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.