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