybody within a certain boundary or a geographical boundary.
No, this bill won't 38 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 restrict anyone from appearing at the Zoning Board and making any argument or any making comment. Typically in administrative cases, there are areas -- certain people will have an appeal as a matter of right or may intervene as a matter of right. Other people can still make their case and make their comments known on any matter before these boards.
And if I can use an example -- borrow my colleague of Councilman Kenney, who spoke to me about it yesterday. We were dealing with a proposed charter school in South Philadelphia. The community in the general vicinity of where that proposed school was to be placed were in opposition to it. Let's assume for a moment that the community supported the charter school but someone from outside the area, someone from the northern end of the City or someone from Bucks County who happens to work in the City of Philadelphia and pays taxes by way of wage taxes, for some reason, they don't like charter schools, they don't think charter schools are the right way to go. Presently, that person would automatically have a -- if they went in 39 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 front of the Zoning Board to appeal that decision, they would automatically have standing and basically could prevent that charter school from opening until this the case was heard throughout the courts. Is that a fair assumption?
That's correct. Because if the case got to the Court of Common Pleas, they would be bound by the Commonwealth Court decision, the Commonwealth Court decision stopped at the word "taxpayer" and didn't go on any further. So you're correct, they would.
So even though the community agrees to support this charter school because they think it's good for the community and may actually be good for the City, a non-Philadelphia resident, as an example, who just happens to pay taxes in the City of Philadelphia would have an immediate right to an appeal at the Zoning Board.
And that could happen 40 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 even if there was not a variance. We've really been focusing on variance cases, but what I also want to point out is, you can take an appeal, even if there is not a variance case to be heard or a certificate case, if someone is entitled to a permit, someone can allege that there's a mistake and still get someone in court. It's not often used, but it has been used and it's a significant concern for property owners that want to develop.
And a competitor who, for whatever reason, doesn't want to see a business that obviously may be in competition with his or her business would be able to enter into an appeal and basically stop the development of whatever that business is.
Are you familiar with the Fresh Fields case at Tenth and South?
Where a competitor, who has been in the business of selling similar products that Fresh Fields basically had proposed would be selling, basically had a third party enter 41 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 an appeal, which basically held up the development of the Fresh Fields for about one year and five months, because the longtime or long-standing owner of the food market on South Street didn't want that competition and basically held it up because that "any taxpayer" status was allowed.
Well, in that case, they still had to find someone in the neighborhood. And so, actually, that's an example of how the taxpayer language, when it wasn't even being applied, what competitors could do, or someone that's not really concerned with the land use as much as just maybe stopping a project or a school or something like that. They find someone in the neighborhood and then that person brings the case and they have standing. But now with the "taxpayer" language, the way it has been interpreted by the Commonwealth Court, they don't even need to make that connection in the neighborhood, they don't even have to find anybody. It can be anyone that pays taxes.
Point of order, Madam 42 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Chair. There's a witness here who has to leave in a few minutes. He's a very active attorney in these kind of cases. I would ask if this witness could be excused temporarily to permit the other witness to --
If I could just finish this last question, then I would agree to that, if that's okay.
Thank you. The food market on South Street that was concerned about Fresh Fields moving in, it's my understanding that they did attempt to get a third party from Northeast Philadelphia to come in and file the appeal. And under the current rules or law, that would have been permitted. That person could have actually --
That person would be permitted to appeal. And there are also cases where this had happened in the past where people were dismissed for standing --
Councilman, excuse me. 43 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I have a question for this witness, and I said I would yield to your request once she's done answering the question. Thank you.
It has -- in the past, before this decision, there were appeals that had been filed by people that did not live in the area, and those people's appeals had been dismissed on the basis of standing, which allowed development to occur. That would no longer be the case with the taxpayer -- the bear "taxpayer" status standing in the ordinance.
Could I ask that Mr. Stretton be permitted to testify at this point?
Mr. Stretton. And may I ask that you please remain for the remainder of the hearing.
Yes, Council President. (Witness comes forward.) 44 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you. My name is Sam Stretton. I am the attorney for SCRUB and have been SCRUB's attorney for the last ten years. I was asked to testify here by Mary Tracy, who's the Executive Director of SCRUB, to help to give perspective to the issue of standing and the problems that this proposed amendment would create in terms of the enforcement of the current billboard regulations in Philadelphia. I can tell this honorable Council from personal experience the number of cases we had prior to my winning the Commonwealth Court decision that affirmed the taxpayer's right to have standing, whether they were aggrieved or not. The problems we had in being able to enforce the current legislation case after case in the Court of Common Pleas, we were thrown out on the issue of standing, and we were not able to have the enforcement that's necessary. Now, let's take some history. Back in 1991, this Council passed a very stringent billboard 45 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 regulation, recognizing and setting forth very strong policy reasons as to why billboards should not be in certain areas in the City of Philadelphia. Since that has passed, it has been totally ignored by the City administrations. There has been no 7 enforcement of those billboard regulations. The Zoning Board routinely granted variances to the extent that some federal funding and state funding may be affected because of the failure of the City to enforce the billboards. Maybe Tracy, who formed SCRUB, which is now a foundation, but in those days, was an association supporting many community groups, took it on herself to attempt to challenge signs that were being -- where variances were being granted in direct opposition to the existing ordinance. She asked me to help her in 1992, and I've done that since on a pro bono basis. We have literally challenged 10 to 15 signs and have had no 21 help at all from the City Administration. Recently, with the standing that we were successful in winning, we've now been successful in stopping numerous signs from being developed in areas where this Council has indicated they are not supposed to 46 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 be. I brought with me just a list of some of the pending cases. If I could approach the bench with your permission.
I'll leave these here for your colleague. It's just a list of the number of cases where we have had success in many in terms of stopping signs that would have been allowed in areas that are clearly prohibited. Now, let's look at some of the issues. I know that some of your colleagues, Madam President, have raised some interesting issues in terms of groups like SCRUB being officious, preventing local neighbors from dealing with problems. First, billboards affect all of us. These are a citywide problem. If you expect an individual neighborhood -- and many of these signs are in areas where they have a district impact on the City but there are not residences necessarily right beside them. Or there are many times in areas where people do not have an overall view of the 47 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 problems with sign legislation or in areas where people do not have the resources or the ability to have legal counsel to attack and deal with these signs. We in SCRUB are limited in terms of how and what we can solicit. I, as a lawyer, cannot go out and solicit clients. There are ancient legal actions of barratry and (indiscernible) that prevent people going out and trying to solicit groups. The taxpayer status, which was upheld by the Commonwealth Court, was originally put in by this Council -- not this Council, but your predecessors on the basis that it was understood there was a need to enforce this legislation, and you could not rely on the neighbor next door to have the ability or foresight to do so. And, in fact, the last ten years have clearly proven that that's the case. Without SCRUB's involvement, without us winning that taxpayer status, we would not have been in a position to stop numerous these signs that are going up in areas that this Council has clearly said are not supposed to be. So the language itself is some what ingenious, "aggrieved taxpayer," but in effect, it's 48 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 saying the same thing: You have to be aggrieved. And I would suggest to you that to deal with the comprehensive problem here, it is important to allow groups such as SCRUB and other organizations who act responsibly to be able to go in and enforce these regulations.
Mr. Stretton, I am not an attorney and I would ask you to -- if you could define for me what "aggrieved" means. What is the legal definition of "aggrieved"? 'Cause I think it's -- we have a certain view of what it is just from the word itself, but I'm sure there's a legal status or a legal definition that we probably should have on the record.
Sure. The seminal case is the Penn Parking case out of Pittsburgh involving parking garages, where our Pennsylvania Supreme Court discussed that what is aggrieved is generally someone who is directly impacted by the issue before them. In zoning cases, it often is determined by 49 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 geographical proximity, which makes it very difficult at times, depending on where the sign is going up. For instance, a lot of these signs are down in the area of the Food Distribution Center, down by the Walt Whitman Bridge, where you're not going to necessarily have residents within close proximity. Some of the signs are in the Independence Mall area or can be seen by those that we have challenged, or are on railroad tracks or FDR Park, and you're not going to have people who are able to come forward. But it's someone who is directly impacted. But, again, you have to look at the wisdom of prior councils in recognizing that sometimes there's a need for organizations that have the community's interest at heart to be able to come in and challenge, particularly when your City Solicitor's Office has failed to do anything. I mean, it ought to be a grave concern to this Council that the Administration, both this administration and the administration before, for eight years did nothing in terms of enforcing these signs, this sign legislation, did nothing to challenge the granter of 50 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the variances, and did nothing to take a total look at the problem that these signs were creating when they were in direct opposition. In fact, it got so bad that the past administration was actually leasing land on City-owned property until we were successful in some of these cases to allow signs to be put up in areas that its own legislation said you can't do so. Now, from my perspective, as someone who grew up in Philadelphia, lived here, up in Frankford for 33 years, ran for offices in Frankford against Senator Williams in 1982. I now live in West Chester, but who has been very active and been the Chester County Chairman of the Democratic politics out in that particular area. When I come in to the City and I see these signs, I see a city that doesn't care anymore, I see a dying city that's allowing people, who are making tens of thousands of dollars every month on these signs, destroying the neighborhood and destroying the esthetics and flouting the legislation that this Council has passed. And that is why you cannot, and should not, change this. If you do, there will be no one 51 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 who will be able to come forward and systematically challenge these signs.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you. Mr. Stretton, you said you live in West Chester now?
If I was -- if I were employed in West Chester but lived in the City of Philadelphia, would I have any standing in what happens in your county?
Probably not, unless you had a business yourself in that regard, I am not the person with the standing.
I'm asking the question. Do you feel as though your county is not functioning properly today because people like myself who may be working in West Chester don't have standing?
Is your community 52 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 aggrieved because people from outside your community do not have standing?
Well, I would suggest to you that there are issues that people from outside of the community have brought to attention of our county commissioner and have resulted in very positive change, but that's not the issue here. The issue here is that people in Philadelphia have standing. I am not asking for standing for myself, although I do --
But under the current law, the way it is now, people from outside the City, who only work in the City, have standing; is that correct?
If they are a taxpayer of some sort to the City of Philadelphia.
They don't have to live here, you pay taxes, you live in Bucks County -- you live in West Chester and you work at the International Airport and you take I-95 to work 53 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 every day but you don't like the Peter DePaul high-rise that's being built on the Delaware River because you like your views of the river the way they are today and you don't want that view obstructed, and if Peter DePaul had needed, which he didn't, but if he had needed a variance, you, a resident of Bucks County, who works at the Airport and pays wage taxes to the City, could have filed an appeal and basically tied up that development for any length of time. Is that correct?
You would have standing to challenge it, but if you had no merit to your appeal --
I didn't ask that. It may take us six months, it may take us a year, it may take us longer to get to that point, and in many cases, developers walk. I do believe that the people in Society Hill Towers, the people in Queen Village, people in the Pennsport Condo Association should have a say in what goes on across Columbus Boulevard, but I don't think you, as a resident of West Chester, should have as much say, or any say for that matter, in the Peter DePaul's project because 30 feet of waterfront is going to be 54 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 obstructed. But currently, that is the case.
Councilman DiCicco, first, there is no indication that there's ever been an abuse of the taxpayer --
You're talking about something that -- yes, it could be a plane could crash through this Council chambers right now and kill all of us.
But the potential is there. And if you were here earlier, I think I testified where the owners of Chef's Market on Second and South filed an appeal to prevent the Fresh Fields Market from opening at Tenth and South and held that project up for one year and five months.
And they were also neighbors down there. The same people also lived there.
They could have, but they didn't. 55 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
But they didn't because in the end, when the lady who they used said, "I give up, I'm not carrying your baggage anymore" to the owners of Chef's Market, they attempted to get a third party from Northeast Philadelphia and their lawyer, the lawyer who represented Chef's Market said, "I'm not going to be a party to this." Let me ask you another question. You represent SCRUB.
I'm not their corporate lawyer, I'm their litigation lawyer.
Litigation lawyer. Are you familiar with the billboard appeals that SCRUB had filed on the billboards that were erected in the southern part of South Philadelphia, in the Food Distribution Center and the area immediately adjacent to the First Union Center?
Yes. I handled all of those. 56 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Could you tell me if they were withdrawn by any members of this City Council who may have been joined with SCRUB?
I'm asking a question I think that will be relevant, I'm asking a question.
Well, I would suggest 57 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that --
There are billboards which you find offensive and SCRUB finds offensive. Billboards in general are offensive to SCRUB.
Sir, I asked you a question. You represent them on appeal.
I'm asking you, could you tell us why those appeals were withdrawn?
There were three or four billboards where there was an offer to fund SCRUB, because SCRUB had gotten to the point that we were without money, we were being picked off, we did not 58 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 have the resources to continue to challenge these billboards and to continue to develop a comprehensive approach to blatant violations of the ordinance. As a result, there was an offer of funding --
Sir, could you repeat that again. SCRUB withdrew the appeal because there was an offer to fund SCRUB?
You're a 501(c)(3); are you not required to report your financial reports?
That's correct. I 59 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 haven't seen the 501(c)(3).
Okay, you filed the appeal, you are the attorney that represented SCRUB and you filed the appeal.
Then could you tell this Council what the financial contribution to SCRUB was?
It's confidential and I will not tell that, but I would tell you that --
I'm talking serious issues, sir, because you're saying that it is not right for Councilman DiCicco or any other Councilperson or any community group in the City of Philadelphia to structure a deal with a billboard advertising company that may put money back into their community.
Not for the purposes of hiring an administrative director or 61 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 staff person, but maybe to support a little league team in South Philadelphia.
I'm not against billboards; I'm in favor of enforcing the legislation as exists.
Let me go back to my original question. Did SCRUB's financial contribution from -- could you tell me the name of the outdoor advertising company.
Was it any other company besides Interstate Outdoor Advertising?
Isn't it true that Interstate Outdoor Advertising made a significant 62 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 financial contribution to SCRUB --
And that enabled Interstate Outdoor Advertising to have the competitive edge, which prevented other outdoor advertisers from erecting billboards anywhere in the City of Philadelphia.
Demagoguery? I think what was put out about me and Councilwoman Krajewski is demagoguery, that I've been paid off by the outdoor advertisers. By the way, to the reporter who wrote the story, to the best of my knowledge, over six and a half years, I've received the lump sum total of $1500 from all of the outdoor advertising agencies.
Because when someone attacks me -- 63 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I've always respected you as a great spokesman for the City.
I appreciate the fact that you respect, now I'm asking you a question. You won't answer what the amount that SCRUB was paid to withdraw the appeals.
Let me put it this way: I will answer your question. But second, I want you to understand SCRUB has been on a mission.
I didn't say you did, but I'm on a mission too, and my mission is to do the best that I can for the people that I represent.
And sometimes and sometimes and sometimes -- and there's maybe been one or two instances in the six and a half years that I've been representing the 1st Councilmatic District in which a billboard company got some 64 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 support from me for erecting a sign in a particular community, and that was only after, only after extensive meetings with the community groups and the people who live immediately adjacent to the proposed site of the erection of that site.
Six months worth -- I've spent the last six months negotiating --
And I don't think you did anything improper. All I'm saying is it's an honest disagreement.
When the community group agreed to support a billboard being erected on the east side of I-95 down around Front and Snyder and the billboard company said, For your support, we're going to invest $30,000 into your civic association and $1,000 a month for the next 12 months, which was a grand total of $42,000 that you 65 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 could put into your rec centers into your library or buy equipment for little league teams, SCRUB stood up and said, We're opposed to this billboard because we don't like billboard.
But two miles further south, SCRUB files an appeal and then later withdraws the appeal because Interstate Outdoor Advertising made a sizeable contribution to that association. Now, you tell me if that's fair. See, everybody wants it both ways in this world, and it doesn't work that way.
Well, let's back up a second. And I'm sorry if I was disrespectful to you. I don't mean to in any way --
All right. First, I've never criticized you and I've never --
I didn't say you did. I'm not taking it personal. I'm stating the facts.
But let's look at it from 66 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 a different perspective.
I represent a community, if that's taking it personal, that's what I'm hired to do.
Well, that's fine, but what I'm trying to suggest to you is that SCRUB did in that case, which I took the appeal and which we were successful, if I recall -- sometimes they all mesh for me, there's so many of them now -- that in that particular case, Councilman, it was clearly in violation of five or six provisions of Ordinance 13 141604.
And it was within so many feet of a residential section, the sign was too big, it was within 660 feet of the gateway. There were numerous violations.
Were there any 67 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 violations attached to the signs that you withdrew the appeals on?
Now, listen, what you're doing, sir, is wrong in terms of how to approach a very serious issue. I'll answer your question on that, but I also want to direct myself back to the problem. There is a problem, that case is a problem. Certainly that civic organization acquiesced because they were offered substantial money. No problem with that. But SCRUB takes a broader view. They take the view that ought to be taken by this Council and by the Solicitor's Office. All we do is go into court and we raise the issues. If there's good and meritorious reasons for these signs to be allowed, then the courts allow it. If there isn't, they grant our appeals. If you don't like the ordinance, if you think the ordinance is too restrictive, then that's the issue you should deal with. Our position is, 68 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 it's a well-founded ordinance, it has helped Philadelphia quite a bit, and there's a need to do so. Now, what does SCRUB do? Let me answer your question so there's no hocus-pocus here. After we won the taxpayer standing, there was a number of signs where applications were being filed. There was like or or 20. And, again, I've done this 10 all volunteer; I've never received a penny in the 11 last ten years for doing this work. 12
And even with the 15 funding, I refused to take any money for doing this kind of work. But what we saw was this: We saw that we could not continue to be viable without a full-time person and without the ability to have monies to hire expert witnesses, to have monies to take a comprehensive look at the problems with these signs. We saw that we were going to be become ineffective. A very wealthy man, who at one point has been involved in the sign industry. Offered to make 69 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 funding to SCRUB in a significant amount of money if SCRUB would withdraw --
Excuse me. I think this is important because I've been accused of a lot of things during this proceeding or leading up to this proceeding that I've made derogatory statements about people who represent SCRUB, which I do respect their position. I think it's important for those of you who have questioned my allegation that SCRUB received financial support from an outdoor advertising company, that you listen to the testimony, and I appreciate your candor. Thank you.
All right. I can only go so far because of rules of confidentiality.
Well, I understand that and I'm not asking you to go any further. Thank you.
But as a result, there was a discussion, and an individual who had previously been involved in the sign business and was turning over the business to other family members, offered SCRUB a onetime donation, with the only restriction being in three or four cases, we 70 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 withdraw the signs -- our appeal. After that, there was no strings attached. As a result, I discussed the matter with Mary Tracy and others, and we made a decision, because remember, SCRUB's not an arm of the government, we don't have to pose every sign. We do what we can do, but we ought to do that so we can set up a foundation that could take the broader approach and continue to be present and provide a presence in the communities. I would also tell that you we have continued to challenge and have just recently won several major appeals in the Commonwealth Court involving the same person's former company, where we have struck down their right to put signs up. So the answer to you is yes, it was done on a limited basis. It has nothing to do with SCRUB's purpose at all. It was not to give someone a benefit over others.
Mr. Stretton, you're an attorney and I'm not going to argue 'cause I'm not, but I think it did have -- it did have something to do with others, and I think it gave a competitive edge to Interstate Outdoor Advertising 71 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 to be able to erect signs for this onetime contribution.
Now, let me finish. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Two people cannot speak at the same time, please.
Let me use your definition or your explanation as to why the appeals were withdrawn for a sizeable onetime contribution. I have a community group in my district that has a dire need for some improvements to the rec center, which we can't get done through the Capital Improvements Program immediately or maybe in the long-term future. We have a little league team that has poor kids, inner-city kids, who just can't afford --
What does this have to do with aggrieved standing, Councilman?
So I enter into an 72 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 agreement, along with the residents, and we support onetime, one time approval and support for a billboard to be erected in the Whitman Council Community Development area, because they're going to take that $30,000 and put it into the rec center or they're going to buy by uniforms for the kids or build a hockey court.
Now, why should someone from SCRUB or any taxpayer outside of that area or from outside the City -- West Chester in that case, and I don't mean that personal, but using that as example -- block that deal from happening?
Because it's prohibited by own statute and it ought to be enforced by your Solicitor's Office because this Council made a decision that it's not in the interest of the City to have signs there.
Except if it was Interstate Outdoor Advertising. Thank you, Councilman. Is that correct?
There were 73 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 violations on those signs that you withdrew the appeal on.
Yes, but I can cite you ten other cases where I'm fighting it tooth and nail.
I don't need the ten others. I'm asking you, in those cases, the three or four signs that you withdrew the appeals on, were there violations of the City's --
Why was it okay for SCRUB to withdraw them there but not for us to make exceptions in other places of the City?
Councilman, I never said it wasn't okay for you to try to make acceptance --
Do you still believe that SCRUB or anyone else have the same standing --
Someone else could have challenged those signs. Councilman Cohen -- 74 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
If I am able -- I'm going to give you an example. If I'm able to --
That's why you want your standing. You want other people to be able to do it too. We don't have the exclusive --
What happens is, we can't make the deals on the front end, but you guys, SCRUB, can undo 'em it on the back end.
Whitman Council made an agreement with the community's input to support the billboard on the east side of I-95 at Front and Snyder --
-- for a contribution. That was a condition of the support. They go into the board and say, We will not oppose this billboard.
But it was -- the merits were bad for them. I mean, it really was in violation of numerous provisions. See, Councilman, what you don't understand is, we didn't prevent other people from challenging --
No. Your ordinance 15 prevents it from happening. And, again --
But with the exception of the three or four billboards that you withdrew the appeals with Interstate Outdoor Advertising.
But let's that assume we can't wait to get the money, we're going to spend it on ourselves and have a grand old time, but we're --
But we're still doing a 76 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 purpose here. The purpose is to enforce the legislation. And with this additional money, this money isn't being used to make us happy; this money is being used so that we can fulfill that purpose better. We are also about to file a comprehensive litigation now to enforce the City to enforce its own ordinance.
And the money that we have is going to enable us to hire the experts and do the research to be able to bring this broad approach. So it's not a matter of us getting money and other people being deprived. It is us using the money for the benefit of the City.
But, see, Whitman Council, and people like Whitman Council and other communities group, could take that money and use it for their good as well. So all I'm asking is, and I'm not an attorney. Based on the proposed amendments, I'm not discounting people from the community, or anybody for that matter who lives in 77 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the City of Philadelphia, from being heard in front of the Zoning Board. All I'm asking is that people who have the "any taxpayer" status, regardless of where they are, have by virtue of that language the immediate right to an appeal.
I want communities to work among themselves to figure out what is best for them.
But as to these signs, it affects all -- everyone who lives in Philadelphia.
Well, yeah, it affects you if you're going back to West Chester.
And you see that sign for maybe three seconds, going 60 miles an hour.
Councilman, I grew up in Frankford. I'm five, six generations Philadelphia. I saw what happens to Philadelphia. It's a different city when I left here in '93 than it is now, and part of the problem is these signs.
You're going to tell me that people move out of the City because of 78 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 billboards?
I'm telling you this, that they contribute to taking away the quality of life, and a city that allows these billboards to go up without challenging is a city that, and people don't care.
It's people who leave the City because can't stand people of color moving in and other reasons that are making the City what it is today, as far as I'm concerned, but that's a story for another day. I just want to ask you the question again. I asked you what the amount of the contribution that SCRUB received from Interstate Outdoor Advertising. I asked you if it was more than 50,000, and your answer was what? I think you said yes. I asked if it's more than a 100,000, and you refused to answer that?
I'm trying to ascertain whether it's confidential. Isn't it reported on the 501(c)(3)?
I'm not sure. I have a whole packet of stuff on SCRUB here, and I really haven't been able to go through it all and 79 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 I'm just curious. And I don't know why anybody's shocked because I'm allowed to do that.
A half a million dollars. I probably could have taken care of just about every little league team in my district and had money left over.
And what does that do in terms of the purpose we're here today?
It just makes more people move out because more billboards get put in.
All right, I understand. A half a million dollars, $500,000.
Councilman, there's nothing that prohibits the owners of sign companies from contributing to the community whether they win or lose --
But SCRUB doesn't like signs because they're offensive and they will 80 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 block every deal that any Councilperson and any community makes in the City of Philadelphia and you know it and I know it.
Councilman, this money is being used to enforce the statute. We can account for every penny. I'm doing this all pro bono. I won't touch a penny of that.
I appreciate the fact that you still do those things, I do.
And I got $1500 over six years, and I'm being accused of being bought off by the advertising companies. That's very interesting.
Councilman, let's clarify. First, I'm here to talk issues. Second, I never accused you of buying off anyone. Third, we weren't bought off. 81 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
What an organization that has countywide support is doing for the City of Philadelphia and you should not be so --
You should not be so derogatory and play games with people who are public spirited and who for years did it without any charge at all.
And who are using the money to help someone, and I think it's very unfair to act in that way and I apologize for -- (Applause.)
I do appreciate the fact that you do pro bono work, and believe it or not, I do appreciate groups like SCRUB because I founded two nonprofit groups and I'm familiar with the hard work that goes into that, and I never got paid for any of those nonprofit groups. But there is an issue here; it is a 82 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 serious issue, as you say. You can't have it both ways.
Then I would appreciate it if -- Councilman Kenney just whispered in my ear, I would like for you to negotiate the next billboard contract in my district. And if you'd like to be on my campaign contribution list or a part of my fund-raising campaign, I'd appreciate that as well, 'cause you're doing a better job than I am.
And I don't mean that sarcastically. You're doing a good job, and I appreciate it.
I just think it's very unfair of you to use your podium to say it that way. 83 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I have a deal that I've been trying to put together that concerns outdoor advertising in a lot of different shapes and forms with wall wraps and everything else. And I've been trying to get to a pickup where maybe we can get the Administration and community groups to see some of the benefits to some of the advertising, not all but some of it. And I see a potential benefit where we can wrap vacant, blighted buildings on a temporary basis. I can see opportunities where buildings are surrounded in scaffolding, like this building will be for a couple of years, and scaffolding is scaffolding. I don't think it's very attractive, and do as they do in Europe, and they wrap it with advertising and other things and generate revenue.
You can do that as long as it's not in the prohibited areas under 14-1604.
Let me finish. And I have an agreement, a tentative agreement, where a 84 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 portion of the gross proceeds from all of these advertisers would go into an education fund, and that money could be used to pay for the transportation needs of public school kids, but the community would have the final say whether that wall wrap or that billboard or that advertising signage, whatever you want to call it, would go into their community. But, presently, the anti-billboard and anti-advertisers are going to fight that, and I'm talking of a few million dollars a year.
Councilman, if the Administration do what they're supposed to do by their own law, you wouldn't have to sit here and criticize me. That's what your real beef is, the law.
I'm criticizing the fact, sir -- I think you missed my point.
That if I make a deal as an elected official or a community group --
It's in violation of the law. You make a deal in violation of the law. That is, signs aren't allowed -- 85 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
But SCRUB already did it. Why is it okay for SCRUB to break the law but --
We're not breaking the law; we don't have to bring every challenge.
You withdrew the appeal on billboards that were in violation of the City code.
For a better good, to get the money to build the challenge in the future.
See, I have the same thing, we're saying the same thing. I believe that the $30,000 that would go to Whitman for the little league is for the better good of Whitman.
And anyone else could have challenged those billboards if they wanted to do so. We didn't have the exclusive right.
What you're saying to me, it sounds like, is that your better good is better than my better good. 86 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
No. What I'm saying is, statute says you can't have billboards there, and we're enforcing the statute because City of Philadelphia refuses to do it.
Except in the case of the three or four billboards where you withdrew the appeal because they were violating the statute for the hefty sum of $500,000.
Look, Councilman, if you want to use those kinds of remarks that have no 12 merit and no bearing on the real issue here --
And have nothing to do with the or 30 cases where we have stopped 16 billboards in Philadelphia -- 17
I appreciate it, 18 thank you, but I disagree with that last statement. 19 I think it does have bearing. I think we're both 20 talking about the same thing, and I want to bring money back to my community the same way you wanted to bring back money to SCRUB, and you have every right to do that. I want a piece of that $500,000 for my 1st Councilmatic District, that's what I want. 87 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
It is for your district. That 500,000 is being used to ensure that your Councilmatic District doesn't have billboards that are improper. (Applause.)
It's okay for you to take a half a million dollars and give it to SCRUB --
But I get applause if I'm going to take a half a million and give it to rec centers. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Councilman, it's unfair of you to impugn the integrity of people like SCRUB, who have worked long and hard to help the City because you won't --
-- Because you want to turn the issue around on a very important -- 88 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Thank you. The Chair recognizes -- I can't believe I'm the calm one today. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
No, the media has by virtue of a letter sent that was to them and other things that have been said about me and Councilwoman Krajewski. She'll defend herself when she has to. I don't like it, I think it's a double standard.
In your opinion, Mr. Stretton, is there a difference between the obligation of someone elected to office with respect to the laws that exist on the books? 89 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Well, it's my position that every citizen has an obligation to comply with the laws but, obviously, like the Councilman, particularly with a City ordinance, has the responsibility to enforce it and not to try to undermine that particular ordinance, Councilman Cohen.
I want you to know that I believe the SCRUB organization has done great work over many, many years in seeking to save Philadelphia from the blight that billboards cause. I believe that the needs of that community, the Whitman Park, community ought to have been met by the City. I don't believe it's right to keep the community poor so that it then becomes easy for a developer to have his way with a community by offering them services that the City government should have long ago provided. (Applause.)
And it almost acts as an incentive to keep community the poor so that it will have to go on its hands and knees and beg a developer to make it a beneficiary provided the developer has his way with the community against the 90 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 will of the community and against the good of the community. That's why this technique of going into a community and saying get what you can from the developer, when it comes to things that the government ought to have provided through its tax base. And there's no reason why communities ought to be kept poor so that they are in a position to be bargained with by developers. The issue here is not the question of whether SCRUB made a good decision or didn't make a good decision with respect to whether it decided to continue the fight on a billboard or gave up the fight. We know that many times billboards that are offensive are not opposed because people don't have the resources to oppose them, and I salute Mary Tracy and all of the volunteers. (Applause.)
And all of the volunteers in the community. And I salute you, Mr. Stretton, for your work over so many years pro bono on behalf of the people of Philadelphia. (Applause.)
Thank you, Councilman. I very much appreciate it. 91 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
You know, the old line of other areas don't do this, why should we do it in Philadelphia, that's an old line that is just a very backward line. They used it against us when we tried to effectuate gun control laws in Philadelphia; they said, Well, the rest of the State doesn't have those gun control laws, therefore Philadelphia shouldn't have it, and that's why there's so many deaths from guns in the City of Philadelphia. We have special needs, and one of the needs is to maintain the quality of life in Philadelphia. (Applause.)
And only through organizations like SCRUB is that quality of life and all of the other community organizations where so many volunteers give so many thousands of hours every week throughout the City to seek to enforce City laws, not to find ways to evade them. So I just want you to know that the voice of the previous Councilman does not represent all of the Councilmembers. I believe that we need volunteer organizations like SCRUB and like the community organizations, the historical societies, 92 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 and all of the rest of them. And I personally oppose strongly the effort to say if you don't like what justice meats out, then prevent the halls of justice from being open, because that's what this bill does. A court doesn't automatically decide in favor of a community organization; a court considers all of the facts. And because decisions have now been running against the billboard industry, the billboard industry wants to eliminate the court system from having anything to say. It's the decision of the court finally that makes -- that gives us the final answer. What the protests do is open up the matter for open discussion and disclosure of all of the facts. And if a fact is ever known that it's a competitor that's filed a suit directly or indirectly, that is a fact the court takes into consideration. And I think it is a very serious challenge to everybody in Philadelphia to have this City Council have before it an ordinance which takes away the rights of citizens to have something to say about Philadelphia. (Applause.) 93 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I know there may be some in Council that try to say the issue is do we provide things for Whitman Park or any other community in the City. That's not the issue at all. The issue is, is Philadelphia a city or are we just a lot of separate little enclaves. I think when anything happens in any part of the City, it may very well be of concern to all of the people of Philadelphia. (Applause.)
And I don't think we ought to go backward in giving rights to Philadelphians, I think we ought to go forward. So thank you, Mr. Stretton, very much for your testimony today and for many years of your service to the people of Philadelphia.
Thank you very much. We have a very long witness list and we'd like to start getting through it. The Chair recognizes Jean Wrobleski and Lenora Berson. The Chair would also request, although 94 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 not require, that those individuals who testified at the last hearing confine if they can their comments to the issue of the amendment in addition to their general view of the bill. I'm not trying to stifle anyone's view, but the record is very long from the last hearing and very clear about individuals' testimony. If there's something new you'd like to add or some comment on the amendment and in general talk about your opposition to the bill if you're opposed, we'd appreciate it because the record is quite lengthy. And the Chair would just make that request. Please identify yourself for the record.
Thank you very much, Councilman Kenney. My name is Jean Wrobleski, and I am a former chairman of the Philadelphia Bar Association's Committee on Appellate Courts, and I am also a director of Center City Residents Association. And I am here today to speak on behalf of CCRA. And I would say good morning to Madam Chairman and good morning to all of the members.
And, Councilman Kenney, I agree with you 100 percent. I am not going to 95 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 repeat statements or positions that were made on March 12th. I have read all 452 pages of that transcript and I am not going to repeat or belabor those positions. Instead, I am here to bring information and hopefully knowledge to the Rules Committee and to clarify certain misunderstandings that I have gleaned from having read that transcript. Before I begin, however, I would like to commend the proponents of this bill for creating yet another amendment. That is recognition to me that you are a aware to a certain extent of the problems inherent in Bill 629. I would like to bring forward facts that have not been heard and considered. For example: One, there's a misunderstanding regarding the nature of the Zoning Board and the Court of Common Pleas and the unique appellate relationship that exists between those two when it comes to zoning matters. There is also a misunderstanding about exactly what it was that the Commonwealth Court held. We've heard a lot of talk about that decision, but there hasn't been a full explanation of what the court did in the CCRA 96 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Commonwealth Court decision. Also, Council may be overlooking the law of Pennsylvania in enacting any amendment to the zoning code. The law of Pennsylvania has declared the City of Philadelphia to be a city of the first class. Its zoning code as a result is not subject to any of the provisions, restrictions, or limitations of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Act. And to make the zoning code consistent with the Pennsylvania Municipalities Act is to erode this City's status as a first-class city. I also will speak to the issue of the nature of this legislative hearing. It is a specific hearing that is restricted by the State's Zoning Enabling Act. Council has the power to create and amend the zoning code, but its power does not derive from the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter its power derives from the State legislature's enactment of the Zoning Enabling Act, which means that this hearing is subject to certain restrictions. Let me begin with the nature of the Zoning Board and what it does. The Zoning Board is not a court of law, it is not a judicial tribunal. 97 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Under the Pennsylvania Judiciary Act, it is not considered a court of law. The people who preside over the Zoning Board are not judges, they are not even elected officials. They are political appointees. So that when you say anybody can go before the Zoning Board and have their rights heard, that is not correct. The person from the Managing Director's Office during the March 12th hearing conceded the Zoning Board is an administrative agency. The only way you can have your rights heard in a court of law is when you take an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. That is a very unique appellate process to go from the Zoning Board to the Court of Common Pleas, and it's the only way to get into a court of law on a zoning issue. There has been no evidence and no 19 fact-finding which would warrant closing the court house door to people who want their positions on zoning matters heard. And make no mistake about it, that's what this amendment does. It deprives people of having their day in court, it shuts them out of the judicial process. On March 12th, the person from the 98 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Managing Director's Office made an egregious misstatement of law. Standing is not always an issue when a person takes an appeal. If a plaintiff or a defendant in a civil proceeding has a final judgment entered against him, he can always take an appeal as a matter of right. He does not have the burden of proving that he has standing when an appeal is taken to the Superior Court. The point that I'm making is that if you take away an adversary's or a litigant's right to take an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, you're closing the court house door to them.
The second point that I want to make is that this amendment circumvents the Commonwealth court's decision. The Commonwealth Court is one of the highest courts in this state, it's one of the highest appellate courts. The judges are uniquely qualified to hear zoning appeals. It is a special court which hears a number of appeals from administrative agencies. They have knowledge and they have expertise to do that. So when they speak, we should listen. Now, in the CCRA SCRUB case, the court did several things, and this is what I wish to 99 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 clarify. First, it affirmed the law of Pennsylvania that Philadelphia is a city of the first class. That's not new law. The court rightfully held that this means that Philadelphia zoning code is not subject to the Pennsylvania Municipalities Act or its principles. That is not new law. The court also held that the code was clear that an individual or a collective group of taxpayers could file an appeal; that's what the zoning code says. The Commonwealth Court did not have to go through some kind of convoluted interpretation to get there. Now, if this amendment -- and I'm talking about the amendment today -- is enacted, Council will have eroded the City's status as a first-class city. There is absolutely no basis for conforming the City's code to the Pennsylvania Municipalities Act. The state legislature has declared the City to be in an unique position. And 50 years ago, Council recognized that Philadelphia zoning codes should reflect that uniqueness. The Commonwealth Court made no new law in this regard. The City's architecture, its urban spaces and its institutions have very significant historic meanings because the City was laid out on a 100 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 grid. It is also more compact. What happens in one part of the City can affect all of its citizens. Thus, the zoning code allows all of its citizens to have a voice, and the Commonwealth Court's decision affirms that. My final point is that the hearings have uncovered no factual evidence to support the amendment. It is a basic principle of the legislative-making process that when a right has been granted, like a due process right to take an appeal, before it can be restricted, before it can be eliminated, there must be a fact-finding hearing. And I'm not talking about hearings where people give opinions or where people make political speeches; I'm talking about facts. There has been no evidence taken in this matter to justify amending the code. There is no 19 rational relationship between the reasons propounded for the amendment and the drastic impact of the amendment. The only arguments that have been made in support of the amendment are unsubstantiated speculations that interlopers will interfere with community needs. These arguments are based on hypotheticals. When one weighs the speculation that 101 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 many interlopers will interfere with what a community wants against the elimination or the restriction of due process rights, the balance is greatly outweighed against the amendment. The argument has also been made that the code should conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Act. Again, there is no 9 reason advanced for this change. In fact, it is up to the State legislature to change the status of the City as a first-class entity. It is an understatement to say that this amendment creates more harm than good. It balkanizes the City. It propels the City back into the Middle Ages before there were cities as we know them today, when there were little fiefdoms and independent city states. Our neighborhoods and communities are not separate fiefdoms or independent entities; we are all interconnected and interdependent upon each other. By way of example, what happens along the rivers, at Logan Circle or in Rittenhouse Square acts the entire city, and we should preserve our zoning code, which is a clear acknowledgment of that fact.
The people who live on the east side of Broad 102 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Street have just as much a right to say about what happens on the west side of Broad Street as the people on the west side of Broad have a right to say about what happens along the river. Finally, I want to point out that this zoning code was enacted in 1933, before there was a Home Rule Charter. " I appreciate and understand your concern, Councilman Kenney, for example, about people coming into the neighborhood and possibly doing more harm than good. However, we have to keep the court house doors open. We can't take away due process appellate rights, because when we start to do that, then we start down the path of losing our democracy. Thank you very much for allowing me to talk. )
Thank you for your testimony. 103 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Miss Berson, please.
I'm the President of Center City Residents Association. I just came along for moral support.
I second it all, and think the issue is not really what, unfortunately, we got into. The issue is the right of citizens to go to court; it's not what they go to court about. That's another story.
The Chair requests that Miss Phillips, the representative from the Managing Director's Office, come back.
Could I also make one more statement so that this record is perfectly clear.
I think the identities of all the parties who speak here should be clarified. Miss Phillips is a lawyer for Ballard Spahr Anderson Ingersoll. She is on a year's leave 104 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 of absence in the Managing Director's Office. I have a lot of friends at the Ballard office, it's a wonderful office, but everybody knows that office represents developers, and I just wanted to make clear what her affiliation is.
I do believe that at the last hearing, that was disclosed. I'm sure it was. Thank you anyway. Miss Phillips, please. (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Joanne Phillips and I'm Special Assistant to the Managing Director. Since we're making all affiliations known, I'm also the Co-Chair of the Zoning Land Use Enforcement Committee of the Philadelphia Bar Association, and I have been a real estate zoning practitioner, so I'm very familiar with the rules before the board and the Court of Common Pleas, and I lecture frequently on this topic. Nowhere did we ever say that the City of Philadelphia should become subject to the municipalities planning code, we are not, but what we're saying is, the issue of standing is a legal concept that, if we would make this change in the 105 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 code, we will be consistent with the rest of the Commonwealth. And when this city is trying to compete for business and for housing, those issues are important. And we keep calling everybody a developer, but part of it is just -- they're property owners and people have rights to develop property as well. What I wanted to say is that the Zoning Board acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, they make findings of fact, they make conclusions of law. The Court of Common Pleas acts as appellate court. So it is a complicated area of the law, with a lot of different nuances, and we've heard lots of twists on what the law means. However, I still stand by the fact that this bill will not remove people's rights to bring an appeal to the Common Pleas, and we're going to put it back the way it was before this Commonwealth Court decision, which just reinterpreted the word "taxpayer" in a way that had never been done before. And all of the people that have been here, I don't believe any of these organizations have ever made the case that they were only a taxpayer. I think the SCRUB case that was decided 106 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 by the Commonwealth Court is the only one, and in that case, SCRUB also has on the table arguments about how they were an aggrieved -- they had aggrieved standing. So I think aggrievement standard is just something that exists in the Commonwealth and throughout the nation. The other statement about how standing -- you know, I made a statement that standing is always an issue. It is an issue when there are people that are entering into a lawsuit. If I am the person making the application for a permit and I can take an appeal, I have a right to make that appeal, but if there are other third parties that don't -- you know, they're not making the application for a permit or don't like to see -- you know, they're entering into the case, then they don't necessarily have the right. Standing can be raised, and that's when it comes into play. Any good attorney that has to deal with a case where someone's coming in should make the argument, check the standing to see if the people really belong in court, and it's really a mechanism to make sure that we don't clog our courts. That's what the standing issue goes to across the board. 107 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 So just wanted to clarify that point.
I'm having a great deal of difficulty in understanding why in the why the City Solicitor's Office is not here talking about law and why the Managing Director's Office is here talking about law. The City Solicitor, as a result of the Home Rule Charter, is the legal arm of the City government. This is a second hearing.
And are you authorized to speak on behalf of the City Solicitor's Office?
I'm here on behalf of the Managing Director. The Managing Director has responsibility for L&I and those departments and the boards that relate to those departments. I came on board with the City in particular to look at the ways that we develop property in the City, the issues that businesses and residents have in trying to deal with the system, and the bureaucracy that we have trying to make L&I -- L&I gets beat up all the 108 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 time. In these cases, the people are making applications to L&I, they have to go through a process, it's long -- it can be long, but that's why I'm here. I'm here to look at those issues so that when this bill came in, this is my expertise and this is what I've brought to work with the City.
Well, I'm just wondering, do you speak for the City on legal issues? Has the City Solicitor decided that in this area the City Solicitor has ceded to the Managing Director?
I can't speak for the City Solicitor. I don't know whether they were asked to come.
I am an attorney, but I can't speak for City Solicitor. I don't know whether they were asked to appear here. I have discussed this matter with several members of the Law Department on this issue, but I cannot speak for the Law Department.
Well, I have great difficulty, I just don't understand, just like I 109 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 don't understand why the City has refused to enforce this law ever since it was passed.
Well, would you wait until I finish my question before you try to answer it. I'd appreciate that. I just don't understand why the City Solicitor is not here to speak to the law, because I have vast differences of the law with you. I can understand that having had a past practice representing developers that you represent their point of view.
And I respect that, but I don't think that that is the position of the City government, and I'm wondering why it is that you were speaking of the law when we have a City Solicitor who is our governmental representative on the law. I would like to know the position of the City Solicitor on these issues.
Because I cannot do 110 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 two things. I cannot recognize the City Solicitor's Office as the office that speaks for and interprets the law for the City government and then have somebody from another department come in and tell us that that's the law, 'cause I happen to agree with the prior witness and not with your version about the change in the law. I think the legal decision of the Commonwealth Court is an historic one, I think it is totally in compliance with the statutory language, and I think it represents the forward advance in which we in this country respect the rights of people to voice their views. I know some of us think that by voicing the views, it's a dangerous thing and, therefore, it ought to be suppressed. But I don't think so. I think we have courts -- one reason we have courts is so that people can express their views rather than use more violent methods of expressions, and the door being open to the court house means that citizens feel they're not shut out of the process. They don't make the decision, people that involved in court cases never make the decision; it's the judges that do. And it seems to 111 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 me that this amendment is aimed at saying we know what the justices will rule as a matter of justice and we don't like what they're going to find as just; therefore, we're going to prevent them from ruling on the case. It's like the kid picks up the marbles, if he, you know, doesn't win the game when he's shooting marbles. He picks up his marbles and goes home so nobody can defeat him. Now, that's what's here. What we're trying to do here by this amendment is to open the City wide open for billboard developers, and at the same time, let's help all of the other developers, let them all find ways to ravage the communities because, you know, a developer has one interest in mind, it's a legal interest, I respect them for it: They have an interest to make a profit. It's the only reason a developer develops anything. The developer has no responsibility to act for the good of the community, 'cause the developer is not an elected official; they have a responsibility to make a profit. They come to a community. We need people who respect the government and who are looking out for the welfare of the community, and we want those people to have a right to be heard. 112 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 What this amendment seeks to do is to change the law in Philadelphia and move us back to the Middle Ages where people had no rights and it seeks to open Philadelphia for any developer, but principally billboard operators in the first instance, but while we're helping them, we might as well help everybody else ravage the city. That's why I'm opposed to do this amendment. But I would like to hear an interpretation of law from the City Solicitor, not somebody who's not authorized to speak on the law by the City of Philadelphia, and that's the reason I asked you to come back. I just don't understand why the City Solicitor's Office has refused to participate in this hearing, or is not party to it. It's been publicized, the newspapers have been full of this effort to deprive Philadelphians of their right to be heard. The papers have been full of it for weeks, and I'm sure the City Solicitor's wide awake and understands when these hearings are held. And so I just want the record to disclose that I don't believe we've had a representative of the City of Philadelphia authorized to do speak on the law. 113 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (Applause.)
That's all right, I understand, but I'm qualified to speak on these issues, I understand these issues. I think it's a good use of our resources. And I just want to make one point. Developers and businesses, the way I look at them, they are citizens of this city and they're residents and they come and live here too, they make the jobs here. And I think we shouldn't look at them as people coming in to ravage a community. They come in and bring jobs and they become a part of the community. I think that happens a lot of times. And I'll end on that note.
No, I think it's a sound note. I think developers do good work, but they are motivated not by the good they do. We make the decision. When the developer comes before us, we pick and choose which development we support, and we try to do it in City Council on the basis of our 114 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 collective judgment as to what's good for the City. I'm saying that an individual developer has to be concerned about the profit motive because if he doesn't make a profit, he's not going to be in business, so his concern is to make the profit, but it's the broader community's concern to think of the welfare of everybody in the community, and that's why it's so urgent that the court house be open to them.
Thank you. Miss Phillips, I think you indicated that in addition to your present position that you as an attorney represented community groups. I don't know whether you did that on a pro bono, as a community activist, someone as part of the community, or was it primarily in a professional capacity?
It was in a professional capacity on a pro bono basis through our firm.
On a pro bono basis. And were those issues that would in any way -- were those issues that were issues that maybe the community was in support of or opposed to do?
When the community 115 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 opposed certain uses.
So you represented community groups or a group on a pro bono basis, and basically those community groups were opposed to a particular application or whatever it was.
Mr. Krakower's shaking head no. He probably knows more about what you do than you do but, you know, that's the way things are going today.
We've worked together. I primarily represent people that are developing on properties. That's been the focus. However, cases do come to our firm, when I was at the firm, on a pro bono basis.
I guess what I'm fishing for is -- and you said that you have represented community groups, or a group, whatever, that have been opposed to certain things in their community and did that on a pro bono basis. Do you believe in your professional opinion, both as the pro bono attorney representing communities who oppose things and in your present role as an attorney for the Managing Director's 116 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Office to deal with the issues of L&I and how business community and residential communities could somehow work together, do you believe that this amendment in any way -- and I'll paraphrase my colleague Councilman Cohen -- ravages the rights of the citizens in way? I mean, in your professional opinion.
Do you think that the people of this community -- when I say "this community," the City of Philadelphia in any way would be silenced by this amendment?
No. And I don't believe the Administration would support it and I know the Managing Director wouldn't support it if it did.
Have you ever -- I don't know if you and I have ever been involved in any zoning matters, have we? Were you involved in the Penn's Landing entertainment center?
Are you familiar 117 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 with the task force that I created down there?
Made up of somewhere between ten and twelve community groups?
And the process that took well over a year and a half that, actually, we're still working on some final details of that agreement?
If this bill were in place at that time, back in June of 1997, I think we started, would any of those things that I brought to the table that involved community participation in the development and issues surrounding the entertainment center, would any of those things have not been permitted if this bill -- this amendment were a part of the act?
No, it's not going to interrupt any developer's need to go speak with the community and find out what the issues are of the people.
Would it have minimized the community's rights? 118 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Could I ask Councilman Nutter to yield for a moment to deal specifically with those questions?
I wonder, how could you say this bill does not take away rights of people when it says to people, unless you are directly aggrieved in accordance with past interpretations of "aggrieved," meaning close by, you don't have a right to go to court?
See, I do think the taxpayer status broadens who could bring a case, that's correct. Anyone can bring a case that's a taxpayer. So the way the ordinance is written now definitely is broader. My only point is that the change being suggested really takes it back to the way it's always been interpreted by the courts, 119 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 before Judge Pelligrini's decision. So what I'm saying is that you're right, the taxpayer language certainly broadens it and would let anyone bring a case, but I don't think that's a good thing, and I think that it's better to be consistent with the way the courts always looked at standing, which was the aggrievement standard. I don't think this is a revolutionary idea that's being introduced here, I don't think anyone's going to be losing due process rights.
But it's definitely more restrictive than allowing the whole taxpayer, you're absolutely right on that point. I mean, I don't disagree with you. The taxpayer status is much broader. You're correct in that. What you would prefer is to leave the taxpayer status in, and that would leave the courts open for anybody. I agree.
What do you mean open for anybody, as if anybody is a nothing, and anybody is --
For all citizens, all 120 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 taxpayers.
-- a person who, under the language of what exists according to the Commonwealth Court, any taxpayer of Philadelphia.
It seems strange to be denigrating taxpayers because those that are doing the denigrating are those that keep speaking in other areas about how important it is to protect taxpayers.
No, you're not, you're not denigrating the taxpayer. I didn't mean you at all, I meant some of my colleagues, who say, what, just because he's a taxpayer? Who's he? He's just paying taxes to the City. Under other circumstances, we tend to worship taxpayers, and we ought to because they carry the burden of the City. I didn't understand before you how could say that this amendment does not narrow the rights of people. It's going to eliminate, or try to eliminate, if it's legal, I don't know that it's legal, but if were construed to be legal, this 121 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 amendment would lessen many, many rights. It would mean, for example, that in your community, if somebody wants to put in something that's not right, what a smart developer would do would be to go into some other community and say, What do you need, don't you need more playground equipment? I would like to put this in there. I know you don't like it, but you know I'm going to win anyway and why don't you get something for it. So you give them something for it. And then we go to your community and we say, Hey, we already got that in this other community, what makes you any better than any other community? We already have a precedent. That's why you in your community have to be concerned about what's happening in the other person's community because it's going to be used against you. They're going to pick a poor community that's been denied by the City government of proper attention to its needs, they're going to pick that community to set the example and then use it somewhere else. Or in the case of billboards, a billboard is a blight wherever it is. Our public 122 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 parks are free. People from Philadelphia, all parts of Philadelphia, use all of the public parks everywhere. Does it mean that the people who use the public parks, if they live in the Northeast and go down to South Philadelphia to see the FDR Park, they use that park, does it mean they have no rights about that park? Of course, they have the rights. Philadelphia is one city. We're affected by whatever takes place anywhere. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
You're welcome, any time. First, Miss Phillips, I know that you gave an opening statement. I guess that was some time this morning. Was that -- do you have that statement available? 'Cause I didn't hear it.
No, I do not have it 123 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 written. Sorry, I was just requested to come over, so I was just reiterating that I was in support of my prior written testimony. I have a copy of that if you'd like that.
No, I can get that from the notes of testimony. I thought you had written testimony for today. Did I understand you earlier to say that in that back-and-forth that you agreed with the Commonwealth Court ruling?
I agree with the Commonwealth Court that we're a city of the first class, and I agree that we're not subject to the municipalities planning code, and I agree that the ordinance says "taxpayer." And that's what the court looked at, and they stopped right there and they said that's all they needed.
And it was a court looking at it, saying that's what the ordinance 22 says, I don't need to go any further.
No, I don't, but that's 124 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 my opinion. They made the right decision in looking at what was in the ordinance. What they didn't look at what was the long line of cases that had come before and how the City actually practiced its zoning cases and what the practitioners actually thought that that standing provision meant.
Does the court have to take into consideration what the different attorneys thought as they were doing whatever they were doing?
Wait a minute. Or were they taking into consideration what the code or statute says?
I think this judge looked at it and gave respect to City Council, saying this is what's in the ordinance and this is how I'm going to interpret it, I don't need to look any further. I think that's exactly what the judge did. It was not a --
What else would you have the person look at? I mean, the code was the issue at hand, right?
That's correct, that's 125 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 correct.
Well, I understand that. I'm just asking the question.
And I think that's where he stopped. I mean, I think he was looking at it in a very restrictive way, and it makes sense legally to do it that way. I just disagree with the decision, that's all.
Why do you think that was in the code in the first place?
My legal view is I guess someone wanted to give it meaning. However, over time, it had always been coupled with the word "aggrieved," it always was interpreted to mean an "aggrieved taxpayer. "
Well, let's make 126 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 sure our record clear here. It was not coupled in the code with the word "aggrieved," that's correct.
That is correct, because it doesn't read that way presently and I don't think there's been any amendment to that, right?
Right. And so notwithstanding how the various attorneys on either side of the zoning cases have for themselves interpreted it, the code says "or any taxpayer," right?
Okay. What else could it mean? Is there any other possible interpretation of that?
I -- anyone that pays taxes, residents, nonresidents. 127 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
All right. So what do you think the framers of that particular section 4 of the code back in the '40s or '50s, what do you think that they meant when they put that in there?
I can only guess that they meant to include the word "taxpayer."
And do you think that they meant that to be distinguished from the first part of the sentence in some particular way?
Would you take that as a lawyer that they apparently went out of their way to put a comma after "board," separated by the word "or" and then talk about any taxpayer? So they had some reason for doing that. What do you think that reason was?
If I was going to be giving you really an accurate opinion, what I would want to do is go back and take a look at the original ordinance and see if there were any transcripts from the day that that was enacted, and that would really be the only way that I could tell you what it really meant. 128 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Well, I understand that, but from a legal standpoint, if there's one phrase, a series of words in a phrase that clearly means one thing or defines one thing, that's the "any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved," that's one group of people. I mean, you have a comma and/or some other group of people to be distinguished from the first group. Is that reasonable?
I think that's right. I think that's probably what persuaded Judge Pelligrini in the decision, that it is a separate --
Before you get there, I mean, we have to assume that the Council at the time, or whoever put this -- whatever Councilmember or members decided that that's the way the statute or the code was going to read --
It could have been Councilman Cohen. Was he in the common council or 129 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the lower or the upper? He's practicing both rooms, okay. At the time they did that, I mean, you would at least agree that they clearly made a decision to have two distinct groups of people: one that is jointly or severally aggrieved by someone; and two, this other group, which is just everybody else. Is that right?
I can't agree that's what they decided, but I can agree with you that that's what it says.
Okay. Now, there was discussion earlier about people from, you know, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, maybe some 130 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 folks people in Carbon County sitting around worrying about what we may be doing here in Philadelphia. From a legal interpretation standpoint, we could probably remedy that particular problem if we decided we wanted to do that by limiting in the "or any taxpayer" section, for instance, that it would be a resident taxpayer; is that correct?
And we would immediately remove that opportunity for essentially the non-Philadelphia resident from participating in the Philadelphia Code; is that correct?
Okay. Now, let's talk about standing a little bit. Why would the board listen to a person who was not deemed to be aggrieved at the Zoning Board?
Do you mean why they would not give any weight to what they say? Because they certainly let --
Before you even get to weight, you have to hear something. Why would you even listen to a person if you determine at the 131 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 board level that they don't meet -- under the proposal, that they don't meet the aggrieved standard? Because the aggrieved standard is not defined by the Philadelphia code.
That there's a direct and substantial interest in the proceeding, in the outcome of the proceeding.
You know, I keep calling Chancellor Primavera and they won't sent my certificate over.
Aggrievement can be shown in many ways. Typically in zoning cases, it's shown by some proximity to a project or a property that 132 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 you can show has some impact on your interest in other property.
The judge decides it. When they hear what the facts are -- if I live far away but I'm going to be impacted by traffic, then I can be aggrieved because of traffic. If there's going to be a big shadow cast on my property, then I could be aggrieved because of the impact of light and air.
They hear the facts of the case. 133 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I mean, as you can imagine, that wouldn't give a lot of comfort level. I mean, it leaves things to a tremendous amount of chance.
Typically, it becomes an important issue where people are more distant or removed from an issue, where if someone is a neighborhood or a next-door neighbor or down the street, it really becomes a mute issue and no one really challenges it at that point.
What happens if I don't live there but I go there all the time?
You might have a harder time making a case, that's the fact of the matter. The fact is standing is an issue to keep the courts unclogged by people that don't have an interest in the property.
And especially in zoning, and we're really talking about zoning where we're talking about the impact of a land use.
Now, do we have one or two judges here in zoning appeals?
Typically the way it's been set up is that there's been one that hears all administrative court cases.
I'm not sure that it is now. In the past, it was, but there have been some standing case management orders that have actually helped things move forward a lot better.
And Cheryl Gaston from the Law Department might be able to answer that better. I don't know. 135 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I don't know that, Councilman. I mean, we really actually talked about this last time.
And I don't know how many go up to appeal in the Court of Common Pleas.
Okay, all right. So you're at the board and you have your situation and you're concerned about whatever the issue of the day is. And so first the board, I guess, has to decide whether they should even listen to you, right?
I think that's correct. Although the board typically in their practice listens to everyone that appears at the hearing, and they let everyone speak. 136 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
If there's a lot of representative testimony, at times, they will limit it for time.
Often, I'm some of the repetitive testimony myself, but if there's a new standard and in an effort to kind of keep the courts unclogged and keep things moving and the like, again, I would go back and ask, why would the board listen to you if you're not, in their view, an aggrieved person, based on the standards that we've now laid out?
I think the board is free to make a decision on standing, and if you appeared at the board and didn't believe you have standing, you'd actually be -- we're going into another type of appeal that you'd have, but I think the board can make a decision on whether someone has standing.
Well, is it the reality of it, though, that, again, if this were to go forward, you need to raise the standing issue at the board; isn't that correct?
In fact, you have to 137 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 raise standing issue at the board. If you don't raise it at the board, it will be waived on appeal.
All right. So could you envision a not so hypothetical scenario that virtually every hearing starts with a debate about standing and who's an aggrieved person because, again, ultimately, why should the board listen to someone who's not an aggrieved person since they will not be participating in this matter after the board hearing anyway? I mean, look, isn't there a reasonable assumption out of this -- I mean we all -- you know, we're all kind of busy people, the board is certainly very busy, they have 1600 cases, they don't want to clog the system and the like. So, I mean, you know, in kind of meting out the justice, I mean, unless we're forced to, most of us, you know, a lot of times don't necessarily, you know, spend a lot of time talking about issues that we know ultimately we don't really have to talk about.
You're right, but the issue of standing would definitely come up with the board. And, in fact, that's the practice and that's how it's always been, and my point is that it won't 138 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 change. That issue has always come up as a standing, someone has to make the case of showing why they're aggrieved.
Well, I understand that, but under the current situation, it's quite honestly somewhat less of an issue, given the fact that our standard here is aggrieved person or persons or any taxpayer. I mean I think presently, once you've pretty much established that you have some nexus to Philadelphia -- you know, I live here and I pay taxes -- I think I have a right to say whatever I'm going to say. And, actually, the argument about whether you have the right to speak is probably going to be longer than whatever it is that you have to say in the first place.
But every hearing in the changed environment now becomes, what's your name? where do you live? what group are you with? 139 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 when did you become a member of that group? how long's the group been in existence? when was the last time they had elections? who was on the nominating committee? I mean, if you take it naturally to the level of the absurd, you'd be having a discussion about, you know, did you come through Ellis Island? did you come through Jamestown, Virginia? how did the folks get here? (Laughter.)
You know, it will be unending in an effort to demonstrate whether or not you actually have a legitimate right to now be at the Zoning Board, because the applicant has to virtually destroy your existence at the Zoning Board in order to have weight if and when they end up on appeal. Isn't that correct?
If you are going to try and defeat someone on standing, it's a difficult task, and it can take a lot of questions --
Isn't it easier, though, than what would be proposed in the new standard?
If you leave in 140 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 "taxpayer"?
-- isn't it easier to raise and be successful issues of standing than it is today?
Raise it and sustain your standing or to defeat someone's standing?
Because it's saying that -- first of all, this bill is for the Court of Common Pleas.
I understand that. 141 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
I'm pretty clear on that. You know, I've read it a couple times.
As we have talked the practical application, the long-standing practice and a whole host of the history of the reality of how things function and operate, whether we like them or not here in Philadelphia, you know as well as I do that if the new standard is the aggrieved person or the aggrieved taxpayer, you will have to demonstrate and prove that, you know that, now at the Zoning Board, which is a higher standard than the present standard. Now, isn't that correct?
It is a higher standard since the 1999 case, but my point is --
-- That the aggrievement standard -- 142 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
The court just caught up with what the people figured out back in 1950 and what their original intent was in the first place. It just took the court 50-some years to figure it out. (Applause.)
You know that the Council at that time put that in for a specific reason, distinct and separate from the first part of that sentence. You know that. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
I know that it's in there and I would assume Council would always give weight to every word that's in the ordinances. So, yes, I understand that.
Well, I appreciate the complement. Thank you. 143 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
But what I'm saying is that in practice, up until the taxpayer case, people had to make their case on standing because they knew they would need it when they got onto appeal.
I understand. How many people were denied standing in the cases at the Zoning Board last year?
In fact, that would be a good question, actually, because most of the people here are afraid they're going to lose their rights, and I don't believe that they lost their opportunity to bring cases. I don't think SCRUB has been thrown out on standing -- maybe they have. But in fact, they were always able to --
I think that part of the problem is that most people are not sure that there's any need for any change in the code at all.
So whether they think they're going to lose their rights, maybe lose their rights, I mean, I think the reality is that if 144 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 people are fearful about the possibility of losing their rights, they will come out and speak out about the issue. And at some point, it becomes difficult to cut through from either side as to what the facts are and what reality is because they have been so jolted and frightened by the prospect that, you know, it's difficult for any other sound to get through. Let me go back to something I asked before because I have been intrigued by this. Now, how many cases have been appealed by the concerned-about outside group?
I don't know the number, Councilman, which we talked about before, but what I can tell you is that when I lecture at continuing legal education seminars, this topic is always a topic that people are watching to see what impact it's going to have on the City.
The taxpayer case and what it will do to cases in the City. But I can't --
It was decided in '99, right? 145 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Miss Phillips, you're an expert in this particular area, I think we've qualified you on the record as an expert in this particular area, you lecture in this particular area, you know everyone in the land use area, you're a co-chair of the Bar Association -- what did you say earlier?
If there was an issue or a problem in this particular area, don't you think someone would have mentioned it to you by now?
I know from my own experience that the issue of people coming from outside a geographic area, that can happen, that is 146 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 a real scenario that can happen.
I don't know the number and I don't think the cases have made --
We don't need to talk about what can happen. I mean, we had a gentleman talking about an airplane flying through the window and possibly killing us all. I mean, anything can happen. I asked you, in the time since the decision, how many times has it happened?
Right. And I mean, quite honestly, I can only respond back to you that if it had happened I think even once, one of the 8 million zoning lawyers around this town, half of whom I know and have either worked with or been on the other side of the table, I'm sure, would have told you by now. I would tend to think that except in a couple of narrow situations, which we all know fairly well from earlier testimony or from other circumstances, that it's a fairly narrow situation 147 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 where you have this, you know, much feared outside group intervening in these kinds of matters, and it probably is primarily in the billboard sector, for the most part.
But I don't think it's limited to billboards at all. I mean, I stand by that. It's not.
Well, the possibility of it happening is certainly not limited to anything. But, again, in using your language, in the practical application, it appears that that has primarily been, for the most part, about 99 percent of that activity, in practice.
Right, but it stands out there as a possibility. And anyone coming in to do business in this city would have to understand that that would be a possibility for any project that goes forward.
Let me ask this 148 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 question: What's the difference between these two phrases: or any taxpayer, or any aggrieved taxpayer. What's the difference?
"Any taxpayer" is anyone that pays taxes to the City of Philadelphia. And "any aggrieved taxpayer" would be someone that is impacted by a zoning decision and pays taxes.
I think it would broaden it a bit. I mean, you may not have to show that you own property, maybe it could be that you work next door to a building, so I think it would be a little bit broader, but it is more narrow than just "taxpayer," but it would be an "aggrieved taxpayer."
You'd have to show, you'd have to how you're impacted by the decision in some way.
Okay, all right. There has -- I know the chairman is out of the corner is giving me -- 149 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I was waving to somebody. I would never take away your right to speak.
Otherwise I'd have to Miss Phillips to represent me. Thank you. There have been letters flying around from a variety of community groups, many of whom are in the district that I represent. As best I can tell, virtually every community group in the district that I represent has sent a letter or called and expressed their opposition to the bill. What has your community group said about this?
I don't belong to a community group in the City, Councilman. I don't live in the City. That's why I'm a consultant to the City. (Applause.)
For the record, Mr. Stretton doesn't live in the City either. 150 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
No, I've worked here for years and I am a taxpayer of the City. 7
I apologize for the 8 question. Again, they've been coming from all over 9 the place. And, again, given, you know, the 10 background and the practice that you have, I just 11 thought in the normal course of, you know, the 12 grocery store run or whatever that, I mean, the 13 local civic was, somebody would have said something and you may have engaged in a discussion about that. No, I was not aware of that.
No, but I can understand why you might get letters because I don't think people fully understand what this ordinance means, and I believe people, unfortunately, have scared people into making them think that they're going to lose important rights that I don't think they will lose under this ordinance.
Thank you very 151 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 much. Thank you very much for your testimony. I would just like to limit -- and the only reason I want to limit is, we such a long witnesses of list, and it's unfair to have these people sit here all day while we go back and forth with two witnesses. So if we could just confine -- we can always recall her. You can ask whatever questions and make whatever comment, but I'd really like to get some of these other people up here soon.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very quickly. You just stated that you're not a resident of the City of Philadelphia.
I'm going to lay out a little scenario for you. In your present position, you're a consultant to the City, which means you pay a wage tax.
That's my favorite 152 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 tax, thank you, the net profits tax.
The Center City Residents Association, the Society Hill Civic Association, Society Hill -- I'll take my side of Broad Street -- has a particular zoning matter in front of them and by going through a process, negotiations, no deal, no money transferring, but they come to an agreement to support a zoning application that initially they were opposed to because the developer may make some adjustments to the facade of the building and the parking arrangements, whatever. But you work, hypothetically, you work directly across the street or around the corner from this proposed development, you would have the right presently, you would have standing to file an appeal on that decision, even after the community group eventually decided to support it. Is that correct?
Under the proposed amendment, you would have less of a right.
I think that's right. I 153 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 would have to show the direct impact and aggrievement typically deals with other people's property rights.
But Society Hill Civic -- this is a scenario hypothetical thing -- they would still have standing. They're not going to be silenced.
I don't understand what you mean when you say you don't think rights are going to be changed by this amendment. Let's take a situation where in Bridesburg, they use all kinds of chemicals, and for some reason, the Bridesburg community, harassed, having fought for many years, decides this time not to oppose an extension of a plant that they believe is harmful to them, and somebody from another part of the city, worried also about the fact that this may be oppressive for them, decides to file an appeal. Now, when you take that away right of 154 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 somebody else to file the appeal, why aren't you hurting their rights?
See, I don't think you're taking away anyone's right to appeal if they are affected by the decision or if they are affected by the matter.
So how are they going show they're affected? They're ten miles away.
They may show that there's dust that falls on their house or that there are fumes that make their way to their house.
Can they show that this may be a precedent which may affect them some years down the road? Would that be enough?
Not in a zoning forum. The other this is, there are forums where people can bring cases. That kind of case might be more appropriate before the Department of Environmental Protection, so it would be in a DEP permit forum.
No, but the zoning, 155 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that's a different ground entirely when we're talking about zoning.
We're not talking about resort to an historical law or a resort to environmental protection. We're trying to see to it that zoning rights are preserved, because zoning rights have a lot to with quality of life, don't they?
I'm just at a loss when you say that you think the rights are going to be the same. If the rights were going to be the same, we wouldn't be here today on either side of the table or in the audience. Aren't you concerned about the fact that the people in the audience represent overwhelmingly the largest number of community organizations and they feel shut out?
Well, I was here last time, and there were community organizations that seemed to understand the ordinance in a different way and were not in opposition to it. I understand why people -- 156 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I don't find many of them. One of them that I know has changed its opinion is Society Hill. And Tacony changed their opinion as soon as they learned the law, the effort to hide what the law is not by those who oppose the law; it's by those who are presenting the law as meaning nothing, because a case is decided on the merits of the case. And what this amendment tries to do is to prevent a decision on the merits of the case by saying nobody is entitled to file an appeal except a very limited area of people who may, for one reason or another, not be prepared to file. That's the whole purpose here, to limit rights to get something which may be in opposition to law but to prevent anybody from being in a position to contest whether or not it's legal. Standing is only a procedural matter as to who may be involved in the case. It doesn't deal with the merits of the case, it deals with the rights to pursue an action. And since they know on the merits they would probably lose, therefore, they're shooting at the only people who may bring an action. They're trying to prevent anybody from raising the issue. That's what this is all about. 157 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 It's really entirely a free speech issue. What they're trying to do is to prevent anybody from having the right to complain by silencing the opposition. That's what the purpose of this amendment is. Isn't that the effect? (Applause.)
I mean, let's talk plain. We can try to fence it, but there is a developer in the City, a billboard developer by the name of Mr. Cipollini who wants to put billboards everywhere. He's the guy that developed the unique theory about putting billboards on City property. He is upset by the fact that the courts have ruled against him, and so he is waging a campaign -- maybe there are other billboard operators who may also be waging a campaign -- to try to prevent the people in the community from presenting their case before a court, because if a court hears it, the court may decide, as they've been doing recently, against the billboard operators. So that the purpose here is to prevent anybody from complaining to the courts. That doesn't deal at all with the merits of the case, 'cause they concede they would lose the case if it goes to court. Therefore, they're trying 158 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 to prevent it from going to court by eliminating people from being able to bring an action. That's what this whole purpose is, and I don't see how you can say it's not going to effect very much. If it's not going to effect very much, there would be no 7 point in having this amendment presented in the first place.
Thank you. Two quick questions. One is probably quicker than the other. What would happen -- I forgot to ask this earlier. There's a proposed amendment, and I mean, we'll come back to some of the language issues and kind of what qualifies what and the like. But for the moment, with the proposed amendment, what happens in cases where there's some issue in the City and a group like the Foundation for Architecture or the American Institute of Architects or the Preservation Alliance of Philadelphia or 159 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Americans for Democratic Action or any of those kinds of, I think, long-standing, fairly well-known groups and organizations that have a citywide membership, look at a wide variety of issues, what happens if they're the opposition in a particular case under this proposed new standard? What happens to those groups?
I don't think anything different happens. They derive their standing from all the members that you just mentioned that live throughout the City. That's how they have standing, because their members live in the neighborhoods.
How does the organization meet the aggrieved standard? You talked earlier that one of the components of it was a proximity issue.
And they have members that have proximity. Therefore, they have standing. That's been the law. That is how --
This is like the associative property, that you get your standing through the organization through its various members and where they live?
Don't you have to prove that somebody lives near the particular locale?
What do you mean, "the practice"? "The Practice" is a TV show. What do you mean, "the practice?"
The practice before the Zoning Board in order to establish standing is to identify a member of an organization that lives within a proximity to a property.
But the standard at the Zoning Board is a different standard than the aggrieved person or organization standard that the court has to interpret. How does the organization, these well-known, well-established, you know, whether you like their politics or their views or whatever, I mean, they're not fly-by-night organizations, have stepped up to the plate and said, We have a concern about X. How do they meet 161 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that standard, based on what you have given us earlier in the record? How do they show that they are directly affected? You keep talking about the individual. I'm talking about an organization.
An organization can show it two ways. One, they can show that they own property interests near the property. So if the Foundation for Architecture is a tenant --
What they need to do is to have a member that lives within a proximity of that project. That's typically how they can show standing.
Well, I think that's what the SCRUB case was about, actually.
In that case, we are talking -- I think that involved a property where there was no one in the area.
And so SCRUB argued, I think, standing on three different bases. One was taxpayer, one was that they had derivative standing because they were representing people that were affected. And there's another theory called "public attorney general," where you are enforcing the law -- it's not really an enforcement so I can't really -- it's not an enforcement issue. You're bringing an action on the benefit for the entire good of the City.
Then why are we here? 163 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
The issue is the bare taxpayer status. That was what was new, that was what was new that came out of the SCRUB decision. And why we're here it's. You know --
There's differences of opinion, Councilman, but that's the essence of the case.
We argued this at the last hearing. This is not new. This has been in the code for 47 years.
That's correct. But it was never interpreted that way until 1999. That's why we had a Commonwealth Court case that came out of the blue. That made a change in the landscape of the law. You have it within your power to change it, you have it within your power to leave it alone. That's your decision and that's the decision you'll come to. 164 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 I can only come here and give you facts and answer technical questions as to what I believe the law means as a practicing attorney. So I'm here to give you facts. You need to make your own decision, and you will.
Well, you know, I won't take you back through it, but you know that the courts, from time to time, it does take them a little while to figure out what the framers meant when they wrote certain things. I mean, I remember in, I don't know, American history class, reading about some document that talked about, you know, that all men were endowed with certain unalienable rights. Now, it took the courts a while to figure out who all was included under that. (Applause.)
But you wouldn't -- I mean, you wouldn't -- I mean, you're not saying that that was like new. (Laughter.)
I mean it had been there for a while, and then it took 'em, you know, through a series of, you know, hundreds of cases to finally figure out that what that meant. And then, 165 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 you know, life has gone on and we've all lived in peace and happiness ever since. So, I mean, it wasn't new. They just came to the understanding of what somebody many, many years ago figured out, right?
All right, all right. Earlier you also mentioned the concern about the possibility of clogging the courts. You know I'm not an attorney and don't practice over at the board on a regular basis, but I do come by from time to time just to, you know, kind of check out what's going on. But if the case starts -- the example that we had earlier, you're at the board, this is my name, this is my address, this is the group I'm in, whatever. And we start down the standing path. I'm just Joe Schmoe there. And the board says we don't have to listen to you, we don't think you're an aggrieved person, you don't have standing. What are my rights as an individual at that point? 166 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
You would appeal that to the Court of Common Pleas and say that the board made a mistake.
Okay. So let's say that a bunch of these cases started happening -- now, this is all in the context of there was a concern about clogging the courts.
Can I just clarify the context of what I said, clogging the courts?
My statement was made that the issue the standing -- the concept, the legal concept of standing relates to a principle of protecting the courts from being over-burdened with cases.
I didn't mean it particularly to any -- you know, it's just -- that's the concept, so I'm just trying to lay a Foundation for what it means.
I gotcha, no 167 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 problem. I'm at the board, they say I don't have standing. You said I have a right to appeal in Common Pleas Court. So let me make sure I'm keeping track. The cases over at the board may be made or didn't make my testimony. The board said I didn't have standing. I go running to the Common Pleas Court 'cause I want to appeal the board's decision. The board then goes and does whatever it does. Let's say they rule in the applicant's favor. I happen to be in the case an opponent. More than likely, I will probably file an appeal to the board's decision, while I still have my standing appeal in the same Common Pleas Court, hopefully maybe a different judge, maybe the same judge, I don't know. Let's say I win standing. Does the applicant who I was opposing have a right to appeal the Common Pleas Court decision that ruled in my favor with regard to standing?
Are you sure you're not a law school professor, Councilman? Because that would be a good exam question. It's a very 168 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 complicated procedural process that you just laid out. There would be appeals going up and down.
Right. Well, what's going on with the zoning case all during all that time? And what are the courts doing with all of these standing appeal cases that they're going to start getting from all these individuals or groups? And what does that do to the machinery?
I think that makes an assumption that the Zoning Board is throwing people out on the basis of standing, and I don't think that's the practice.
Well, that was my hypothetical. Let's say that that's going on. I mean, you know, everything's hypothetical here 'cause we're --
We're only here because of the hypothetical concern that somebody's going to start using the taxpayer standing in the first place to start interfering with all of these cases. So in the realm of the hypothetical, couldn't that start happening? 169 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I guess in the realm of the hypothetical, there could be additional procedures related to standing. But, in fact --
What happens to the zoning case while the standing appeal is going on?
Well, it could probably go forward or it could be held in abeyance while that --
Wouldn't the court want to wait until a final decision has been made on the standing issue before they made a final decision on the zoning issue?
It's possible but it would probably depend on how the case was brought up to the court and what arguments are made. It's complicated.
I'm not sure. I mean, you can go all the way up to the Supreme Court on the standing issue.
There are other complications that -- 170 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
And more than likely, the court would not make a decision in the zoning case not until the appeal had been heard on the --
I don't know that that's the case. It's a complicated issue of when someone can bring an appeal when there's a final decision.
But when the court makes a decision on the zoning case before the standing -- the appeal on standing has been made, hasn't the person essentially been stripped of their right?
I understand that. I'm saying they're in their standing appeal. I was asking you, isn't it likely that the court would 171 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 hold off making a decision in the now-appealed zoning case because we don't know whether that person has a right to appeal or not, and you don't want to cut them off by making a final decision in the zoning matter until you know whether or not they can be back over in the or the other court, right?
In the world of hypothetical situations, it's possible. It's also possible that the court can consolidate them all into the same case and all be heard at the same time, all the arguments would be heard at the same time.
I understand that. I guess my final question is -- I mean, doesn't that slow things down a little bit? I mean, don't you -- I mean, you appeal, the court gives you a date, then you got a status conditions, then you come back for oral arguments. I mean, it's oftentimes months in between those activities, isn't it?
I think the way it would play out is that there would be a hearing, the board would hear the facts, issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. One of the conclusions may be that a party does not have standing. That decision 172 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 would be appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, and the issue of standing would be before the court the same way it is in any case.
Okay, all right. But I think your earlier testimony was that it could, as a matter of fact, result in additional legal proceedings as compared to today.
I think it's just another argument. I think it would be another argument in the case. So you never know exactly how it would be played out.
Aren't there times when Mr. Stretton's hypothetical plane crash makes sense? Doesn't it sometimes look more attractive than being here? If there are no other questions, the chair calls Marilyn Shafer and Melvin Owings. Marilyn Shafer and Melvin Owings. Janet Potter. (Witnesses comes forward.)
Is Mr. Richard Thom here? Would you mind coming up now?
My name is Janet Potter and 173 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 I am the Director of Advocacy and Communications for the heretofore-mentioned Foundation for Architecture. I'd like to disclose that was born in Temple University Hospital, I spent a period of my life living on a farm in Chester County, and I am paid for the job that I am doing here today.
I testified in March and I appreciate the opportunity to speak for the Foundation of Architecture today about the latest version of Bill 000629. The Foundation for Architecture is a nonprofit organization that was founded in 1980, and our principal concern is the design and development of architecture and urban planning in the City of Philadelphia and the region, particularly public process. Therefore, zoning is always very near and 174 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 dear to our collective hearts. There is no greater issue -- there's no issue of greater significance than Bill 000629. There are two reasons why we are we are vigorously opposed to this bill, and we ask that it not be voted out of committee. The first reason is public process. We believe that every party that testified in March verbally or entered material into the record should have been notified of today's agenda and given an update of the amended version well in advance of today. This past weekend, in order to try to review for myself the history of this bill, I checked the City Council Website, looking for the various versions of this bill, starting with the ordinance as it currently exists and working my way through the version that's before us. I found nothing that helped me. I found that the site hadn't been updated since January of 2001, and I found a list of the hearing dates and bills for the year 2000, the year proceeding this one. So I wondered, where can a person or group see the evolution or changes in the wording. Is it posted anywhere prominently in City Hall? I 175 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 don't believe so. So is the public supposed to just stumble upon the information of this very significant bill? We appreciate the fact that everyone who is here today is patiently being given a chance to speak, but we would encourage any members of the Rules Committee who might be waivering on this issue to vote against it at minimum because of the absence of proper communication with the public about an issue of such major significance. The second point is the essence of the bill itself. The problem with the amendment to the zoning code would be that it disempowers the people. Some concepts are beautiful in their simplicity. One of them is innocent until proven guilty. And I think we realize in that case that i's dawned on our society that it's better to let one guilty person go free than to convict someone who is innocent. " Some development might get away from us, but on the order hand, it's important to protect the right of many other people. Bill 000629 uses the words "any aggrieved taxpayer" and makes murky what is now 176 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 straightforward. The main topic at a zoning hearing should be zoning issues. Under this bill, the preliminary time-consuming topic would be the question, who is aggrieved? who has a legal standing? while the real issues, the issues about the welfare of our city, would get lost and delayed, and in fact, everything would take longer, which really doesn't help developers. There are certain categories of people who are particularly affected by this bill. One of them is advocacy organizations like the Foundation for Architecture, which speaks about citywide issues reflected at specific sites. We have the right to testify to appeal because we are a body of taxpayers. This bill is a deterrent to our watchdog status, and we are certainly not going to go out every time's there's an issue before the Zoning Board and dig up one of our members who happens to live near that site and get them to be the one who represents the Foundation for Architecture. And to use a particular example, we are involved now in an advocacy campaign about parking garages. Now typically, a parking garage is not someone that has a resident next to it anyway and 177 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 this is an example of the citywide issues that we need to be able to explore freely.
Another group, of course, are individual citizens, who now, as the ordinance is currently written, have the freedom to speak simply as taxpayers. Under the amendment, every individual would find that he'd better go out and get a lawyer from the get-go to prove that he as an individual is aggrieved. This creates an expensive situation that will ultimately act as a deterrent to public participation. Now, we've hoard the argument made, Well, don't worry about the individual, they won't have to speak individually, they could speak through their civic association. That was a particular issue at the last hearing. The idea that the individual is routinely protected by the umbrella of a civic association is oversimplified and mistaken. What if there is no civic association? What if there is one but the individual does not belong to it? After all, there's no constitutional requirement to belong to a civic association. What if the civic association is incompetent or ineffective? What if the individual and the civic 178 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 association do not agree on whatever the issue is? And what if the neighborhood has several civic associations and business associations with differing opinions? Which one is the voice. Making it difficult for the individual to speak on his own behalf is another deterrent to public participation. Another group affected are ad hoc committees that come together quickly to deal with a very specific cause. The ad hoc committee would have to jump very fast through very many hoops to prove that it is a suddenly created aggrieved civic association. And please don't suggest that they simply choose a neighbor -- we've discussed that earlier today -- to be the aggrieved party. There may not be a neighbor, or the neighbor may be too shy to go public. The last group is people who have businesses in Philadelphia. Whether they live here or not, they are taxpayers unless, unless we have lately rescinded the real estate tax and the business privilege tax. We need people to be glad their businesses are in Philadelphia, even if they don't live here. Denying them access as businesspeople to easy public participation is 179 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 unfair and not good for the commerce of Philadelphia. The last point is about neighborhoods. We've heard the comment that this bill is about people invading other people's neighborhoods and stopping development. That really is a relatively rare occurrence. From our experience, development typically gets stopped by the near neighbors, the infamous aggrieved parties. But even if that has happened, if development has been stopped by an individual, by a, quote, outsider, for every one of those times, there have been hundreds of times when people -- in other words, any taxpayers -- had the chance to comment on and influence the issues that concern all of us, whether they lived a block away or a mile away. And I think we're all aware that some of the issues that are so important are subtle, and they're not easily conveyed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment or to a judge, and that's why people need to be freer to address everything right from the beginning. The biggest here danger is that aggrieved is most often interpreted as living in 180 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 very close proximity. We all know that development can have serious impact on people who are not next door, and those citizens should be given the free and easy right to speak. We've also heard the argument made, Oh, they'll be able to be permitted to speak at a zoning hearing; they just won't have it as easy to appeal without approving aggrievement. Please remember that without the right of appeal, the group or individual has no real power. The zoning lawyers will pounce at the very first hearing to prove lack of aggrievement. The taxpayers might as well stay home, which they will soon realize. That's another reason why this bill is deterrent to public process.
And it's really quite baffling why this conversation in this hall focuses so much on your neighborhood and my neighborhood. The neighborhoods of Philadelphia do not have legal boundaries, they are not mini-municipalities. They are overlapping streets and blocks with hodgepodges of civic groups or no groups at all and Councilmatic districts that get reorganized because of population changes. Northwest Philadelphia is a good example. Germantown, Mt. Airy, and Chestnut Hill have had 181 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 different names over time; they have shifted dramatically in any sense of what is where. As far as what happens anywhere in Philadelphia, we're all in this together, we are all neighbors. )
The Foundation for Architecture respectfully asks the members of the Rules Committee reject the proposed amendment to section 14-1807 of the Philadelphia Code. Any way you twist it, the amendment is a severe deterrent to direct public participation. The three crucial words "or any taxpayer" must remain in their pure form, just as they have stood for decades. No 16 diluting the strength of those three words by adding the nightmarish word forth word "aggrieved." We urge the Rules Committee to reject this bill in any form because it attempts to fix -- and someone else stole my punchline -- something that is not broken. The words "or any taxpayer" are straight, plain, and simple, a wonderful concept, a time when it's good to be in Philadelphia for that reason. It's a time that's good to be different from the rest of the state. Philadelphia should be 182 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 proud of those three words. Please leave them alone. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Owings, please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Mel Owings and I'm a member of the Friends of Fernhill Park.
The Friends of Fernhill Park, for the last ten years, in southwest corner of Germantown, have been developing that park and putting a lot of muscle and working in it. And we when we heard about this bill, like Councilman Nutter said, that we were very concerned about the repercussions in our area. We were concerned about who would be able to testify for the billboards in general -- against billboards in general at the -- pardon me, I'm a little nervous.
Okay, at the Zoning Board. 183 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 The park is bordered on Roberts Avenue at the lower end and crossing that in the back is a SEPTA depot. Most of the residents are alongside of the park on Wissahickon Avenue that runs north and south and Morris Street that runs east an west. We are uncertain who could represent the park if this ordinance went through. We were very unsure that -- we are an average group of people, like Councilman Nutter said, we just average people. I don't know all of the law, I don't know, you know, the ins and outs that other people that represent it, but we don't want this bill to pass. We think it would impact on the quality of life in our neighborhood. For example, at the bottom of the park, on Roberts Avenue, on the eastern border of the park, in less than a mile, we have ten double-faced billboards leading up to the park. On Wissahickon Avenue from the overpass, on the west side of the park, we have seven double-faced billboards, large billboards at the park. This park has historic significance also. We found that this park at one time was considered a good site for the capital of the United 184 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 States. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't know that. The -- I'll pause for a second. You can tell I'm not a professional at this.
Okay. We are concerned about a case that maybe it concerns us. In this park, the park has the lower area and a bluff up above it. And when you look from the bluff down through the park, you can see the city line, quite a nice view of the city line. Can see the Ben Franklin Bridge from that park on a clear day. We are concerned that if someone raises a billboard there, that this historic view would be obscured. We have people that have discovered this park, they come to this park now. We have -- it's a history, a little history of the park in this pamphlet that explains, you know, the historical background of this park. There is a billboard being raised in this historic view. It sort of got by us that -- the posting of this area sort of got by us.
Do you know who the 185 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 billboard company is?
I think it's Eller. This got by us because we thought the land had to be posted from L&I. So we didn't see anything there from L&I on that property across from the park. Mary Tracy alerted us to the fact -- well, it was after the fact of that billboard, and we thought that we could -- should represent ourselves, the park group before the Council so that something like that couldn't happen again. So we're mighty concerned about this billboard. We have no -- there's nothing we can do about it now. I was just presenting that as an example that we don't want any more billboards in that area of the park because this park is of historical significance. That's all I have.
Okay, thank you very much. Sir, could you please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Joseph Schiavo. I'm speaking on behalf Richard Thom, who couldn't be here today. I'm a resident of Center 186 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 City, Philadelphia, and the letter I'm reading is addressed to the Council and is written by Richard Thom. He's chairperson, Developments Committee, Old City Civic Association. "The Developments Committee of the Old City Civic Association, at a regularly scheduled meeting on May 29, year 2001, reviewed the latest version of the above-referenced Council Bill, Bill 10 629 altering the definition of who has standing to appeal decisions of the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustments. After review and discussion of the revised new language, as proposed by Councilman DiCicco, OCCA reaffirmed its opposition to this legislation in any form. It is our basic position that no credible evidence of repeated chronic abuse of the original charter definition of 'any taxpayer' for standing rights in appeals of Zoning Board ruling has been put forth by the bill's proponents. "We believe that the present wording was carefully chosen by the City Charter's creators to guarantee the maximum citizen participation in court appeals of such decisions. This original definition affords all of the taxpayers of this city a far greater opportunity to have their say in 187 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 zoning decisions and ensures a built-in check and balance against arbitrary and done undesirable ZBA rulings. "We therefore, believe, that this right of appeal should not be diminished in any way from the original intent of the Charter, and we continue to strongly oppose Bill 629."
Thank you very much. At this time, we will have a ten-minute recess at the request of the stenographer. I would ask my colleagues to come back immediately after the ten-minute recess. (Break taken.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)
I would like to remind my colleagues that we have a Committee of the Whole public hearing at 2 o'clock. Good afternoon, sir. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna. My name is Marcus Saitschenko. I'm with the Housing Association of 188 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the Delaware Valley. Honorable Council President, honorable members of City Council, the Housing Association of Delaware Valley is the oldest housing advocacy agency representing the interests of low- and moderate-income residents, minorities, and other persons of less advantage in Philadelphia since 1909. We're testifying before you today to express our deep concern over City Council Bill 629, which fundamentally abridges the rights of members of the community to appeal decisions to the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustments. Philadelphia is a city comprised the neighborhoods. Decisions by the Zoning Board of Adjustment that affect one neighborhood can impact negatively on the broader whole and the common good of all residents of the City. The tax base that supports our city and the quality of life of every resident who calls Philadelphia home can be destroyed by abusive discretion or an error of law committed by the Zoning Board. If Bill 629 were adopted only persons aggrieved would have standing to challenge such decisions. The courts have interpreted persons 189 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 aggrieved very narrowly to include only property owners and perhaps tenants and their neighborhood organizations within a very close proximity to the applicant. There are not many cases interpreting this language, and it probably goes farther than next-door neighbor but would not likely include people a half a mile away. The proposed amendment is not necessary. The bill does not address any pressing need to protect the zoning process from frivolous appeals. On the contrary, it is very, very unusual for an organization from outside the immediate neighborhood to participate in a zoning case. The outstanding exception is the billboard case, where an outside organization might become involved because the proposed billboard is located at a site where there are few, if any, nearby residents, but the permanent impact upon those who travel from other neighborhoods as well as from other towns and states is profoundly negative. Without standing to participate as a party in the proceedings, there is no check or balance against uncontrolled blight. The other situation in which this bill 25 might become important is where immediate residents 190 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 stand opposed to an application that expands housing opportunities within their community. Without standing to participate in the process, an outside group such as the Housing Association of Delaware Valley could not effectively advocate for the homeless persons in recovery from drug or alcohol addictions, persons with mental or physical disabilities or very low-income families who might benefit from the granting of a variance that would permit them to move into a particular location. The only testimony that would be considered evidence before the Zoning Board would be that of the immediate neighbors, who are more likely to oppose the application and only those "not-in-my-backyard" neighbors would have the legal standing to appeal a decision of the Zoning Board.
Madam President, I don't mean to interrupt, but I just want to make sure record clear that I would assume that federal statute regarding the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act would supercede, as it does today, any of those NIMBY type attitudes, that if they would prove a reasonable accommodation, as a special office has been established at the Managing 191 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Director's Office for those reasonable accommodations for people recovering from drug and alcohol abuse, that zoning codes generally throughout this country have been superseded by ADA and by the Fair Housing Act. So while I recognize your concern about that, I think it's a bit -- it may not be totally accurate because the federal law does supersede any attempts at local zoning to keep people like that out of their neighborhoods.
That is correct, where the party has the financial resources, the wherewithal to take an appeal from a decision. I'm testifying on behalf of Housing Association of Delaware Valley in our interest in advocating for such groups.
Yeah, I'm not trying to diminish your opposition to the bill or your point. I just want to make sure the record's clear that ADA and FHA would certainly supersede local zoning issues.
No, I'm not arguing with him that he's wrong. 192 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I just want the record to be clear that there are federal laws that protect people who want to live in neighborhoods who are recovering from alcohol and drug abuse or who are homeless.
(Inaudible.) . . . would have the ability to take their rights and prosecute them, and this amendment --
-- seeks to prevent people from exercising their rights.
Councilman, I'm for trying to enlighten the record. I apologize. I just wanted to make sure the record was clear that there are federal statutes that do protect --
I'm sure the gentleman knows there are federal statutes.
Well, he didn't 193 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 mention it. That's why I wanted to make sure he mentioned it.
Well, it has nothing whatever to do with what we're trying to do with this amendment.
Excuse me. Sir, would you continue on with your testimony.
You're trying to take away the ability of people to handle matters and to present their issues.
Sir, would you please continue on with your testimony. We are really running behind schedule, and I think people have been waiting here since early this morning, and I would like to hear everyone that's present. Please proceed.
Okay. We believe the law, as it currently exists, adequately protects against outside interference in the process. An organization must appear at the Zoning Board either in person or through counsel in order to have understanding to a appeal. This requirement serves to minimize the possibility that intermeddlers will take an appeal from a variance that serves the 194 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 interests of the City as a whole and one that neighbors support. For those reasons, the Housing Association of Delaware Valley urges your opposition to 629 and respectfully requests that the City Council allow the zoning appeal process to continue as it currently exists. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a nonresident taxpayer. I work for the Housing Association of Delaware Valley, which has been a resident 501(c)(3) agency for the past 91 years. I just wanted a couple of issues while they're fresh in my mind. They were issues that were raise by previous testimony. Councilman DiCicco was concerned about the destruction of deals that are struck by neighborhood groups with companies in the zoning process. I serve as a member of my zoning board in my community in Solebury, Bucks Township. And where we come from, we don't really endorse deals between neighbors or developers or applicants before the zoning board; we enforce the zoning code as it is written. (Applause.)
If we were to accept a 195 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 deal that was struck between a neighborhood group and an applicant, the Board of Supervisors would appeal our decision, and we have a Board of Supervisors that's very quick to appeal any decision that goes contrary to the code, which they enacted or which their predecessors enacted, but that represents the will of the people as legislated.
Could I ask you on that point, are you -- did I hear you correctly? You said your community group does not -- well, I'll use the word "deal" loosely, enter into negotiation, agreements by way of a process? You don't take a process? You don't go through a process, your community group?
I'm not with a community group. Saying that as a member of the Zoning Board of Solebury Township, my zoning board would not accept some deal that were struck by a community group and an association.
Unlike the -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
What we would is we 196 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 would look at the ordinance and see whether or not the billboard was allowed by the supervisors who appointed us. And if not, then we would not approve that application.
So, unlike in Philadelphia where a community group, a representative, an elected official, a councilperson, state legislator, state senator, what have you, through a process of negotiation with a applicant comes to an agreement and then appears in front of the Zoning Board and says to the board, after lengthy discussions, we have now agreed to support the application with the following provisos, and the provisos are pieces of information or parts of the agreement, a contract that the developer will enter into with the community --
Because we allow the people to speak. So if we took your analogy --
If we took your analogy, then Councilman Cohen would be right, that the community in Philadelphia would be silenced because in your township, no one but the Zoning Board has the right to do anything, you don't listen to the community.
No, persons who are aggrieved have an opportunity to testify before the Zoning Board. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Could I finish. If the community group, if the community group, by virtue of a process came to some agreement --
You can't do spot zoning. If the zoning ordinance says something, then we enforce that ordinance.
Okay, thank you. 198 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Spot zoning is illegal in Pennsylvania, and we won't participate in illegalities. Councilman DiCicco, you asked whether someone from Bucks County who happens to be a nonresident taxpayer ought to have standing to appeal a billboard in Philadelphia. If it's the last feet of I-95 where there isn't a billboard 14 and I'd like to be able see the river as I'm driving 15 down I-95, I think I ought to be able to go to the 16 Zoning Board and participate in that -- 17
And if I don't like 18 billboards and I'm a Philadelphia resident and I'm 19 driving into Bucks County and there's a billboard in 20 Bucks County, as a Philadelphia resident who may 21 work in Bucks County, I have no say. But you want 22 to say what we can do, but I can't say what you can 23 do in Bucks County. 24 (Unintelligible, parties talking over 25 each other.) 199 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
You're not allowing a councilperson to speak, you're not allowing a councilperson to speak.
You're not allowing me to speak. If you'd like to switch seats, then you can provide testimony.
No, no, no. 9 (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
No, I'm saying that if you'd like to testify, then take this seat. If you'd like me to testify, then please give me the opportunity. (Applause.)
Now, you asked if people are leaving because of a billboard going up, no, people are not leaving because of a billboard going up, but people will leave the City if they feel that the zoning code is not enforced and that the City does not appeal decisions to the Zoning Board. For us, the issue of standing is very important because only parties to a proceeding have the opportunity to provide evidence, which is given 200 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the weight of evidence by the Zoning Board when they're making their considerations. If a party isn't given the standing status, then they can't present their own witnesses, they can't cross-examine that are witnesses presented by the applicant or by other parties. And when they testify, their testimony is just opinion. It can be taken or left without any weight whatsoever. If they are a party, then their testimony is given weight of evidence. And this is something that's important. And we'd like you to leave the zoning ordinance the way it, the zoning process the way it is so that people have an opportunity to participate if they are aggrieved as well as if they are taxpayers. Thank you very much.
I don't know whether I'm mediating, attempting to correct or what, but the Zoning Board in Philadelphia acts precisely the 201 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 same way the Zoning Board that you described acts. For example, if someone seeks a variance before the Zoning Board in Philadelphia, they have to prove hardship. The fact that the community would agree with the developer to waive the requirement of hardship would not be enough. So I'm just trying to indicate that the zoning boards exist for the purpose of enforcing the law as they understand the law with the courts being available if anybody feels that the law has not been correctly interpreted. It's the same in West Chester. To the extent you that do you not permit in West Chester, County because you're not a city of the first class, you don't permit a taxpayer, then I agree with Councilman DiCicco that we have broader rights. But I don't agree with Councilman DiCicco and, therefore, trying to reduce the rights of Philadelphians to have it conform with the lesser rights in another county. As the city of the first class, in our effort to meld together a city, which happened in the mid-1800s when all the little towns got together to form the City of Philadelphia, we now understand that what happens in one area affects all areas. And what you need is the greatest amount 202 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 of freedom for people to voice their views. They are not making the decisions. The discussion, every time it's presented by the proponents of this ordinance, it as if the presence of a party automatically dictates the decision. It doesn't. What it does do is to make it possible for all sides to be heard. And then the Zoning Board, or later on the court if necessary, makes the decision. I applaud your testimony today. You're the group that -- I associate the Housing Association Delaware Valley with Tony Lewis is the name because I've worked with him ever since I've been at City Council more than 30 years ago. And it's a great organization and it works in the interest of all the people of Philadelphia. And in my judgment, you're absolutely right. This bill 19 would take away very important basic rights of your association and its ability to protect the low-income and the minority groups in Philadelphia. It's a bad bill in my judgment and I hope that it does not pass through this committee or pass through City Council.
Thank you, Councilman 203 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Cohen.
Are there any efforts in Bucks County to add the language "any taxpayer" to your zoning code?
No, that's not what I asked you. What I asked you was, is there any effort --
It's not necessary in an area where the code is enforced by the Zoning Board. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Why don't you just answer the question. Is there any effort in Bucks County on your behalf or your organization's behalf or anybody on the Zoning Board to add the language "any taxpayer" to your zoning code to give the expansive rights that Philadelphians have, or allegedly have here, in Solebury Bucks, County? 'Cause let me tell you, I will sit here for hours and hour and I will take complaints and advice and criticism from people in this room who 204 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 have a right to criticize me and a right to be opposed to what I happen to stand or any issue, but it really gets old and it really gets tough from somebody who gets in their car and drives to Solebury every night to sit in here and lecture us on what it is that's good for this community, when in your own community, in your own neighborhood, "any taxpayer" doesn't apply.
If you don't want "taxpayer" in there, then you can take it out.
I'm talking about where you live. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Since you drive down 95 and are offended every day by the billboards and all the other stuff, why don't you have the same expansive issue in Solebury where you lay your head on the pillow every night?
Because you need a hardship for a variance in Solebury. You don't need one --
But any taxpayer doesn't have standing in Solebury, do they? 205 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
You don't need -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
You need it here but you don't need it there. I think it's a bit hypocritical for you to sit here and lecture us on something you don't even have in your own community.
I travel an hour to serve in a nonprofit. I'm paying taxes to you and I would hope that you're appreciative of folks who travel an hour on I-95 to get one-third of what their market value is working in a nonprofit in Philadelphia, advocating for the poor. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Anytime you decide to stay and save yourself that ride, you can go right ahead. Thanks.
I just want to 206 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 remind the members, please, we're really running behind schedule. This debate could go on until 4 o'clock tonight. 5
Well, maybe, maybe 6 till 2 o'clock in the morning, Madam President. 7
Because it's a very 10 important right that we're talking about.
I will certainly be happy to recess this so that we could hear the Committee of the Whole. There are people in the corridor that have been waiting. We could recess this until the Committee of the Whole has their public hearing. I am trying to be fair. We've had people waiting here since early this morning to testify. I'm going to ask the witnesses and the members of this committee to please try to be brief. Councilman Cohen.
Yes, I want to note that the Home Rule Charter, passed in the early '50s but drafted in the late '40s, specifically provides for the right of residents of nearby counties, of 207 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 all of the adjacent counties, to even be members of committees. The newspaper story recently as late as this morning with respect to a certain land deal points out that a person was chairman of the City Planning Commission, who lived in an adjoining county. People who pay taxes to the City have a legitimate interest to be interested in the City. As a matter of fact --
Councilmembers, I didn't come here as a member of Solebury Township to testify before you; I came before you as a member of the Housing Association of Delaware Valley, one of the oldest organizations in Philadelphia. We established your Department of Licenses and Inspections. Our cadre of citizen volunteer inspectors went walking around Philadelphia back at the turn of the century, looking for conditions that were hazardous to human life in dwellings and caused the formation of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. I'm coming here as a representative of agency that represents minorities, low-income people, people that have no one else to argue on their behalf or who may not be able to go before a Zoning Board and take an appeal for a matter that 208 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 adversely affects them. Thank you for listening to my testimony.
Yes, my name is Elizabeth Armour, and I want to thank you for allowing me to testify today. I'm here as a resident taxpayer, a business taxpayer, and a member of the Society Hill Civic Association. I am not going to try to repeat today the testimony that I gave at the March 12th hearing, I don't think it's necessary. Obviously, it's a matter of record and you've all read that record. I do want to state again that these proposed new amendments to Bill 629 really change nothing; they only reiterate the position. They want to legitimize the portion that somehow one taxpayer has more rights than another in the City of Philadelphia. We must protect the rights of individuals to be a part of zoning hearings that will affect. The same is true for community organizations and other representative groups. We feel that Bill 629 obviously does not do this. As 209 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 taxpayers, we really need to have a say on what happens in our community as taxpayers of the City of Philadelphia. If there are problems with the zoning process, I would suggest that we fix those problems. As Councilman Nutter has so cogently asked, there are several questions as to try to understand what the problem is. We are still here eleven weeks later and we have no answers to those questions. We have no facts that tell us what reality is at the present time. I would urge all of you just to say no. 14 This legislation is singularly damaging. It is incredulous that in Philadelphia, the Cradle of Democracy, that such a piece of legislation that places one person's rights above another is really even being considered. It must not be voted out of the committee. I have here several letters, which I hope you have too, from the Society Hill Civic Association firmly opposing Bill 629 in any form. I have another letter from the Greater Society Hill Condominium Council Association. This council of condominiums represents six high-rise buildings, 210 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 with over 4,000 members firmly opposing any form of Bill 629. I also have a letter from Washington Square Action Alliance, again firmly opposing any part of the Bill 629. And I will leave these for you for the record.
Thank you. They will be made a part of the record. Thank you.
Are there any questions of this witness? (No questions.)
Thank you very much. Is Kristen Davidson here? Jean Gavin. (Witness comes forward.)
I'm Jean Gavin. I'm a Fox Chase resident. When President Johnson build the interstate highways across American in the '60s, Lady Bird tried to beautify America at that same time by not allowing billboards and inviting American citizens to plant flowers and trees to 211 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 beautify America. Today, over 30 years later, Philadelphia is littered with huge, multiple billboards along our major and minor roadways, not only on I-95, but in Fox Chase, down the street from me, on Rhawn Street, there are billboards on the railroad, and when I go up Rhawn Street, there are billboards on the railroads up there, two different railroads. They seem to -- they treat a very cared-for community as a litter box. And wherever the billboards are, the grass is not mowed, nobody picks up trash. Before this committee votes on Bill 629, there should be a study of the effect of billboards on safety, as is being done with cell phone safety in cars. Both are distracting and dangerous. The billboard also destroys the Philadelphia skyline on I-95 and labels Philadelphia a slum city, especially as one drives from the airport. If studies are not feasible, then this committee should refer this question to the ballot this fall. Do you want billboards in Philadelphia, yes or no? should be the question. Let the voters decide.
Thank you. Any questions? 212 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (No questions.)
Stanley Krakower, Ashley Montague, and Norma Van Dyke. (Witnesses come forward.)
Madam Chair, my name is Stanley Krakower, and I have testified March the 12th, and I am not going to reiterate any of that testimony. I have two points that I think are significant that I want to make, and I also have a time problem and I know the Council does, the committee does, so I'm going to get right to the point. First of all, I heard it mentioned previously by Councilman DiCicco, and I appreciate this, that an effort was made to adopt or incorporate an amendment that I had suggested at the March hearings by adding the word "or." The problem is that the word was placed in a different place than I suggested, and the net effect is to not 213 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 improve it at all. Because what I had hoped to do was use the word "or" to make clear that the civic groups would not have to satisfy the aggrievement standard. And if you look at the proposed amendment that's before the committee now, it says, "or any aggrieved taxpayer, including as a matter of right, community groups," etc. My suggestion and it's in the minutes, the testimony from March the 12th, on pages 328 and 329 of that prior testimony, was that the word "or" substitute for the word "including," and that the word "or" follow the term "aggrieved" so that it is clear that the community groups do not have to satisfy the aggrievement standard. Using the word "or" as it is now and then using the term "aggrieved taxpayer" accomplishes nothing. We still have the problem that whether it's a community group or a taxpayer, you have to satisfy aggrievement. And I have one very important thing I want to talk to the committee about. I am involved in a case -- oh, I have a series of letters six of them. I wonder if I could have them brought up, if 214 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 there's a member of the staff that could bring these up. I only have six. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that all of the members of the committee would be here. But I think this is very significant. There's a little history of this letter. This is a letter from a law firm and a lawyer of that firm, Richard DeMarco, to the Zoning Board. And I think if the committee will give me just a moment, this exemplifies why, Councilman DiCicco, you have so many civic associations in opposition to this bill.
I think it's a letter that was sent out that told them they would be silenced forever. I don't think most people even were aware of this until that letter was sent.
Well, I don't know, I know about that letter, but I know about this letter. This is a case in which a party seeks a variance at a 15th and Chestnut Street, which, I respectfully submit, is in the heart of CCRA area, to insert a check-cashing agency inside an amusement arcade so that people can more readily cash their paychecks to put their funds into the amusement arcade. 215 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 It is prohibited by the zoning code and the applicant sought a variance. At the hearing before the Zoning Board, the CCRA testified in opposition as to the group known as Rittenhouse Row. Rittenhouse Row is a group of business persons in the Rittenhouse Square area. I represented both Rittenhouse Row as well as CCRA at that hearing. At the hearing, I testified that while I could not state how many residents live at 15th and Chestnut Street and could not identify any, but the boundaries of the CCRA encompass Broad Street to the Schuylkill River, Market Street to South Street, and the Chestnut Street and Rittenhouse Street area are right in the heart of it. I couldn't imagine a contest being made that 15th to 16th and Chestnut Street was not within an area of interest to the CCRA. However, however, the lawyer for the applicant wrote a letter to Mr. Kelly, this letter that you have, suggesting that the testimony of the Center City Residents Association and the Rittenhouse Row -- he didn't use the right terminology. It says based on the appendage of Bill 25 629 -- it hasn't been approved yet, it hasn't been 216 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 approved as of this moment, but based on Bill 629 pending, asked that the board disregard -- I'm looking at the second page. This is his conclusion. He asked the Zoning Board to disregard the testimony of CCRA and the Rittenhouse Association for lack of standing, because we did not prove to his satisfaction aggrievement, because aggrievement would require that we show somebody by name and identification who lives within the block of an area. You can't always do that at 16th and Chestnut Street.
No, I think you can, 'cause you have the Pennsylvania House at the southwest corner of 16th and Chestnut Street, but that issue aside --
Well, then what you're saying is it is a new burden. I strongly disagree with Miss Phillips. There is a new burden that we have never had that -- and when I say "we," I'm speaking for civic groups, including Bella Vista, Society Hill --
For the people who almost jumped out of their chairs, I suggested that there are residents who live at 15th and Chestnut in 217 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the Pennsylvania House -- not the Pennsylvania House. Louis Greenburg developed it. Whatever, it's on the southwest corner and there are residents.
No, no, no, I'm not saying that, but is there anything unusual about the request from an attorney who is trying to get a zoning application approved in front of the board to suggest to the board -- forget 629 and everything else -- that Frank DiCicco, who happens to be an ordinary citizen, who happens to maybe lives two blocks away, or whatever it is, doesn't have the right or shouldn't even be heard today to the board? They say to the board, You know, really what's it affect him, he doesn't live here. And doesn't despite the board make those decisions as to how far the net gets cast anyway?
But there's one big difference, Councilman, a major difference that rests in this bill. And please let me try to explain. It used to be, until we started dealing with 629, that if a zoning variance was sought that 218 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 was within the recognized boundaries of an established community group, if there was a variance sought in Bella Vista, and there was a variance sought in Manayunk, that if the Manayunk Civic Association showed up to oppose it, that association as a group had standing. And if the Bella Vista Civic Association, as in the case -- by the way, I must take an aside and thank you, Councilman, for your involvement in a matter where you have joined with the opposition by the community against a very bad stop-and-go, that your office been very, very helpful in Bella Vista, and I'd like to thank you for that. But there is a case where there was an opposition to standing, but if you pass 629 as it is now and you force the civic groups to prove aggrievement, which is brand-new, we never had to show aggrievement -- I disagree with Miss Phillips on that -- then the civic groups have a new added burden: They have to produce an individual member who lives within the block or so, who will say, I am a member and I oppose. And if you do that, then you no longer have any value to the civic group. The civic group 219 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 zoning committee means nothing because if nobody on the zoning committee lives within a block of where this is going on, you've weakened the civic group.
Again, I'm not an attorney and I had an attorney prepare this proposed amendment. Doesn't the language "or any aggrieved taxpayer," including as a matter of right a community or neighborhood group or organization, doesn't that cover that issue?
It's a matter of linguistics. That may be what you want to do.
All right. You can do it in two ways. Either just take out the word "aggrieved," or, at a minimum, take out the word "including" and use "or" where including is.
So it reads "or, as a matter of right, a community or neighborhood group" so that you don't impose the aggrievement on the 220 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 community group.
But let me see if I hear you correctly. You're not suggesting the first part about what I'm about to say, but I'm suggesting I leave in "or any aggrieved taxpayer, or as a matter of right" --
And the community group doesn't have to own property. I know very few community groups that of themselves own property.
I thought that's the way I heard -- what I heard you say at the prior hearing. I should have called you, I apologize. I wanted the word "or," I put the worth "or" in. Obviously, it was not in the right place that you had suggested and I apologize for that.
Yeah. See, the difference is very clearly, if the community group 221 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 owns property, they'll be satisfied, but how many community groups own property? Very few.
So in your professional opinion, as someone who is obviously opposed to the bill as it was originally presented, you are comfortable -- and I'm not putting words in your mouth, but you would be comfortable if I would change the proposed amendment to read after the words "or any aggrieved taxpayer" "or as a matter of right."
All right. Number two is citywide groups like the Foundation for Architecture that testified previously, SCRUB, many, many other City -- Friends of Fairmount Park, Friends of the Schuylkill River, which is involved in a matter in Councilman Nutter's district, with which we are both very familiar, which covers more than one community running up and down the Schuylkill River. Well, I would say this: Those concerns I testified to in depth in March, and I don't think 222 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 I have to repeat them, I don't want to take the time that is so limited to and I appreciate what you've given to me. Those I've testified to in March. The new one, which is simply preserving the rights of the community groups within their own area, I think you would solve with the change that we just discussed.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Mr. Krakower, I didn't get the last -- I'm not sure that I'm absolutely crystal-clear on the last part that you talked about. You made reference to these other groups, whether it's Foundation for Architecture or some of those types of groups. Where do they fit in in the -- I understand the first part of the discussion, the comma, the "or" and striking "including," and I know what that does. What happens with the rest of that sentence as it relates to the kinds of groups that you just mentioned?
All right. As I 223 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 discussed in March, Councilman Nutter, those groups are not helped; in fact, they are cut out as a result of this amendment. Those groups would have a difficult time getting appeals or even being heard at the Zoning Board, because, Councilman Nutter, as you stated previously, I think it has to be reiterated: If a group has no right to appeal, they lose a lot of weight before the Zoning Board. You also lose weight with the developer, because what interest is there in a developer to negotiate provisos with a group, which it knows is impotent as far as its appeals rights are concerned? I usually negotiate with people from a position of strength. I want to know what the other guy can do for me or to me. So that type of group would have to show that they're aggrieved.
But doesn't normally -- and you've been around a long time. I think I met you back in 1989, when I was --
Well, you and I were on opposite sides then. I was opposing, I think, a 29-unit apartment building in my 224 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 neighborhood. I'm not sure if you represented that case, but you may have been representing somebody --
I represented Bella Vista. You were zoning chair of Bella Vista. We were on the same side.
No, no, no. 10 Italian Market Civic, which I formed. That was my association. You have elected officials, don't you, I mean, that you -- if you have a community group that doesn't have the wherewithal to file all of these appeals, people have the right to go to their councilperson, their state senator, their state legislator, their congressman. I mean, everybody has an elected official who represents them. They may not necessarily like who that person is, but there are elected officials. And to the best of my knowledge, at the local level, there are no less than four people who represent every person in every neighborhood: congressman, state senator, state legislator, and a councilperson. A minimum of four. So those are people that generally get involved in the process of applications. 225 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Usually you're limited to your councilperson right here, the people sitting right in front of me.
But I don't know. As a practice for me, there aren't many times where I'm opposing as an elected official, where I oppose an application that I've not asked that the legislator and the state senator in the district which we overlap join with me with that opposition. And I assume that the other councilpeople do something similar.
But, anyway, Councilman Nutter, if I can just get back to your point. 226 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Those groups that are citywide, under this amendment, even as Councilman DiCicco and I just discussed it, would have to prove that they are aggrieved. That is very difficult to do if you're a citywide organization to show that your organization has a member who lives within a block or two of whatever it is and if it's a development on the river or in the park or on I-95. If it's something which you don't have immediate neighborliness, showing aggrievement can be difficult. I'm not going to say it can't be done, but it's going to be difficult. It's going to impose a burden on those groups and their members, which they presently do not have. I'm not going to say it's insurmountable but it is going to be an added burden. And I only could suggest that the Council consider, is it necessary, do you really need it? To what extent does the current language "or any taxpayer" really impose a problem? In fact, I'd like to ask -- and as I told you before, I have nothing to do with SCRUB. You met Mr. Stretton and he represents SCRUB, I don't. I would like to pose the question: Outside of billboard signs, have you really had an 227 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 example that you can point to of outsiders coming into an area to usurp the local community's influence on a zoning matter?
Yeah. The attorney who represents Superfresh, aside from the issue that Chef's market had, the attorney who represents Superfresh represents all of the Superfreshes in the area. And that attorney was concerned that the Superfresh at the corner of Tenth and South was going to suffer a significant loss of business as a result of the Fresh Fields opening. And then as a result of that, used the "any taxpayer" status to file the appeal to the Zoning Board. And by the way, somewhere between six months and a year was spent with the community group who lives within the general vicinity of the proposed Fresh Fields, talking about issues of lighting, parking issues, on ingress and egress into 228 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the parking garage, the materials that were used on the building, and a whole host of other things that my office -- I was a party to in the community. And we agreed to support the application with the certain provisos. But the attorney who represented Superfresh filed the appeal under the "any taxpayer" status.
And that probably wasn't his good-faith agenda, the provisos. I think I'll agree with you, but --
And in my proposed amendment, when I use the word "including," for me, it was an opportunity to make sure that the groups understood that they were included.
I'm not taking rights away. You keep saying that, Councilman Cohen. You have been very successful in instilling fear in the citizens of this city that they are 229 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 going to be silenced, and you know me better, you know me better. You opposed every tax bill I ever put on the table initially because people don't deserve tax breaks, you say, and I believe they do, so you and I have totally different philosophical --
Let me get back to Councilman Nutter, but let me just say one thing. If you have two cases -- let's say I agree with you, I'll concede to you that Superfresh, Fresh Fields situation was one, and maybe the billboard signs on I-95 was another. If you have two instances where there was, you know, outside involvement in 47 years, I think it's been since this "or any taxpayer" language was put in --
But the cat's out of the bag, and I believe it could be used more frequently.
Okay. I guess where you and I respectfully disagree, Councilman, is I think it will be used more frequently to silence those who should have the right to speak than it will be used for speaking by those who should remain silent.
And you and I obviously -- 230 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (Applause.)
If I believed that -- and obviously we have a difference of opinion. If I believed that, I would never have introduced this bill because I spend hours and hours every week involved in community groups, and you know that 'cause you've been around with me a long time.
I do respectfully disagree, but I have absolutely no question about your good-faith devotion to your constituents.
As a District Councilperson, people, as they say, are in my face in. When you're at large, sometimes you can kind of get away from stuff and you could pick and choose your battles. I can't, I'm in every battle in my district. And every battle I'm involved with, I make sure the community's at the table along with me. So I can spread the word of fear throughout the city and make everybody excited and I get the votes and I bring people out, and everybody's going to think I'm fighting for them. I'm not doing that for that reason. If anything, those people who want to walk away from this hearing today and whatever happens with this bill will think that I've done 231 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 something to silence them and they'll probably vote against me. So it's not a very popular bill 4 politically for me. At large, it could be very popular to take the other position.
Okay. I just think that it hurts more than it cures. It's like the side-effects of a medicine, that the medicine can help something but the side effects are ten times worse. And that's what I'm afraid of here, that what it will cure is going to be less of a cure than the bad side effects.
That happens often with me. I've gotten used to it and I just wait. Do you have any brief suggestions on how to possibly address the concern, the second part of the concern that you raised with regard to some of the very well-known, organized, legitimate citywide groups and organizations that may have --
I do, Councilman, and I've given this a lot of thought. Leave the bill 25 alone as it is. Leave it the way it is. 232 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (Applause.)
Thank you. If I may be excused, I've got other places I've got to run.
Hi. I'm Ashley Montague. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk. I'm a resident and homeowner in Philadelphia and I'm also now a volunteer with SCRUB. I was actually prompted to become a volunteer by the reporting on Bill 629, which really did concern me. And I'd like to say that as a homeowner and resident of this city for eight years, I'm as interested as anyone else in economic development. As I understand 629, it will limit the ability of taxpayers and community groups to have legal standing on zoning issues. The word "aggrieved," as I understand it, places an onerous legal burden on 233 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 anyone appealing a Zoning Board decision. And while I believe that it's important to encourage economic development in this city, we need to balance the needs of developers with those of citizens and taxpayers. Let's not forget that homeowners and taxpayers have made a substantial investment in this city. Nearly every week I read in the paper something about how difficult it is for Philadelphia to attract new residents and to hold on to people who currently live here. Let's make sure there's a level playing field in this town, one that's fair to all investors, the most important of whom are City residents who pay taxes. I think the timing of this hearing sends a bad message to current and would-be residents. This bill will dramatically alter the current code. It should not be passed without due consideration and input from City residents and taxpayers. This hearing, coming as it does at the end of the long weekend, makes it appear as though Council doesn't want citizens to comment on a bill purporting to be in their interest. I hope that if the Rules Committee passes 629 today, the full Council will 234 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 seek out the opinion of community groups and residents. More than 200 years ago, Adam Smith in his monumental work, "The Wealth of Nations," noted that open, responsive government and economic development go hand in hand. I hope the Rules Committee will be remember his wisdom when considering Bill 629. Thank you.
I want to congratulate you on your statement and to ask you whether you had any examples of your concerns.
Concerns about this amendment lessening the rights of people in Philadelphia.
Well, I guess I feel that, you know, I want a sense that there is a sort of due process, that the average taxpayer gets as fair a shake as a developer. And I think, you know, I agree with you, we need economic development, and 235 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 I'm all for that, you know. I own a home and I feel that like that's potentially going to, you know, benefit me if it's the right kind of development. But I think part of the puzzle is also taxpayers and residents, people like me, people who aren't going to build a big project but who are going to live here and pay taxes. You know, I say pay taxes very emphatically because, in fact, you know, taxes are really high here. And so I sort of feel, you know, even a little bit entitled as a taxpayer. So I think it's important to keep the process open to bring citizens into these kinds of -- to allow citizens to participate in these kinds of decisions because we don't just need developers; we need people who live here too.
Yes. Well, the reason I raise this is, this, in my experience, has been the most divisive bill that I've ever seen come before City Council, and that it has aroused community groups like no other issue has in many a year is clear. Community groups had kind of relaxed, they felt City Council was friendly. And then suddenly, they discovered that City Council, 236 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 instead of being friendly, was considering things to exclude them from participating. It's even gone so far that taxpayers who hitherto have been really worshipped by members of City Council, suddenly if they're nonresidents, we're kind of spitting at them. Up until now, we thought it was very important, even the framers of the Home Rule Charter thought it so important to maintain close relations with the adjoining counties that there was a special provision put in to permit people in surrounding counties to be members and even chairpeople of very important commissions and bodies in the City of Philadelphia. And I just think that the proponents of this legislation really have not fully considered the dangers that they're threatening, because people are going to be heard in the City of Philadelphia, and I think they'll do it on their own, but I will also be participating in helping them to do it on their own and to help them understand that you've got to be vigilant and fight for your rights, because if you're not, don't trust anybody, don't trust elected officials, don't trust anybody with your people's right. People who are not elected to 237 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 office have to be ready at all times. And if this bill passes, I think the people of Philadelphia have only two resorts. One is the courts, but never depends too much on them. The other is to make sure that every community in the City gets thoroughly organized to take action to see that their rights are fully protected. You know, I congratulate my colleague to my right. I guess he's on the right idealogically as well as physically today, but I congratulate him because he has done a great deal to wake up the understanding that only constant vigilance ever ensures liberty. And that's true at a national level true, it's true at an international level, and it's true very much at a local level. And I congratulate you for taking the time and spending the whole day here, waiting to testify. I think your words very, very important.
I've been around here in Council almost as long as Councilman Cohen. 238 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 And it gives me points of comparison between what we had and what we didn't have. And when I think back to the Council of 1967, which was the first one in which I was elected, and I look at what we have today, believe me, there no comparison. Today we have come so far, we've done so many things, we have such a powerful body, that it's pretty much all for one and one for all. It has a nice ring to it. And I say that this is very important because I can't agree with David at all. I would not ever regard this as one of the most divisive pieces of legislation that's come before us. There's lots of things that are divisive, and over the years, lots of votes were pretty close. Some were even determined by one or two votes in the final run, but we are careful to usually not (inaudible) anything unless we're pretty sure we have the votes. That's true the legislative bodies anywhere. And that may be the case with what we have here before us. But I would not in any way want to have those of us who do or those of us who don't support these bills allow it to enter into great, good opinion that this city and our management of the 239 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Philadelphia City Council.
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record.
The next witness was Norma Van Dyke, then Fred Maurer.
Thank you. My name is Janet Benedetto and I am from the Overbrook Farms section of Philadelphia, and for eight years, I served as the zoning chair of the Overbrook Farms Club, which is the oldest, continuously-functioning and incorporated civic association in the City of Philadelphia. In the spirit of collegiality, I have been asked by others in civic associations in Philadelphia who were not able to present themselves here today physically because of the short notice on 240 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 today's meeting to read letters that they have written to the Council. And I also come bearing copies of the letters of people who were here at the last hearing who were not able to be heard because of the time constraints.
Those items will be entered into the record. Copies will be given to the stenographer.
Councilman Cohen, I'm really sorry, but I know that we're very much behind on our schedule. This hearing has gotten a lot of time today and a lot of time in March, and I think that submitting the letters and information to the record is appropriate.
Well, I think it's important that everybody hear the views of the different groups.
Anyone who wants to hear the views of the different groups can read the record when it's finalized. I think that we've been given very much leeway for everyone to express opinions. We would like to hear the testimony of this witness but to simply to sit here and read 241 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 letters that could be read upon reading the record seems to be a waste of time, and there's a --
Well, I think it's important for the members of the audience --
The Chair at this point rules that we would like to have the testimony and we will submit those letters to the record. Thank you.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you and I apologize. I understand we need to get through this and everyone's been given ample time to testify. As a matter of fact, many of the people who are here testifying today actually testified in March, so this is somewhat redundant.
Councilman, I would really appreciate it -- I don't -- I raised my voice once today and I really didn't want to do that then and I really don't want to do it again. It's a long day, everybody's going to be heard. And I would 242 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 really appreciate your cooperation in this regard and allow this witness to give her testimony. Please proceed.
Thank you, Councilman Kenney. The letters that I handed up are letters of information that would have been presented at the March hearing. If you would, may I a read a few letters that I have in front of me or may I at least enter into the record the names of the individuals and the organizations that have given me these letters to read.
Thank you very much. The first one is a letter from Forest Aegiano from the Wissahickon Neighbors Association, and that's addressed to Councilwoman Verna. The second letter is from Patricia Imperato from the Pennsylvania Resources Council, Incorporated, and that is directed to the Council-at-large. The next letter is to Councilwoman Verna from Tim Travers, from the Overbrook Farms Club in 243 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the 34th Ward. The next letter is addressed to Councilperson DiCicco from the St. Timothy's School Library, and sister's name is enclosed in the body of the letter. The next letter from Steve Zettler at 514 Pine Street, concerning the wording of the amendment. And the final letter that I have is from the Upper Northwood Community Council in Northeast Philadelphia, from Lorraine Brill.
Yes, Councilman Cohen. I thought I was almost through.
These letters that you have referred to, can you tell us basically what the content is. Do they support this amendment, do they oppose it? What do they do?
Thank you for your question, Councilman Cohen. The letters in content address the issue 244 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 of billboards and being against billboards. They also reflect in content most poignantly, I would say, the issue of the language of the amendment and what that means as far as free speech and people being able to participate in the process. I think the -- my opinion is the sub text of all of the letters are from the point of view of people being kept out.
No, they are not. They're far from form letters. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Councilman, you have a package. Every member of the committee has a package of letters to read.
Well, I think it's important also for the audience to hear it.
Well, the audience 245 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 dwindling at this point, and the record could be read, and I would appreciate it if you could sum up -- I think you've summed up your testimony and I appreciate it.
Okay, the letters that you have, they are old letters. They were addressed to the issue in March. The letters that I'm going to hand up are the letters for the issue today.
Thank you very much. Fred Maurer, please. And Dr. Isaac Djerassi here? (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Fred Maurer and I testified as a taxpayer in the March public hearing. I have participated in Zoning Board hearings and foresaw that the proposed amendment will harm our citizens' due consideration process. It will disfranchise me at all zoning hearings at which I have a vital interest. If the amendment had been in effect over 246 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the past years, it would have negated virtually all community representation on a plurality of cases. Very few cases would ever have had a full hearing. And instead of helping neighborhoods, our communities would have suffered because representation rights were denied the benefit of a full and fair hearing of anyone with an interest for justice. The elimination of taxpayer rights on spot zoning cases will satisfy these big special interests and will impose hardships onto defenseless communities and this political City machinery a special interest. This ordinance is not intended to focus on community rights; it focuses on defending the noncommunity special interests, their right to override the defenseless communities in court. I sat through the entire March hearing and heard excellent testimony from citizens. That hearing demonstrated to everyone listening that the proposal was wrong. The public hearing convinced me that City Council should reject the proposal forever. The public testimony was overwhelming, and it should have humbled the presenters. City Councilmembers at the hearing showed a shameful hostility to public testimony, with an arrogance 247 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 intended to intimidate and discredit witnesses. The shameful conduct of two Councilmen should have been discipline instead of rewarding them with a second attempt to bamboozle citizens. The present amendment has disregarded all public testimony. I see they do not accept any of my testimony and they have never attempted to satisfy or respect any of the public comments. I recall how this amendment was awkwardly brought into the hearing. There was a tortured semblance of an argument that not relevant. It did not come from public testimony; it was the words of presenters in an attempt to salvage their personal interests and could not satisfy public interest. The amenders could not find an adequate expression to amend their perceived flaws at the hearing. They still have not found the right words for an amendment long afterwards. What is given here today is a hogwash of indefinite terms full of vagueness and misdirection. It isl immature and will burden our statutes and abuse our court processes. The advocates argue that funding benefits of cash and property are derived in zoning 248 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 cases and flow back into the public community while public testimony cited that past promises were never fulfilled afterwards. Those off-the-record conditions are bribes, and they are not enforceable, but the zoning laws to the community is perpetual. If such reward packages are legal, then it should be written out and made official as public documents. These bribes may be hidden business expenses before the IRS, but they are income to the City and should either go into the City budget or be taxable. Why the presenters insist on abusing us with this fallacy of dreams is suspicious. No real harm's occurred in years of zoning experience. 15 The private harms are the billboard industry and 16 political donations. 17 The case for zoning amendments was not 18 supported in public testimony, and its deficits were 19 obvious. City Council had a chance to reconsider 20 but did not act intelligently since March. Before any amendment is considered, it should be accompanied with full hearings and findings of facts to demonstrate the failure of the law, but it was not done because it is not broke. I ask, what happened in the last two 249 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 months to dignify this consideration?
Did the facts change, or are you buying votes? I recall we made a new City Charter and adopted zoning laws to get rid of the old corrupt political machine. There's still much corruption driven by manipulation of the system. Money is driving political behavior, and I don't want to return to those old days of graft and corruption. Those old days still haunt us like the sinking houses of Logan. Our city auditor is very busy because we have an intentional corruption. So I ask, why do you want to sponsor more corrupting practices? I think our Councilmen should accept the discipline of reformed charter and keep the zoning law intact. It is your pledged duty. Please stop this racketeering of our public policy. I recommend the Rules Committee should deny the amendment.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Dr. Djerassi, Raydell Fisher Janet Calderwood. (Witnesses come forward.)
Could I just quickly go through the list to see with a hand raise as to 250 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 who is still here. Is Mr. Richard Lampert here? Rosie Adams? Siobhan Gephart, Hal Schirmer, Ajay Creshkoff, John Blickensderfer, Jerry Boris, Ann Agee, Max Berger, and Joanne Phillips. James Kates, you're here. Ruth is here. Okay, whoever's left, we'll make sure that -- everyone who's standing has standing. We will get to you as soon as we get through the list.
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
I'm Raydell Fisher, and I represent the Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition. I did testify at length during the March 12th hearing, and I will not repeat any of that testimony. I am here to respectfully request an amendment in a letter that I sent by fax to all members of the Rules Committee, and I'm asking for this amendment just for clarity so that it wouldn't be taken literally what I believe to be a mistake, and that's from writing so early in the morning to get these letters out on such short notice. If you will refer to paragraph 2 --
I'm sorry, I don't 251 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 know if I have it here.
We can have it copied. If you read it into the record, then we'll have a copy and distribute it.
Sure. In paragraph 2 of the third sentence, it reads, "In every instance, the response was to leave Bill No. 629 on the books just the way it is." And I would like that to be corrected so that it wouldn't be interpreted literally to say that, "In every instance, the response was to leave the code on the books just the way it is." Thank you.
Okay, thank you. And we'll have that copied and distributed so that people are aware.
Thank you very much. 252 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
We me is Yvonne Hicks. She's also a member of the Zoning and Code Enforcement Committee for the Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition. I'm not sure if she has comment that she wants to make.
My name is Yvonne Hicks. And I'm just making a comment and observation as a private citizen and being in the Hawthorne community for quite a few years. As far as developers and community people, we've had developers come into our community, and with the rights of eminent domain, take over, I think, what was supposed to be initially 250 homes. After Councilman DiCicco and our community group got together, we decided we want development in our community and we decided -- they deleted, I think, around 50 or so of more of those homes. We want development in the community, but it is hard to deal with developers that have lots of money and community groups that don't have a lot. From what I've been hearing today as a citizen of Philadelphia, all these community groups 253 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 seem to be in opposition to this bill, but our Councilpeople are considering this bill to go through. So I'm wondering who's representing who. You're telling us to go to the people who are supposed to represent us, but when we go to you and tell you do not accept this, you know, we're not getting an effective response. I mean, some of these community groups, we've only been formed like two years or so in opposition -- because we had opposition to something that was going on in our community, and people like Bella Vista, which is one of our mentors with our Zoning and Code Enforcement Committee that we have now, they're in opposition to it and a lot of others, you know, that are right around us. Washington Square West, Society Hill, Center City. These community civic groups are telling you that no, no, no, no, no. There has to be some type of substance in that. Right now in the Hawthorne community, why I'm so suspicious of this particular bill is that the developers now, we don't know if it's a zoning issue or it's not a zoning issue, because we weren't formed at the time that this thing went 254 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 through. They're doing a thing call "dynamic compaction," which is causing seismatic activity in the whole neighborhood shaking our homes every minute as though a earthquake is coming. There are cracks in people's walls. One community block has a three-foot sink hole. We have hired engineer engineers to come in and look at the other cracks and fissures in our homes, and we have met with the developers and the developers have said, None of your homes are shaking, you know, nothing is happening. And then we talked to L&I, we had various meetings various people where we invited various people out, and they said, Well, this has never been done in a city, it's been done in areas where there has been garbage dumps or more rural areas but never in a city. So it's suspicious to me that, you know, we are community groups, and right now, the community is coming together and there's money being donated for engineers and lawyers, and various people are looking into this particular matter, but it seems awfully strange that this is a highly developing stage in Philadelphia, and the communities want to be protected against such things 255 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 as these developers coming in and just kind of destroying their communities without the communities having an effective input in what is going on. I would love to get the support of other community civic groups to help us out with this thing so to make sure that nothing like this will ever occur again in the City of Philadelphia, not just in our specific community. And if this bill is going to hinder any of those -- anything like that going through, I'm in opposition to it. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you. Is Mr. Lampert here or whoever's representing East Falls. (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Elizabeth Lowe. I'm here on behalf Janet Calderwood, who could not make it today, and I will speaking on her behalf, as well as Rittenhouse Row.
Okay. Please proceed. 256 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I represent Rittenhouse Row, which is a destination marketing business organization of over 300 members from the Avenue of the Arts to 21st Street, between Spruce and Market Streets, all of whom are taxpayers and many of whom are residents of Center City. Combined, these business owners pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in City taxes each year, if not millions. The Board of Director of Rittenhouse Row has had one meeting with Councilman DiCicco to review our concerns that our standing as a business organization and our due process is being taken away by Bill 629. Currently, the right to appeal Zoning Board decisions requires standing. At present, standing can be based on aggrieved status or taxpayer status. By adding the word "aggrieved" to the word "taxpayer," the separate concept of standing as a taxpayer is effectively eliminated. Case law has already construed aggrieved in ways that limit the ability to be standing on this concept. It is virtually impossible for a group such as Rittenhouse Row to be aggrieved because the requirement of actual direct, substantial and 257 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 immediate injury is defined in part as unique to an individual and not an injury common to our over 300 members. Further, the attempt to protect the standing of groups, as defined in (7)(c) is not a satisfactory compromise, but even if it were, groups such as Rittenhouse Row would not be protected because (7)(c) specifically excludes groups that are composed primarily of businesses and commercial enterprises. There is really no clear solution that standing based on aggrieved status will be far more limited than standing based on taxpayer status. I would like to put in addition to my testimony that Rittenhouse Row would like business organizations to be included as part of the list of people who are entitled to appeal zoning issues. We would recommend that you might include business organizations without the word "aggrieved" proceeding, just as you discussed doing for community organizations. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Please identify yourself for the record. 258 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
My name is Marjorie Greenfield, and I am Vice President of East Falls Community Council. I have chaired its zoning and land use committee for the last three or four years. I am here today in Mr. Lampert's absence. I would second that last --
I would concur with that last proposal. East Falls -- let me tell you a little bit Community Council, and we did not testify before, I believe. We are dedicated to improving the quality of life for all residents of East Falls. We represent the community at large. We are open to membership, open to anyone who lives in East Falls, whether they rent or whether they own. We work very closely with the East Falls Business Association, which is not represented here today, and the Development Corporation. We are all working together to improve the quality of life throughout East Falls, and particularly to revitalize Ridge Avenue Midvale Avenue strip. From what I see today, that activity is inconsistent and will be hurt by the proposed bill. 259 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 It was my understanding that this Council was dedicated to revitalizing neighborhoods, that it was dedicated to ensuring stability of neighborhoods -- we have a stable neighborhood -- that it was dedicated to ensuring that there would be economic development in a way which was consistent to benefit all of the neighborhoods. What this bill does is tell me, because I live five or six or seven blocks away from that commercial strip, that I don't have a taxpayer interest in commenting on what's going to happen down there in terms of zoning. It does, under the traditional definitions, which are going to be incorporated into this bill as being affected or involved. Now, I also happen to have moved my law firm from Center City to Ridge Avenue, so maybe, but maybe not, would I qualify on that basis. It certainly gives me a property interest 'cause I have a lease down there, but I don't know whether it would qualify me. We have an active zoning committee. We get involved in many cases which are brought before the board. I have not experienced any issues of 260 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 standing being raised there. However, I do know that there are times when we can't be there, and we may have a neighbor in the community who has an interest which needs to be protected, and that may be may not live that block -- on that particular block, and that person should have a right as a taxpayer to be heard. That person may disagree with what the Community Council does, that person should have a right to be heard. Many of the things which happen in our community which are zoning issues relate to the quality of life for all of us. They affect what's going to happen to that commercial strip and whether we are going to be able to shop in our own neighborhood or whether we have to go, as we do now, for the most part, across the river to Bala Cynwyd, which does not help this city, over to Manayunk, Roxborough, Andorra, or Chestnut Hill. We'd like to be able to have control over what's happening overall in our neighborhood, and the only way we're going to get that is if taxpayers can come in without proving under the current standard for "aggrieved" that we live next door or within a block. That just is not going to work. 261 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 And I might tell you that I cannot believe that anybody seriously considers that this is in any way going to unclog the courts. If this is passed, it is going to create an additional level of issue, which will then go up on appeal and stall things all the more. I can tell you as an attorney that I have seen that happen in other contexts, and it's going to happen here. I do consider that this bill will be a fuller employment bill for lawyers, because even as a Community Council, we are going to have to have lawyers to handle our zoning appeals all the time, and I can't do it all the time as a volunteer. It's going to make it very expensive for all of the community organizations. It isn't going to help anything and it's going to make it more difficult for any aggrieved citizen to be able to afford to take his or her grievance to the Zoning Board and be heard because they're going to be made to jump through hoops.
And that is not an appropriate approach. I think we're using a sledge hammer here to deal with what may have been legitimate concerns, but this is not the way to get at it. 262 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak to the issue that you raised, or the example that you used about creating economic development in the City and people having to go outside the City limits. I don't shop outside the City unless I'm on vacation. That's a fact.
My friends don't even bring up shopping subjects with me because I know they go to Deptford Mall and they don't want to hear me take off on them that they should keep that money in their community. But you were here earlier, I believe, when I spoke about the issue of the Fresh Fields, and I don't want to beat a dead horse, but there is an example where a community group who wanted a Fresh Fields, they wanted to have the ability to go to that type of establishment to shop. There is another Fresh Fields around 20th and Pennsylvania.
But they didn't 263 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 want to travel that far --
Let me finish my point. The community group, organization, the neighbors who lived blocks away, Wash West, which represents folks from Broad Street East to Eighth Street, from Bainbridge Street, I believe, as far north as Spruce or Locust, somewhere in that vicinity, represented the community, and they agreed with the developer on all of those things I spoke about, and I'm not going to belabor the record anymore, but an outsider who happens to be an attorney who represents a competitor across the street --
-- by well over a year. And I'm serious, I'm not exaggerating. We 264 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 were that far away from Fresh Fields saying -- they said, you know what, we're spending tens of thousands of legal dollars to fight for the right to develop a store in a community that the community wants, but a nonresident who is a taxpayer is preventing us from doing that.
Councilman, I understand, and that my sympathies go out to Fresh Fields. I think in the long run, they will do well and make money.
And I hear what you're saying. You're saying that there was an abuse of the process on one occasion, and maybe even on two occasions --
May I respond to the question that I think you're asking. I hear you. It may have been unfortunate, but we do not deprive -- in the criminal context, we do not deprive people of their right to counsel because some lawyers misbehave in defending them, and we don't deprive the citizens and the taxpayers of their 265 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 right to be heard because some lawyers and other taxpayers abuse their rights, because the greater good is served by protecting all of us, even though some of us may on some occasion abuse our rights. (Applause.)
We have entered into agreements with people who wanted to do things in our community, we've put provisos on the record, we've been burned, and we are fighting those now, because those provisos, even though they are a part of the record at the board and a part of the basis for the granting of the variance, have been ignored. And we are now fighting that, a major battle, which I don't know whether you're aware of it, and I'm not going to go into it here, but we're fighting those battles every day. I have one other comment. I understand the process, obviously, of getting provisos and getting them on the record, but I have a fundamental inability to comprehend how it makes it okay if somebody makes a donation to a community group for the most laudable purpose to then allow that person to break the law. And I don't care how laudable the purpose is, whether it's school lunch, rec center, 266 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 which should, I agree, be funded by the City, or anything else. If the law says that that applicant may not do something, I don't think a donation of a $150,000 or a million dollars --
-- makes it right. And, therefore, I am distressed to hear, Councilman, and I'm not attacking you personally and I never heard it before and I know nothing about the billboard organization, though I certainly am not a fan of billboards, I have never contributed to them, I don't know Mr. Stretton personally -- he happens to be a member of the bar, so am I. But I could not countenance or counsel any client of mind to enter into that kind of agreement. I'd rather turn the money down. And that really bothers me because that says you can buy your way out of complying with the law. And whether it's above board or behind the scenes, I think that's wrong.
Rosie Adams. Siobhan Gephart. Hal Schirmer. 267 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Siobhan Gephart and I'm the Secretary of the Tacony Civic Association.
And I'm here on behalf of all of the residents of Tacony. We are very concerned about this bill. Many of the points I'm going to make have been already made, so I will keep it brief. Obviously, we're concerned with phrase "aggrieved taxpayer." As an officer of this organization, we know how hard it is to get people to participate in civic organizations, and if residents of the City now have to go through an additional, very difficult step to take part in the zoning process, we know that it will limit -- it will further limit the amount of people who choose to get involved.
I'm sorry, 'cause this keeps coming up, and I mean no disrespect, but if you could explain the additional burden. I'm still trying to understand what the additional 268 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 burden, the additional obstacle is 'cause it's very difficult to understand that.
Until now, anyone who was a taxpayer could go no the Zoning Board and oppose an application for a variance. That's not going to be true now. And I can understand why you would want to limit people that are really abusing the system, but this is going to affect residents of the City who now have to say, Well, I am aggrieved because I live there, whereas that was understood before.
But your an organization and you understand it will not be hampered in any way from opposing any development zoning change in your particular area.
The current language does lump us in with the aggrieved taxpayers, which was going to be the other point that I make, in that we feel that we may in the future have to prove that we're aggrieved.
Not in Tacony. In Tacony, you would have standing based on your being the Tacony Civic Association and representing the neighbors who live there. 269 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I don't understand why Council is having such difficult in understanding about an obstacle. Anybody who really knows anything about community organizations knows that people in the community have all kinds of problems. It's very difficult to get them active and participate, yet that's the (indiscernible) of city government. And when you put an obstacle in and compel people to live right close to where some problem exists or rule them out of order, that's creating an enormous obstacle.
I'll stop asking legitimate probative questions, and you stop making speeches, and we'll probably be able to get through it. So I apologize. I won't ask any more 270 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 questions. Please proceed.
Okay. We are not convinced that the language of this bill will give residents of neighborhoods automatic standing but will give civic associations automatic standing. And when it comes to civic associations, one of our main concerns is the language that defines an organization. It directs you to read subsection (7)(c), and that reads, "A community or neighborhood group or organization shall be a group or organization comprised primarily of tenants and property owners who reside in the vicinity of the property which is the subject of the zoning appeal." This is vague language. There's no 17 definition of "in the vicinity." Left undefined, that phrase's meaning could change on a case-by-case basis to benefit anyone. The Tacony Civic Association represents the best interests of the entire neighborhood of Tacony. And until now, that was always recognized by the Zoning Board. We're not convinced that that's not going to change. We're also concerned about issues that 271 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 will affect -- or matters, I should say, that will affect more than one community. Where I live, some of the communities are very small -- Wissinoming, Mayfair. Sometimes there are people who live in Tacony that are so close to Frankford that they're not -- I mean Mayfair that they're not sure -- they, in all honestly, think they live in Mayfair. That's how close together we are. A recycling plant for tires was recently put, or is going to be put in Holmesburg. Any pollution, air pollution, that comes from us is going to affect us. Would we have standing in that matter? Air pollution doesn't respect neighborhood boundaries. That is another concern of ours. And after the initial uproar that followed introducing this bill, which simply removed the word "taxpayer" from the language, our officers consulted with members of City Council over our concerns, and we were assured by Councilman O'Neill that a clause would be added that in his wards will give civic groups an automatic right to appeal. That is not how the language is worded. And overall, we feel that the language of the bill is too vague and leaves too many 272 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 questions unanswered. History has shown that legislation of this nature is usually abused by those in power -- the legislators, business owners, or corporations. Thus, it is the position of the Tacony Civic Association that until more concrete language is added to Bill 629 that adequately answers all of these questions and fully empowers the residents of Philadelphia and the groups that represent them to protect the beauty and quality of life in their neighborhoods, that this bill should not be voted out of committee.
Good afternoon. My name is Hal Schirmer. I'm the Treasurer for the Friends of the Manayunk Canal. I'm reading in the testimony for Darlene Messina. In the interest of getting everybody through, I'm just going to quick hit about three or four paragraphs. Friends of the Manayunk Canal oppose amendments to Bill 620 specifically, we object to the "aggrieved taxpayer" language. The amended bill 24 is a clear move to limit citizens and community groups exercise of their existing rights to fully 273 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 participate in the representative process of City government. The proposed amendment changes the existing taxpayer standing to aggrieved taxpayer standing. Even charities, church groups, and community groups will now need to expend time, money, and effort to prove that their concerns are worthy of being heard. Philadelphia is known as a city of neighborhood, and it should be clear that every taxpayer that is conscientious and dedicated enough to their civic duty take their time to participate in City government is worthy of being heard. The residents of the neighborhood will always serve as community watchdogs and advocates because they're the ones who will live with the decisions of the Zoning Board. We ask that you uphold the basic principle of government making decisions with the communities rather than government unilaterally making decisions for communities. Any taxpayer has the right to question the actions of this government. This should be especially clear in a city that holds the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall. This government is 274 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 founded on the principle of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is ironic that 225 years ago, Philadelphia helped lead a revolution based on the concept of no taxation without representation. We question such unAmerican principles as stripping taxpayers of their right to be represented before their own government. Thank you for your careful consideration to uphold and protect the taxpayer rights.
Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Boris? (Witness comes forward.)
And Ann Agee, Max Berger, Dennis Winters, Ruthann, do you want to come up. (Witnesses come forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record, sir, and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Jerry Boris and I'm a lifetime resident of Philadelphia.
Speak up, please, sir. 275 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
My name is Jerry Boris, and I'm a lifetime resident of Philadelphia. And from what I understand, I'm very concerned about the deprivation of liberty in the form of free speech. This proposed legislation in Bill 629 not only is ill-advised but insults the very basis of free speech, which is at the core of our constitutional freedoms. Citizens have fought and died for the right to express themselves freely without permission of the monarch. Nearly 900 years ago, in 1215 at Runnemede, free citizens secured the acquiescence of the king in their right with adding test to free speech codified in the Magna Carta. Our own constitution, created just six blocks from here at Independence Hall, incorporated these freedoms, together with the subsequent Bill of Rights, the greatest stroke for freedom in all recorded history. That Bill of Rights denies anyone, Congress or other authority, the right to infringe on our free speech or free expression. Shall this Council reject that great stroke for freedom, which states that, quote, Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of 276 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 speech. Shall this Council insult those who fought and died in all of the wars to preserve our liberties, including free speech. Free speech is a direct descendant of all the great thinkers and patriots who fought and wrote and spoke to ensure our right to speak and be heard. From the British John Milton and John Stewart through our great Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, as expressed by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1919. In Abrams v. The United States, Holmes called free speech "free trade in ideas," that the best test of truth is the power of thought to gain acceptance in the competition of the marketplace. That is the origin of the well-known marketplace of ideas concept. City Council cannot permit itself to stain our precious Bill of Rights by denying any taxpayer the rights granted by our great American Constitution by history and by those who gave their lives that any of us has the right to be heard. Some will argue, as Councilman DiCicco did, that a citizen -- if I understood it correctly -- that a citizen from West Chester, such as Sam Stretton, or even Pittsburgh, should not be heard on matters 277 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 affecting the City, but that is a red herring, putting the cart before the horse. For the irrelevance of an idea is not decided by suppressing either the idea or free speech. The issue can best be decided by judgments after hearing all of the viewpoints. Do not confuse the citizen rights of speech with the subsequent right to decide. Council has the right to decide, the citizens have the right to speak and to be heard. Do not confuse the means with the goals. You have the right to decide and the public has the right to suggest and to be heard. This City Council is concerned about cleaning up blight on the City streets. It should be equally supportive of the public's right to suggest eliminating blight caused by a rash of unsightly billboards. To do less is official hypocrisy. If you try by suppressing speech, the federal courts will shame you by stepping in to remind Council what it is we celebrate and honor on the 4th of July. I'd like to add this final thought. There was some argument with one of the attorneys who wanted to narrow the law, but we have a history 278 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 of attorneys for the last 40 years. When lawyers have spent these 40 years broadening their rights to sue under tort and certain other negligence and property laws to enable them to reach farther and deeper and more extensively, to broaden their right to go into our pockets, into the taxpayers' pockets and into the taxpayers' bank accounts, it was hypocrisy for a lawyer to sit here arguing that the citizens' rights should be narrowed while the lawyers have spent so much time broadening their rights, making them the wealthiest group in America.
I guess Mr. Krakower believed he had the right to free speech. That's why he came in and expressed himself.
I'm assuming that Mr. Krakower thought he had the right to free speech. That's probably why he came to express himself.
Sir, this is not a tort reform hearing, so if you could kind of just sum up, we're really going far afield here.
I was just pointing out the 279 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 hypocrisy of one of the witnesses --
That's my whole argument, but I'm saying it's also hypocritical to argue that the citizens should narrow their rights while the lawyers argue class-action suits, extending their reach constantly so they have made themselves the wealthiest group in America.
I understand, but it has nothing to do with this hearing.
Thank you. Could you identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony whoever is next.
Sure my. Name is Dennis Winters, and I am a sustainable transportation programs manager for the Clean Air Council. I'm 280 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 also a constituent of President Verna's, and our primary office is in Councilman Clarke's district. A lot of this is redundant, but I've been here six hours and I have been without lunch. My stomach is growling and I'm going to read it. The Clean Air Council wishes to express opposition to Bill 000629 in the strongest possible terms. Seldom does proposed legislation come before City Council that so blatantly panders to special interests in matters before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Bill 620 would severely limit due available to ordinary residents of Philadelphia in land use decisions before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Private citizens and community groups that involve themselves in zoning matters already perceive themselves as up against powerful special interests in a biased process. Often these same developers and business interest are listed among major political campaign contributors.
Sir, would you do me a favor and slow down a little bit.
Sure. Sorry. Disallowing interested individuals and community groups from participating in zoning 281 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 decisions that frequently affect Philadelphia's quality of life far beyond land owners in the adjacent neighborhood flies in the face of basic American principles of justice. Recently, the Board of Zoning Adjustment has made decisions affecting development in the floodway of the Schuylkill River, numerous large parking garages in Center City, and the locations of commercial billboards. In these instances, those ZBA decisions affect everyone living downstream, everyone living and working in downtown Philadelphia, and everyone whose vista of the City is occluded by visual blight respectively. Further, pornography and pollution are obvious examples of land use issues that can have sweeping impacts on the entire community. Can a whole city rely soley on the aggrieved community, whatever that is, to protect important civic values, particularly when developers and entrepreneurs sometimes make questionable deals with the locals to gain their approval. Recent amendments offered by the bill's sponsors do nothing to support the bill's grievous denial of due process to community and public 282 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 interest groups. Often, the intervention of such groups in Zoning Board decision-making is actually sought by the immediately affected neighborhood organizations this bill purports to protect. Even those most affected by land use decisions realize that many issues extend far beyond own backyards, and those same groups often recognize the necessity to collaborate with other groups with wider perspectives, larger constituencies, and more extensive resources. Clean Air Council attorneys are also concerned with the vagueness of the language in this bill and the terms found in Section (7)(c). What does "aggrieved" mean? What does "vicinity" mean? And who will interpret their meanings? Clean Air Council has played a role in determining the quality of life for all Philadelphians for almost 35 years. One of the ways it has done so has been has been to intervene occasionally in the administrative and judicial decision-making of public officials. Because Clean Air Council is a broad-based member-supported public-interest group, it has been never been difficult to establish its right to participate. 283 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 This ordinance strikes at the heart of the right of groups like Clean Air Council to be heard in zoning decisions that often affect Philadelphia, the health of its citizens, and the environment. Clean Air Council implores the Rules Committee to vote against Bill 000629 and give this abridgement of a basic taxpayer right the quick and painless death it deserves. Thank you for the opportunity to express the Clean Air Council's views on this matter.
Mr. Winters, the Clean Air Council has been in existence for how many years?
I knew it was a long time. Tell me how something happening in one part of the City affects other parts of the City in your experience in the Council.
Well, I mean, basically, 284 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the Clean Air Council exists to protect everyone's right to breathe clean air. And previous witnesses have already said that air pollution, for example, does not respect political boundaries.
You mean, I, living in West Oak Lane, have a right to free air if I visit Bridesburg?
How about if he lives in West Chester; does he have the same rights?
No, we're going pass a law that exempts all West Chesterites from tax-paying, right? 'Cause we don't want to give them any rights suddenly.
Tell me about the 285 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 different parts of the City because, apparently, there are colleagues of mine who don't understand that happens in one part of the City affect another, and I'm looking for factual examples.
That's why they list us as the fourth worst-polluted city in the country. And one of the reasons is, some of the material that produces ozone -- (Councilmembers talk among each other off-mic.)
But he's telling you why it's important all throughout the City.
Councilman, this gentleman testified on another bill I had in front of my Streets and Services Committee, where I was trying to lift the restriction of right-hand turns on Chestnut Street, and I think I said at the time, does not the stacking of the cars on Chestnut, as a result of the fact that they can't make a right-hand turn, and in most cases have to travel 12 to 14 blocks further east to get a location south, 286 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 contribute to air pollution? So I'm well aware of what air pollution's about. I want to make people make right-hand turns off of Chestnut so we can reduce cars idling on Chestnut Street.
So, I mean, the Councilman thinks that for some reason, I don't want clean air for my family and me. I want clean air.
All right, gentlemen, let's please proceed because we're really running behind schedule. Thank you. Good afternoon. Could you please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Ruthann Madway, and I'm a longtime resident of the City. As one of the last witnesses, I think it will come as a relief 287 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 to everyone here that I'm going to present a very different perspective from many of the other witnesses. I'm somebody who's been very active in civic improvement efforts in the East of Broad District. Certainly for the last five years, I've been somebody who's worked in the trenches, as it were, on zoning matters. However well-intentioned this bill is, I think that it's a bad piece of legislation and the amendments, in fact, compound the problem, and I'd like to explain why. There's really nothing terribly community-minded about this. What we've dealt with here are hypotheticals and black letter law, but what we haven't dealt with are the pragmatic realities of the zoning process in the City of Philadelphia. I've spent a lot of time over at the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and let me tell you, delay is an equal opportunity employer, as far as the zoning process is concerned. We are now involved in a zoning hearing where we have waited for a zoning hearing for two years. We represent the business interests in the East of Broad District over a permit that was issued 288 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 in error by the Department of Licenses and Inspections in February of 1999. So delay is not simply the tool of community groups. What we are dealing here is false dichotomies. It is not about pro-development versus delay-minded community groups. It's simply a false dichotomy. We happen to be a community group that is very pro-development but, you know, it's always a case of whose ox is being gored. If it's in your interest to delay the process, you will find a way to do it, and it doesn't matter if you're a developer. The point is that the community groups in fact have a lot less wherewithal at their disposal to delay because when you talk about filing a court action, the pragmatic reality is that once the Zoning Board issues a decision, it's six weeks until you get a case management order from the Court of Common Pleas. And then within two months of that, you must file a brief. Well, that requires a lawyer, and if you don't have a lawyer and you can't pay his bills, you won't be filing too many briefs, and you certainly won't be taking the case to Commonwealth Court. And I speak as somebody who's 289 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 taken several cases to Commonwealth Court, and we've had to pay all of the lawyer bills. So, you know, as I said, delay is not a one-way street, and it isn't about -- it's not about pro-development versus anti-development. It's a complicated process and it doesn't seem to me to make a great deal of sense to fix a problem where all we have now is some notion that there may be a hypothetical problem down the road. And I want to speak specifically to that with respect to the amendment that was offered, which, far from alleviating the problem, actually compounds it. And I actually now, you know, in this sense have actual evidence of how this amendment's going to be used. The last portion of it refers to, as defined in subsection (7)(c) of the code, those community groups, but when you look to Section 20 (7)(c) of the code, what it refers to and defines community groups as defined primarily as residents and tenants, not composed of business organizations. Well, our organization in fact has probably a preponderance of business organizations. Nobody could do what we're doing with simply the 290 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 resources of a few residents. We have resident members, but we probably have a preponderance of business organizations. And that's how that portion of the code reads. Two weeks ago, we want a zoning hearing. There's a provision of the zoning code that says a community organization is entitled to a transcript, which you need for the appeal, free of charge. I went to the zoning administrator.
He pointed right to Section (7)(c) of the code and said, Well, aren't you composed primarily of business organizations? I said, Well, we have a large percentage of our organization is business organizations -- the major hotels, the major restaurants, the major small businesses, the civic institutions, the real estate developers of East of Broad, as well as the residents. And I said, Well, you know, we do. And for $468, considering our many thousands of dollars of legal bills, I'm not going to -- I didn't say this, but that's what I felt like saying -- I'm not going to fight over the cost of the transcript. But if that clause was invoked simply to deny us a transcript free of charming, you can well 291 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 imagine that a smart Zoning Board lawyer will use it to deny someone's standing as well. So though that may have been a well- intentioned provision in this amendment, it's not going to have the intended pro-community effect that the framers of this bill intended. And I'd like to just go on one or two additional points. I mean, these are practical realities of someone who's been there, not hypothetical situations. We talked about who has a voice at the Zoning Board. As I said, we have been waiting two years for a zoning hearing that should have taken place in 1999 on a permit that everyone in the City, in the Law Department, in the Department of Licenses and Inspections now recognizes was issued in error. And we have had two aborted zoning hearings since March, one of which was confined to testifying about staple holes in a zoning folder, all with the ostensible purpose of halting this zoning hearing. And so we talk about everyone having a voice at the zoning hearing. We can't even get the testimony in so that we can take this decision, whatever it is, to the Court of Common Pleas. 292 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 And we talk about everybody having a voice, and I have sat through as many zoning hearings as most of the people in this room, and they go pretty quickly, and anyone not very initiated in the process, as I wasn't back in 1996, wouldn't even know that you better darn well fill out a notice of appearance or you won't know about any subsequent actions on that zoning matter. We learned it the hard way because I made a mistake. But there isn't anyone up there on the board saying to anybody -- community group or otherwise -- remember, fill out a notice of appearance because otherwise, you won't be a part of this process, period. But anyone who comes there with an attorney, and you can be sure that developers and people, you know, who have an economic stake will come with attorneys and know the rules of the game. And I'm not saying you can't learn those rules. I have -- sometimes with difficult and expensive mistakes, but you learn them nevertheless. But the notion that anyone goes to the zoning hearing and gets to be heard just is not the way that process works. As I said, we've had 293 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the luxury of paying attorney preparation for seven times on this zoning matter. There's no fairness in this process. We simply want this matter heard, but to talk about everybody having a stake and that this legislation won't change the landscape is not to understand the harsh realities of the process. And the process isn't fair. There are very few things that are fair, but the idea is that you give people a place at the table. Not everybody gets a lawyer free of charge and they have to bring the lawyer if they want one to the Zoning Board, but it's that record that you take with you throughout the entire appeals process barring some strange event. So that if you don't get to be heard because the Chairman of the Zoning Board doesn't think you have standing, you will be arguing your rights in futility throughout the remainder of the process. Then you will have to take another legal action to actually go back, have the matter remanded to the Zoning Board so that you can then be heard.
You know, I appreciate that this legislation was well-intended, but the unintended 294 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 effects are far worse than any excesses that might exist in the current system.
What other witnesses are here that have not been heard? Would you please approach the witness table. Maybe you could line up inside the rail. I would please ask that you get your statement on the record, but try to be as brief as possible because we still have another hearing that was scheduled for 2 o'clock. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. Identify yourself for the record, please.
My name is Gerard Pescatore. I'm with the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation. With your permission, I'd like to read a letter from our executive director.
It's addressed to Madam President. 295 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 "I am writing to express my strong opposition to Bill 000629. This bill takes away the ability of recognized and established community groups to continue work as community watchdogs. If the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation had not been established 35 years ago to fight the Vine Street Expressway, the Chinatown community would have been destroyed. "To put this restriction on communities would damage the ability of a community to protect itself from detrimental developments. Every five years, PCDC finds itself fighting urban renewal projects which encroach upon Chinatown, taking away desperately needed land for community growth. "As the 2000 census indicates, the Asian population has grown over 50 percent in the last decade, so it is important that we as a community group have a say on how our community is developed. In addition to the implications of the amendment, the language of Bill 629 is ambiguous. The term 'vicinity' is not clearly defined. "Our organization, therefore, cannot support this bill. "Sincerely, John Chin, Executive 296 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Director." Thank you.
Can you point out where the word "vicinity" is. It's been brought up a few times, and maybe my eyes are that bad. Where do see the word vicinity in the bill. AUDIENCE MEMBER: In (7)(c).
But that exists. I mean, that word "vicinity" is already in there. AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.)
I'm speaking to the gentleman here. They're saying it's in (7)(c).
Okay, I don't have it in front of me now, but. . . I just have the letter from our director.
It's in the code. It already exists. I mean, I have not done anything to alter that, am I correct? AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.)
Nothing to do with appeals and nothing to do with having the right to be heard. You need to come up to the witness table. 297 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
And you're going to have to identify yourself for the record yourself, please, for the record. (Witness comes forward.)
I'm Jean Wrobleski. I testified earlier. Councilman DiCicco, that language "in the vicinity of" currently exists in the code in Subsection (7)(c). It has been incorporated into the new amendment that is the subject of discussion today,, the amendment that you've -- that has been proposed says that including as a matter of right a community or neighborhood organization as defined in Subsection (7)(c), the problem -- one more sentence -- the problem is the organizations that were defined as to who can pay for a transcript now are the organizations the amendment defines as who has standing, and it does create -- this is the problem that's created. I don't want to keep repeating myself.
Thank you. 298 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Please identify yourself for the record fork.
My name is Carolyn Sutton. I'm a lifelong resident of Philadelphia and President of the East Falls Development Corporation. I am here today to speak on behalf of the East Falls Development Corporation and also the East Falls Business Association. And I hope you'll accept my testimony on behalf of the entire community, really, and our continuing and unwaivering opposition to Bill 000629. I was here and testified at length in March and despite superficial changes in language, the bill still is unacceptable to me and other middle-class taxpayers who are being driven out of the City at an alarming rate. All Philadelphia taxpayers must continue to demand their right to be heard. Frankly, I was outraged during the March hearings to witness the narrow-minded attitudes of some of our elected officials. Apparently, Councilmembers Krajewski and DiCicco, sponsors of the bill, would prefer to disregard the rest of us while they barter pieces of our collective city 299 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 space in their respective districts. At that time, they pushed for removal of the words "or any taxpayer" from the Philadelphia zoning code, thereby removing from the rest of us the ability to appeal zoning decisions that we believe are contrary to the overall health and viability of the City. Their argument: It's my neighborhood, you ain't got nothing to say. My argument: It's my city, I choose to live and/or work here. I pay taxes, my opinion counts, especially if I choose to spend my time and money to defend my position. Now the supporters of this bill have offered a compromise. It would be acceptable for aggrieved parties to register dissent. Please, who will determine who is aggrieved? Proving that one is aggrieved only adds to the considerable burden of people who are responsible enough to speak up for a better quality of life in Philadelphia. The East Falls Development Corporation is doing its best to encourage revitalization of our Ridge Avenue business commercial district. It's no 24 secret that we want to see this important riverfront area developed in a way that supports the needs of 300 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 our neighborhood, but we are also mindful that the choices we make are important to everyone who uses and values Fairmount Park and the Schuylkill River. East Falls community groups have worked long and hard to ensure that when development takes off along our Ridge Avenue commercial corridor, it will enrich rather than ravage the valuable waterfront fabric that make East Falls special and Philadelphia special. And we've always encouraged an open forum in collecting ideas and opinions about how East Falls can grow more effectively as a productive urban neighborhood. In East Falls, we choose to consider the big picture rather than our own special interests in expressing our concerns over the future of Philadelphia. But as diligent as we are, the inadequacies of L&I and the Zoning Board continue to plague us. We have seen building permits issued in error because L&I officials were unaware of our two-year-old special district controls. Aggrieved neighbors who have called to complain about zoning violations and improperly permitted construction activity are told that it will be two weeks before an inspector can come out. 301 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 And I have to agree with all of the examples that the representative from East Broad cited. Those things are happening to us right now in East Falls. Although Councilmen DiCicco and Kenney and an attorney from the Managing Director's Office dodged the question in March, we've heard that the Zoning Board of Adjustment grants more than 90 percent of variance requests, many over the objection of community groups who are working to rebuild their neighborhoods. It's true, it's happening right now in East Falls, and you better believe we're appealing that Zoning Board decision, aggrieved or not.
This bill has been roundly criticized by both the Inquirer and Daily News, and almost every day, there's an article about some zoning abuse in Philadelphia. It has been said that this bill was proposed because the behemoth billboard industry was encountering too much resistance to their defiance of standard zoning codes from Mary Tracy's scrappy little grassroots SCRUB group. Well, passage of this bill will have far wider implications than just silencing a few anti-billboard activists. 302 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 From Councilman Kenney, we heard all sorts of fabricated scenarios about the evils of rogue advocates overturning the wishes of his constituents through zoning appeals. Rubbish.
Not to interrupt you, but are you quoting from the transcript? I never the used words "rogue advocates," I don't think ever.
If you're going to quote me, quote me correctly. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Rogue advocates? I don't think I ever used those words.
Strike that, thank you. I just want to make sure that if you're quoting me, you're quoting me correctly.
I just think we heard all 303 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 sorts of things. I'll take that out.
If I said you said something and you didn't say it, you'd call me on it. I didn't say it, so I'm calling you on it.
We heard Councilman DiCicco suggest that big business and developers, rather than neighborhoods, were more often the aggrieved parties in the zoning abuse cases. That's also nonsense. We heard Councilwoman Krajewski speak of her direct as though it had more importance than yours or mine. Really? Councilman Ortiz was right on when he likened such talk to balkanization of our city. Councilman Cohen will tell you how important it is that we maintain every venue for the little folks to be heard. I also applaud Councilman Nutter's assessment, and I do have a direct quote here: If 304 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 enacted, this bill would seriously diminish the ability of citizens, neighborhood associations, and citywide organizations to protect and preserve the quality of life in their community and throughout the City. The bill's sponsors suggest that the bill 7 is needed to address some concerns about outsiders, quote, who interfere with local zoning matters. Yet no one can quantify how many times this has actually happened. In Councilman Nutter's experience, he has not seen this occur in his Council district. Yet even if it did -- and I'm going back to his quote -- I firmly believe that anyone who's a taxpayer who cares enough to go to the zoning hearing has a right to be heard. It requires a lot of dedication to monitor zoning matters to ensure that neighborhoods stay healthy and free of undesirable uses. Bill 000629 creates an unnecessary and extremely burdensome hurdle which will only stifle citizens' rights to express their concerns to the Zoning Board. East Falls Development Corporation welcomes the advice and help of advocates who share our commitment to building a better city, whether 305 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 they live in our community or not, because there just aren't enough hours in the day for us to fight for the things East Falls considers important. SCRUB, the Philadelphia Association of CDCs, Schuylkill River Greenways, the Foundation for Architecture, the Preservation Alliance, and many other groups that bring their knowledge and commitment to the democratic process are all allies for East Falls and every neighborhood that is trying to sustain and promote the values of living in this city. For East Falls Development Corporation, East Falls Business Association, and the City's taxpayers, I urge you to reject Bill 000629 and other such legislation that denies any of us active participation in the zoning process. Thank you for the opportunity.
Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Bill Faust. I'm a resident of Philadelphia. I live here with my family. My main interest here in testifying is 306 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 just as the CCRA and other civic organizations have said. I just don't want to see them emasculate it, whether it's the CCA or the Preservation Alliance, etc., etc. I haven't participated in this sort of forum before, but it seems like there's just such overwhelming opposition to this bill, and so I just really I can't quite figure out where the support is coming from. I like what Councilman Nutter did in very logically going through with the representative from the Managing Director's Office, trying to figure out where was the real need for the bill. And it seems like it's just not needed. You know, I understand this issue with Superfresh and the other grocery store, but the reality there is that the law is used as a tool, as a weapon, as a tool in business very often, and that's the way it goes. I mean, it's unfortunate that we couldn't get that store there because, obviously, you know, Center City could use more of those. And I'm not close enough to know whether this is the case. I've read in the papers and I know that papers have gotten their own tilt and angle that this is political payoff to the billboard 307 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 companies who gave economic (indiscernible) to Rendell and Street. That's fine, I'll just leave that aside. I don't really care about that, but it sounds to me that on the basis --
Since you raised it, I can tell you that Rendell and Street did not get a half a million dollars.
I can assure you of that. They may have gotten something, but it didn't come close to a half a million dollars.
I mean, the reality is that money always drives politics and it's from business interests and we try to tame it and channel it for the common good, but it just seems that it really, 308 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 really is a wrong, wrong move to try to limit civil liberties for the sake of some money changing here. You know, for guys who are in districts and not at large, I understand that your job is to make rain for your constituents, you know, good things. And, quite frankly, what DiCicco got for his neighborhood, it sounded like a really good deal, but it sounds like it really was the wrong way to go about it and having gone down this road. It's just bad horse trading. And you guys all have, you know, your different visions for the City of Philadelphia. My understanding, and I echo what Councilperson Longstreth has said, is that, you know, Council today is like worlds changed from what it used to be. You guys are great, okay, but every once in a while, a bad bill comes up, and you can't make a bad bill good. And you all have different visions, but getting back to what DiCicco said, it's -- I don't want to live in New York.
Don't call him "DiCicco," please. I think he is a Councilman.
Councilman 309 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 DiCicco, please address him as "Councilman."
I apologize, I apologize for bad protocol. But you guys are all great and you're trying to do a good job, but this is not New York. We don't want to have -- I think the vast majority of Philadelphians don't want to look like New York, we don't want to drape our buildings, etc., but that's not really here nor there either. This issue of trading civil liberties for billboard companies or to make rain for your neighborhoods, it's just a bad bill. And that's all I have to say.
Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming in to testify. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes, my name is James Kates and I' am here to convey the opposition of the Greater Bustleton Civic League to Bill 629 and the proposed amendment. 310 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 The Greater Bustleton Civic League has discussed bill at several of our meetings, and each time it was discussed, our membership overwhelming voted to oppose it. Bernice Secoura (ph.), our president, has written to some of you several times, expressing our opposition to its provisions. We, as a community organization, value the input that we have to matters impacting our community directly, but also support other communities on issues affecting them and the City of Philadelphia at large. The framers of the United States Constitution recognized the right of every citizen to be heard. The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter recognized that there are issues that affect the citizens at large and wisely provided for Councilmembers-at-large. This bill will deprive citizens of the fundamental and basic right to be heard and to be represented in the courts if they do not reside in the district. We feel very strongly that this is fundamentally wrong and probably illegal. What happens in the rest of the City does affect us, and we don't want you to deprive us or anyone else of 311 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 their right to be heard and to use the courts. As was indicated in our letters, if you don't want people outside a Council district to have a right to be heard on zoning matters within your district, then you shouldn't accept or be allowed to accept campaign contributions from anyone outside your district or the City of Philadelphia, especially special interests with big check books. Please do not vote this bill out of committee. Bury it under a (indiscernible) anyplace but in Philadelphia.
Thank you. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record. And before you start, I would ask all of the members of the Rules Committee to please report to the chamber. Would all members of the Rules Committee please report to the chamber. Thank you. I'm sorry. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Harry Hyde, Jr., and I'm the Executive Director of Concerned Citizens of the Delaware Valley, a broad-based regional citizens group. As a matter of disclosure, I have 312 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 to say I'm a resident of Swarthmore. About -- roughly about half of our members live in the City of Philadelphia. Just about everything I was going to say today has been said by someone else, so I'm going to be very brief. I would like to state for the record that Concerned Citizens of the Delaware Valley (CCDV) is definitely opposed to this bill. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Would all members of the Rules Committee please report to the chamber. This concludes our public hearing. We will now go into our public meeting. - - - 313 5/30/01 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill regarding Bill No. 4 010368.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 010368 be reported out of this committee with A favorable recommendation and a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to allow first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 010368 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill regarding Bill No. 010371.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 010371 be amended, and I read the 314 5/30/01 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING amendment into the record at the public hearing.
All those in favor of the adoption of the amendment signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the amendment has been adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 010371, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to allow for first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 010371 be reported out of committee, as amended, with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All those in favor will signify by 315 5/30/01 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the bill will be reported out, as suggested. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill regarding Bill No. 010129.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 010129 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to allow first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 010128 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion has been carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill 316 5/30/01 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING regarding Bill No. 010302.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 010302 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to allow for first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 010302 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding Bill No. 000629.
Thank you, Madam President. Earlier today, I proposed an amendment to that bill. I have a new amendment to that 317 5/30/01 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING amended bill, and it would read as follows: After the words "any aggrieved taxpayer," I move that the word "including" be deleted, and in place of "including," the word "or" be included.
Councilman, Councilman. Two few quick questions. One, could you read the proposed amendment, including the new proposed amendment in its entirety. And, second, I'd like to have some opportunity to possibly offer a further amendment to Subsection (7)(c).
Okay, I'll read the amendment as the new amendment, the new proposed amendment. Any person or persons jointly or separately aggrieved by any decision of the board -- delete "or any taxpayer" and include "or any aggrieved taxpayer," or as a matter of right, a community or neighborhood group or organization as defined in Subsection (7)(c) or any officer, department.
Thank you, 318 5/30/01 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Councilman. With regard to Subsection (7)(c), Councilman, the last sentence in that subsection, presently reads, "it shall not include groups or organizations which are composed primarily of members who represent commercial or business enterprises." I'd ask you if you would at least entertain the thought of an amendment to that particular section so as to read, "It shall also include groups or organizations who express an interest in a matter before the Zoning Board which are composed primarily of members who represent citywide groups or organizations, commercial or business enterprises."
I would agree with everything except for the "citywide" language. I would agree that business groups and organizations in a particular community, if that makes it more clear, so that businesses are not excluded, 'cause I know the folks on Rittenhouse Row or the Rittenhouse Business Association have a concern that because they're a business entity, they may not be permitted to have standing at a zoning hearing, but I would not agree to the language "citywide organization." 319 5/30/01 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING I respectfully disagree.
I thought you might say that. Okay, thank you, Council.
I understand. I mean, that doesn't get you too far on that. I guess I primarily wanted to see what your sense was on that. You're offering the one proposal, which is a comma after "or" and deleting -- at least in the one that was circulated earlier, deleting "including."
I move for the adoption of the amendment. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed?
The record will indicate that Councilman Cohen abstained. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 000629, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
Yes, I would like to speak against the adoption of this by the committee, against its being reported out favorably. I think, as I said during the hearing today, that this a very (indiscernible) taking away fundamental rights from Philadelphians, and I think that before any such step is taken, in view of the almost unanimity of option by community organizations throughout the City, and by "community organizations," I mean the organizations, including citywide groups such as the Clean Air Council, the Clean Water Action Council, 321 5/30/01 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING the horticultural groups, the Architecture groups and all similar groups. All of them are clearly opposed to this. I think that this matter ought to be laid on the table. And so I would like to move to table this bill.
Councilman, I'm sorry. I missed the tail-end of what you said. What was your move?
Does the motion to table take precedence over the motion out of committee?
I think the motion to table takes precedence over just about anything. (Discussion held off the record). 322 5/30/01 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
All those in favor of tabling, say aye. All those in favor of tabling, please say aye. Councilman Cohen, Councilman Nutter, and Councilman Clarke say aye. Those opposed, nay? Okay, Councilman DiCicco?
Thank you, Madam President. I again move for the adoption of Bill 14 No. 000629, as amended, and ask for a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and second that Bill No. 000629, as amended, be report out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? 323 5/30/01 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING The record will indicate that Councilman Cohen and Councilman Nutter and Councilman Clarke vote no. Councilman Longstreth, aye. Councilman DiCicco, aye. Councilman Kenney, aye. Councilwoman Verna, aye. And Councilman O'Neill, aye. The record will so reflect that. This concludes the public meeting. I thank you all very much for your patience. I would like to remind my colleagues and those who are listening that we now have a Committee of the Whole. I would ask all members who are listening to please come down to the chamber. Thank you very much. (Adjourned 4:48 p.m.) 324 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, May 30, 2001, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES BILL NO.'S 000629, 010129, 010302, 101368, 010371 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter