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?