It's $150 to belong to the association, so it's not like joining an expensive country club. And they would get more than that back. So perhaps they would at least cooperate, understanding that their failure to do so could endanger their fellow businessmen.
What have 56 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. been your previous efforts at recruiting them, particularly those stands in the community?
We've reached out numerous times over the last years. 7 And we've done, I thought a pretty good 8 job. Some people, though, they just 9 don't want to be a part of a group no 10 matter how many times you go back and try 11 to explain to them the benefits. 12 But, for the most part, we've 13 got about 90 out of 120, so -- but we 14 will go back again and again to see if we 15 could get those last 30. And, again, you're right: It is an L&I enforcement issue, but whatever we can do to help you, we're there.
And I just want to follow up on that, if I may. I've had similar problems. Obviously, I represent a district that goes beyond Center City. And over the years, I've brought to the attention of Mr. Rocco some of those newsstands that I 57 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. thought were not being maintained properly. Some of them were still wood, when the City code said they were no 5 longer able to be wood. And I worked with L&I. It was a little slow process, to be honest with you, but eventually, the majority of those folks came along. And I think in these hard economic times, which I think Mr. Beller was trying to talk about, in these hard economic times, I think we have to not only go to those folks and talk to them about not only the esthetics but also the economic benefit for them to start to comply. Because if this bill were to come out of committee, as an example, it would obviously add additional revenues to the operators of those stands, and that could be an incentive for them to want to either become members or do it on their own; in any event, to get a better product out.
No, I'm 58 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. aware. I mean, this is a trial balloon; we don't know what revenues it's going to generate. I think this is your businesses looking and thinking outside the box about how you sustain yourself. And, you know, this is a working-class community. And, you know, I'm not against the bill; I'm just very concerned about, again, the increased signage and what do we do -- I don't think we should legislate for the few bad apples; but at the same time, it's an issue that I need the Newsstand Association to work with me on that corridor, particularly that el corridor, around that enforcement. I do have a problem with the street sign going up to four feet; I think it's too large, and esthetically, it doesn't look well. The digital stuff I'm cool with; it's just the signage. I have a issue with signage because I have a lack of enforcement across the district. 59 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS.
So I'm always going to have a pet issue with signage.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could you describe the conversations that you've had with advertisers or potential advertising agencies? In other words, any one stand trying to sell just advertising on their stand, the revenue they can get versus being able to have advertising on being able to sell advertising across the City on every stand, and the revenue difference that's available to a newsstand operator as a consequence of selling a package of advertising versus 60 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. selling a -- advertising on one stand at a time. And I only ask this just because you may have something really to sell to people under the el and elsewhere because you're aggregating that, and it should mean more dollars. That's all. Thank you.
That's an excellent question. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We can't hear you.
Here I go again. My mother always said I spoke too loud and now you're making me whisper. The question is really excellent, and it does go right to what I was mentioning before. Obviously, from an advertiser's point of view, some stands are better than others location-wise, and that's always the major thing. By doing it as a package, the individuals who are not in the most 61 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. desirable place will actually get a benefit by it being a package. And the other thing that we kind of like is that this association has done a marvelous job of self-regulation in terms of periodicals and the kind of things that are sold, and they will continue to do that. And it will give them some measure of control over the kind of advertising that is desirable and helpful to the City and to the people who have to look at it. And it won't be offensive to Councilwoman Sanchez.
Thank you. Mr. Rocco, the Law Department has expressed some concern about the content of restrictions in this legislation. Did my staff make you aware of that?
All right. And aside from, I think, Miss Tracy, is there anyone here who can give testimony 62 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. on those concerns? Is there anyone specifically who can discuss the impact of the advertising that it may have on children and youth aside from Miss Tracy? 'Cause when Miss Tracy comes up... (Addressing Mary Tracy) ... then you can speak to that, all right?
Yes. Okay. When you come up, then you can address that. Gentlemen, we got into a discussion -- Councilman Jones?
On including this in the overall street-furniture contract, again, the Administration's position is that this would be a good thing because of what?
Obviously, any additional advertising that's put out there, the revenue would be going to the 63 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. City at this point as opposed to the advertisers, which, again, can buy additional street furniture, can expand basically what the City can do with the contract as well.
Is there any sense to what my colleague Miss Sanchez said about the difference between a Center City location and maybe a neighborhood location? It's maybe a little more subdued and maybe a little more subtle? And is there any -- is that uniformity -- is there any consideration to what would be on a quiet block or not -- I guess an intersection in a neighborhood versus what is -- or is it going to be uniform altogether?
I think that's open for discussion. Obviously, it's part of the public involvement process. It's an idea of context as well. What may be kind of acceptable at one location may not fit into, you know, an Old City 64 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. or a Society Hill or something like that, so I think that's open for discussion.
Mr. Rocco or Mr. Beller or Mr. Cunningham, if this legislation were to pass and be signed by the Mayor, how soon would you be looking to implement these changes?
Thank you. Any other questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Gentlemen, we got into a discussion here. Is there anything you would like to add, any comments, statements? Mr. Cunningham.
Yeah, thank you, Councilman. I just want to reiterate the capital investment that the Newsstand Association has made in developing uniformity and cohesion over the past 65 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. nine years. They've invested in excess of $1 million of their own money in purchasing new newsstands and building underground infrastructure, and the inclusion of the newsstands in the RFP would basically confiscate that investment, without any compensation whatsoever. And we just wanted to make sure that everyone understood that.
I have one other question. I'm going back in time here when I tried to do some legislation for you guys in the past. On the back of many of the newsstands -- and I'm not sure if it exists today -- there used to be an advertisement for the Pennsylvania Lottery; it was a 7-by-2 kind of cardboard-type of thing.
Was that a requirement by the Lottery Commission, or is that just something the newsstand operator wanted to use to alert people 66 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. that you sold lottery tickets?
Correct. Now, as you well know, we've got signage for the lottery on either side of the newsstand.
Right. But no, those big signs are just not that -- you know, it's not pushed by the State, no. 22
Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for these witnesses? 67 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. (No further questions.)
Any other statements, gentlemen? (No further statements.)
Miss Tracy, Gray Smith, and Harold Jacobs. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. You can all decide who wants to testify first, who would like to testify first? (Addressing Paul Levy.) Paul, are you a part of the team, or is it just --
No, you can stay there, stay there. 68 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting us to testify today. My name is Mary Tracy and I am here as a representative of SCRUB, the public voice for public space. SCRUB's vision is that all public spaces in Philadelphia will be healthy, vibrant, and beautiful. We are best known for our work surrounding illegal and poorly-placed billboards. And we work with our partners in the neighborhoods to address the larger issues surrounding the environment and public space. I am here today to provide testimony about this specific newsstand legislation and how it relates to regulation of commercial outdoor advertising signage in Philadelphia. There are three main points that I would like to address. The first is: This legislation, if passed, will undermine existing 69 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. sign-control legislation that has been used to protect the visual environment from the proliferation of outdoor advertising in our city for years. 6 Secondly, the citywide 7 consequences of this effort far outweighs 8 the benefits to the individual business 9 owners. 10 And, third, there is money in 11 regulating outdoor advertising, and it's 12 time for the City to demand the industry 13 pay their fair share for using our city's 14 public spaces. 15 In terms of the undermining of 16 the existing sign regulations, 17 consistency in regulations and 18 enforcement are two critical components 19 to protect the constitutionality of 20 Philadelphia's outdoor advertising laws. Carving out special treatment to accommodate a specific business interest is arbitrary and will undermine all sign regulations that have protected the City in neighborhood corridors for 20 years. 70 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. Legislative findings in 14-1604 of the Philadelphia Code are the backbone of defending the constitutionality of our regulations. One finding states that the excessive number of commercial outdoor advertising signs contributes to visual clutter and detracts from the esthetic beauty of the City of Philadelphia. Another states that the proliferation of commercial outdoor advertising signs contribute to the appearance of deterioration of commercial and industrial areas of the City and, therefore, negatively impacts upon the economic viability of these areas. Bill No. 090015 has no 18 articulated legislative findings. Therefore, in its current form, the legislation would erode the longstanding protections from commercial outdoor advertising controls in the City of Philadelphia because it conflicts with the legislative findings in 14-1604, and it fails to establish any governmental 71 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. purpose that will be served by this legislation. It also undermines the existing sign controls by conflicting with the Highway Beautification Act, which strictly prohibits commercial outdoor advertising in the right-of-way to promote traffic safety and eliminate hazards to pedestrians and motorists. SCRUB encourages this committee to examine the memorandum included in your packets, which we received from the Federal Highway Administration concerning billboards in public right-of-ways. Many of Center City streets are controlled by the federal laws cited in the memorandum, including JFK Boulevard, Market, Chestnut, Walnut, and Broad Streets. The public cost of this newsstand bill far outweighs the benefits to a few individual business owners. If passed, the legislation would be vulnerable to legal challenges from a variety of sources. The City has been 72 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. sued, and will continue to be sued, for the singular purpose of obtaining the right to place outdoor advertising in places where it is now prohibited. By carving out a special exception for newsstands, this legislation gives the outdoor advertising industry unnecessarily leverage against the City in their quest to colonize public space.
We have prepared the following recommendations in response to Councilman DiCicco's request for suggestions. The intention is to open up discussion for further refinement of the bill. We would ask that you maintain the prohibitions of non-accessory outdoor advertising on all sides of newsstands. We would ask that you eliminate the 24-inch-wide video monitor, which is not permitted anywhere in Center City. A comprehensive policy is needed to investigate the impact of electronic and digital media advertising on the health, safety, and welfare environment and 73 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. esthetic factors. We ask that you retain the existing size and location of signage on the street side by eliminating the proposal to expand signage to 7-feet-by-4-feet facing the street. We say, why don't you consider expanding the products sold at the newsstands; therefore, increasing their opportunities for income as well as additional accessory advertising. Currently, the only accessory advertising allowed are publications and the Pennsylvania Lottery. And, lastly, we ask that you limit the 6-inch band located on the top of the newsstand along the sidewalk side to intermittent illumination that will only display time, temperature, date, news, and accessory advertising. In closing, I think it's important for City Council members to understand the history of failed attempts to administer and regulate the outdoor 74 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. advertising industry here in Philadelphia. Despite legislation intended to set consistent and fair fees to cover the cost of signage regulation, the industry has challenged this authority and the fee schedule, resulting in no payment of fees from 1991 through 2000. In 2000, the Department of Licenses and Inspections initiated a voluntary fee structure of a hundred dollars a sign annually, and some billboards never even paid the City. In 2006, City Council enacted legislation setting new license fees and safety requirements for billboards in Philadelphia. Again, the industry challenged the City's authority in enacting fees, and three billboard companies filed a federal lawsuit. The Law Department, without input from Council or the public, entered into a private-settlement agreement. And before the billboard settlement agreement, 75 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. 1 million in revenue for the City annually. Now, under the terms of the agreement, they are paying $50 a sign face, generating only $90,000 in annual revenue, a 92 percent loss for the City each year the City. Over the life of a nine-year-long agreement, the City will suffer a net loss of 9 million in revenue intended to staff the Department of L&I for enforcement activities. In addition, there are 70 illegal billboards that, if approved for appropriate enforcement action, could reward the City with as much as $19 million according to SCRUB's estimates. And I've included in the packet those numbers. So I know, Councilman, you're going to say, What's this have to do with that?
We sent from newsstands to billboards and 76 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. I assumed you were going to --
-- the esthetic value or the denigration as it relates to billboards, somehow newsstands will add to that unsightly and esthetic issues that you've been addressing for a number of years. This --
The first, of course, agreed that there is a real conflict with the esthetics, and we have gone through legislative findings pointing out what those anesthetics are. Secondly, I think -- and we have an attorney here with us to speak about the real legal trials that our city will be burdened with as a result of the carving out a special interest. And I think that's a huge price -- 77 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS.
Other billboard companies. Even that ten percent of newsstand owners, you know, if they're not allowed to advertise on theirs because they're not members, I mean, there's any number --
I don't -- (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
Miss Tracy, before you go, I doubt very much if that would ever happen; it certainly would not be something that this Council would carve out only those people who pay dues to the membership. This would be for every newsstand in the City of Philadelphia.
Well, even by carving out those special newsstands, Councilman, what about the building owners behind them? Why shouldn't they be able to put outdoor advertising on 78 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. their buildings? Why not let them put up the huge wall wraps that we've -- you know, we have a very important historical and esthetic character here in Philadelphia which attracts visitors, tourists businesses and new residents. And so I think anything that this Council would do we need to carefully look at the impact of those actions on our ability to continue to do that.
All right. I hear what you're saying, but I just kind of get lost when you say, What about the building owners; shouldn't they be able to put out their advertising? It just comes to mind I think of the newsstand at the northwest corner of 12th and Market, which is directly across the street from the Hard Rock Café.
But it's outdoor advertising. 79 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS.
And you say limit the 6-inch band located along the top of the newsstand, along the sidewalk side, to intermittent illumination that will only display time, temperature, date, news, and accessory advertising. What are you fearful that may be part of that illumination advertising, outside of what you said would be acceptable? I don't understand that.
It's the law, Councilman. It's not necessarily the content as much as what we know the nuances of the law. We have been litigating and protecting this law for over years, and we understand how 19 critical the difference is between 20 accessory and non-accessory advertising. The Hard Rock Café, their sign is accessory because it advertises the business. Non-accessory advertising is that advertising that promotes a business that's not -- 80 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS.
Do you think it's caused any accidents at 12th and Market?
I think we're talking about accessory and non-accessory signs.
I don't care if it's accessory or not; I'm just asking you a question because I know this comes up, about how too much signage is going to create hazards for people who are driving because they're going to be distracted. Do you know -- do you have any empirical evidence or do you know whether that sign in particular has caused any additional accidents at the intersection of 12th and Market? 'Cause I know at some point, someone's going to go down -- between the three of you, I suspect that 81 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. someone's going to say too much advertising causes too many distractions, and it's going to cause accidents and all those things, whether it's accessory or not. The fact that there's outdoor advertising and the size of that sign, do you think that has in any way affected the public safety, anyone's public safety as a result of that sign being up there?
And I think it actually is a very good sign because in a minute, in a second, you can look up there and say, "Ah, there's the Hard Rock Café," and that's really the purpose of an accessory sign, is to be able to quickly identify where you're going and 82 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. what you're doing. You know, if you had a huge blinking sign that changed every six to eight seconds selling you anything from mattresses to swimming pools. That is a distraction, and it's very hard to --
But would it be acceptable if that flashing sign that was advertising mattresses and whatever else you said were being sold in that building?
We're actually working with -- (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
I'm asking you a question, I'm asking you a 83 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. question: Would the flashing sign that you spoke to that would advertise products that are being sold in that building, would that be acceptable?
No. I think it would be a non-accessory sign if flashing signs aren't allowed at this point in that corridor. So I think we have to -- you know, we have to look at the laws and we have to comply with the laws, and we have to hold everybody to the same standard.
But we do make laws and we amend laws; that's the purpose of government bodies.
But when we amend the laws, shouldn't we amend them so that they're constitutionally correct and are not going to set up the City for lawsuits from other interests that want the same treatment?
Well, there is some truth to that, and that's stuff 84 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. that we deal with, and maybe there are -- we do things often that wind up in court because someone feels as though it's a violation of their rights or it goes against the Constitution or the City Charter. And then we go through that process, the legal process, and the decision is made. But, you know, you have to -- people have ideas all the time. Some of those ideas are good ideas, some of them are not so good ideas, depending on who you talk to. But, you know, we would be stagnant as a government if we didn't talk about current events, the way things are changing, changing of events in the way people live and do things. I mean, they're doing things today that they never even would have thought about doing 50 years ago.
And we have an industry that employs a lot of folks who support their families, who are in a 85 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. very difficult situation. And not unlike the stimulus package that's coming out of Washington, this could be a stimulus for the newspaper industry in the City of Philadelphia.
I understand, Councilman, what the good reasons are for looking at this bill, but I also think, as representatives of the entire city and all of the neighborhoods and of all the people and the constitutionality of our laws as, you know, there needs to be a responsible approach as to what the end-result of this will be. And I think you only have to look to California and Los Angeles and the legal entanglements that are going on in that city every single day and the high cost, taxpayer cost of, defending their laws against an industry that is very litigious. And I think it would be irresponsible to damage a law that has been well litigated and preserved simply 86 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. to help -- when there are other -- there are ways we could help the newsstand owners rather than changing our own laws that have so well been borne in the City.
People make decisions based on what their needs are, and sometimes they get help in areas where they would not normally look for help, to accomplish their needs, including your industry.
Well, your advocacy and your position that you have taken about outdoor advertising in general. A few years ago, you came to an agreement with an outdoor advertising company that enabled you to continue to fight your fight. We all make exceptions. Mr. Gray, did you have something you wanted to add?
The name is Harold Jacobs. I am a retired attorney. I am speaking on behalf SCRUB and Logan Square Neighborhood Association. I want to throw a little light on the legal problem that you are about to create. I want to read to you part of the petition on the zoning appeal that was submitted by an outdoor billboard company in a pending case right now. And this is what they said: "This challenge involves federal questions over which the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment has no 21 jurisdiction, and appellants explicitly reserve and preserve the right to raise federal questions in federal court." What they are saying is: By allowing exceptions to the outdoor 88 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. advertising -- and they're speak about the bus shelters, the advertising there -- it creates a discrimination in the use of free-speech rights, and it's discrimination against all billboards. Now, insofar as the bus shelters are concerned, that doesn't hold much water because the bus shelters serve a public purpose. But if you allow advertising on the newsstands, there is no public purpose; it's a private enterprise. And you are opening the door to the complete destruction of the billboard regulations and the outdoor non-accessory sign regulations in our city.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm an attorney also. I don't practice in the area of billboard law, so I'm at a disadvantage. And I haven't looked up any cases, but I can think of 89 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. numerous public purposes that could exist for us allowing advertising on the outside of the building. Number one, we could conclude, as a body, that we fins it more attractive than just green painting, that it adds to the streetscape. That's a public purpose. That it enhances the view of the City. The other public purpose is, it will create revenue for the City of Philadelphia in the form of business- privilege taxes as these billboard owners -- or as the newsstands owners are paid. And those are just two off the top of my head. I'm sure there are, you know, innumerable public purposes that exist as a consequence of permitting this activity, including the public purpose of trying to help a constituency that is, you know, pretty working-class, that support their families with these businesses. There are many public 90 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. purposes that exist, and I just wanted to put that on the record. Thank you.
Well, I would say public purpose is a very broad idea. And there are different degrees of public purpose. And I would say that the public purpose of a bus shelter is very much more direct than some of the things that you've mentioned.
My only point was that we can argue about the degree of public purpose or whether or not we're making that conclusion correctly that there is a public purpose, but --
But there is -- we believe potentially there is a public purpose; that's my point.
You're running a risk -- yes, you're right about there are degrees, of course, but you are running a serious risk, I think, by creating this 91 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. problem.
Again, I'm not an attorney, and I kind of try to look at things in a very practical way when you talk about the public purpose. I know it's been very difficult for me for me over the years to try to get honor boxes removed from a private property. A homeowner wakes up one day, and there's an honor box chained to a pole on his or her property, residential property. And we're told that we just can't remove them because it's protected by the First Amendment because it's a public service. So if I am someone -- or if someone out there does not have access to a computer, and his or her only means of knowing what's going on in his or her community or in the world is to purchase a newspaper, doesn't that constitute a public service? And I'm not going to get into a legal debate 'cause I'm certainly not an 92 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. attorney, but from a practical standpoint, it tells me that newsstands, if didn't sell anything but newspapers, serve as a public service.
Well, based upon some of the comments that were made, we can say that every billboard serves a public purpose because they provide revenue.
I said that? They do provide revenue but I didn't say that -- (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
All right. But I'm not in favor of every billboard at every location, as I think Miss Tracy could testify to. There are some places that I think they are not appropriate, but beauty is in the eyes of the 93 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. beholder. Mr. Gray, do have a -- do you care to speak?
My name is Gray Smith. I'm an architect and urban planner, and Mary Tracy and SCRUB asked me to look into some of the more excruciating details of the bill, particularly the physical aspects. And in doing so, I discovered some of the weaknesses in the bill, which I think makes it impossible to pass now until those are corrected. And we did -- Mary and I did meet with Councilman DiCicco at an earlier date to discuss some of our concerns, and I have added some alternatives here that might be helpful to the newsstand owners.
I'm going to talk 94 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. about: some defects in the proposed bill; some excesses, I believe, in the proposed bill; the difficulties the bill has in contradiction to the Zoning Code; the future of newsstands, which should be of everybody's concern; the bad precedents that the bill might establish; and, again, some alternatives that might be helpful. As far as defects in the proposed bill, the terms "electronic" or "digital media" are not defined anywhere in any part of the City Code, so they have to be defined if you're going to include them as approved. By the same token, "video monitor" is a term that's not incorporated anywhere in the definitions of any code in Philadelphia. And, of course, in this code, the size of the video monitor, the width of it, is required, but the height of it is not limited anywhere in the bill. And, as mentioned earlier, the 95 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. bill is not being developed in coordination with a street-furniture program, which I think is an essential and comprehensive approach that should be taken rather than this separate approach. With respect to excesses that are in the proposed bill, I did calculations. The bill increases the allowable sign area on newsstands that's now allowed from 38 square feet to approximately 56 square feet of signage on these tiny little buildings. The type of advertising. Currently, advertising is limited to that for newspapers, magazines, and the Pennsylvania Lottery; that's accessory advertising. This bill will allow any type of non-accessory advertising for virtually any product or service except tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, and cabarets. Therefore, casinos, racetracks, tattoo parlors, massage parlors, and law firms can advertise on these as well as many, many other 96 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. products and services. And let me mention something about the Hard Rock Café. If my memory serves me right, Councilman DiCicco, the sign at the Hard Rock Café went through a whole lot more hoops than this type of signage. It had to be approved by the Art Commission, it had to be approved by the Historical Commission; and I'm not sure, but I think even City Council had to pass a bill to approve that sign; if not, it did require significant zoning variances. So it was not the same type of sign, and it certainly is not one that could get over-the-counter approval.
Mr. Smith, I was not suggesting that it was not a procedure that needed to be taken undertaken to approve that sign; I was just making the point that I think it came out of either Miss Tracy's comments or the Streets Department. Someone mentioned something about distractions, 97 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. which always comes up in these arguments when we talk about signage. And I just --
I know you will, and you've brought it up in the past. And I just was curious if anyone can show any evidence that since the Hard Rock Café guitar sign has been in place that there's been an increase in any traffic accidents at that intersection.
That sign is an anomaly; it's not typical, by any stokes, so --
No, no, it's not whetter you can just put them 98 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. up. It is up, it is legal. And the argument is by folks in the anti-advertising community for the most part, for the most part, is that these are not only esthetically unpleasant, but they create obstructions, they create opportunities -- not opportunities. They create an environment where it makes the streets less safe because they become distractions for drivers in particular. I wonder if any of the stuff -- the flags on Broad Street that advertise Red Cross Week or the Phillies. I mean, at some point, we do live in a world of advertising, and I think people have gotten used to being able to drive and glance over to see a building or even a good-looking lady on a nice day and still be able to drive without getting into an accident. I mean, that's what I'm getting at. It's --
I've been 99 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. hearing this argument for years now. 3
All I'm saying is, 4 with respect to the Hard Rock Café sign, 5 that sign was excruciatingly regulated 6 and studied. 7 The signs that would be put on 8 the street side of a newsstand will get 9 no regulation whatsoever as to content, 10 as to appearance, as to its distraction 11 and characteristics of distraction. 12
I will 13 agree that we have a disagreement about 14 that. 15
I just want to know about the distraction, 'cause that seems to always come up in these arguments.
Well, there are scientific studies, and I'll leave that to SCRUB to present those in more detail. 100 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. But with respect to contradictions that this bill has with other regulations in the City, newsstands are exempt. Even though they're little buildings, they are exempt from the Zoning Code in Philadelphia because they sit in the public right-of-way. And so they're not regulated by anything in the Zoning Code. And there's lots of stuff in the Zoning Code that would regulate things like signage. And enforcement of the newsstand ordinance and regulations is a Department of Streets responsibility; and, frankly, they don't do a very good job of enforcement, even in Center City in spite of the Councilwoman's suggestions. The one right across the street from this building at the corner of Market and the square, on East Market, has girly magazines posted all over it and cigarette ads posted all over it and have been for years in spite of so-called 101 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. enforcement in Philadelphia. So now we're talking about adding significant additional items to be enforced by somebody -- the Police Department, L&I, SWEEP, the Streets Department, none of which are doing their job now; can we expect them to do it in the future? With respect to non-accessory signage, non-accessory signage is prohibited in all residential zoning districts in the City, some of which of these will be sitting right next to, and most commercial zoning districts in the Zoning Code. There will be no such restriction for newsstands, although they're right next to the same commercial and residential districts. So anybody that owns a building in those commercial residential districts could look out and say, You know, if they can do it, why can't I do it? And you're just opening a can of worms when you do 102 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. that. None of the non-accessory commercial advertising signage and electric, digital, or video media on newsstands would be required to be reviewed by the Art Commission, even though every building generally on Chestnut Street and Walnut Street and Market Street is governed by the Art Commission. You can't put a sign up, even an accessory sign up, without an Art Commission review and approval; yet these will be void of that kind of enforcement. And, again, we're talking about the Zoning Code prohibits flashing, intermittent, revolving and/or animated signage within 150 feet of a residential zone and 300 feet away if it's facing a residential zone. This proposed bill has no such provision that prohibits electronic or digital media, which may very well be flashing, revolving, animated, or whatever. 103 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. As such, all of the good protections that are found in the Zoning Code simply do not apply to newsstands, and none of the regulations that are similar, included in this bill, are in the current newsstand regulations. What is the future of newsstands? Whereas, products for sale in newsstands can be a variety of items beyond newspapers and magazines, the revenue from the proposed commercial advertising could become the primary source of revenue for a newsstand proprietor. In fact, the way the regulation reads as to the operation of a newsstand today, why even sell any products under the circumstances that the bill reads? The only legal restriction is that every 30 days, the proprietor of a newsstand has to open up and sell a few printed items, and he can close for the other 29 days of the month. Better to just function as a four-sided billboard 104 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. sitting on the street and not bother to sell any newspapers. Again, this is a bad precedent. If you propose this and accept this, then the following other physical components that you find on public sidewalks can be considered for similar legislation, allowing non-accessory advertising.
Hey, why not put some ads on honor boxes? Hey, if you're going to put 'em on newsstands, First Amendment, put 'em on honor boxes, First Amendment. Tree and flower planters. If I'm putting a flower planter out in front of my place, why not put a sign on it advertising something, anything. Private trash receptacles; that was brought up earlier. Food and other vendor carts and stands. I mean, they do advertise their hot dogs, but now, hell, they can start advertising Ford Fairlanes. Food and trash Dumpsters. How about trash Dumpsters? We got thousands 105 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. of trash Dumpsters, and I know Councilman Green knows about that. Why not put advertising on all of the trash Dumpsters -- non-accessory, of course, 'cause we don't want to advertise the Dumpster itself. Bollards. And how about horizontal street surfaces or horizontal sidewalk surfaces? You're walking down the street, you're looking at the sidewalk; why not put a sign right on the sidewalk and benches and all the other kind of street furniture that we're talking about. All right. Now, I've been pretty negative here, but I have some suggestions that might be helpful after looking at the restrictions that are in the current newsstand ordinance. One is that they should be able to expand the items that they sell. No 23 doubt, the limits that they have are really too restrictive. How about selling SEPTA tokens; some of 'em do 106 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. already, even though they're not allowed to. How 'bout stamps? How 'bout batteries? Even soft drinks. Disposable cameras. Disposable cellphones; those make a lot of money. Long-assistance phone cards. Those are all items that they can't sell now, according to the current newsstand regulation. Expand that list of items so that they can sell those. How about even an automatic teller machine. Condoms in there too, but that's a possibility.
Right, okay. I mean, I think they should be able to sell those things. I mean, after all, if they're only selling 50 newspapers a day ---
Point of 107 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. information, Mr. Chairman.
Some of the members are nodding that they already sell of these items that you're mentioning; is that correct?
Well, they better watch out. Well, there's no enforcement, so it doesn't matter. They're not supposed to sell these items according to the restrictions that are in the current bill. I would suggest that if you want to improve the bill, you add some of those items to allow them to sell those. That would help them with their income and with your tax revenues. And, finally, they should be able to expand on-premises advertising, be able to advertise the products that they sell except for tobacco, of course, within the current sign limits, though. In conclusion, this bill needs lots of work to fix it; most essentially, 108 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. I believe the removal of the non-accessory advertising provision because that's simply a provision that allows newsstands to be billboards.
Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else who wishes to testify? Is Mr. Levy still here, or did he leave? Oh, there you go. Thank you.
Okay, Councilman, just one thing, if you could, for the record. Several people wrote letters that they asked me to present to put on the record, and they're a part of that packet as well, if you would please include that. Thank you.
Good morning. My 109 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. name is Paul Levy. I'm president of the Center City District. I have copies of my legislation. In the interest of time, I will shorten it. But I am here on Bill 090015, and I want to start by talking about graffiti by simply saying -- and I've attached to my testimony a series of pictures of stands throughout Center City that, unfortunately, are marred by graffiti. And I want to say this is not the fault of the newsstand operators; graffiti is, unfortunately, a fact of life in the downtown, but all property owners within the downtown are paying an assessment to us to have them regularly cleaned and free of charge. We clean all signs and all public furniture that's owned by the City. The problem is that the newsstands and the honors boxes are privately-owned but technically not real estate and, therefore, are not subject to 110 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. our charge, nor to any other charges of this sort. For a brief time, we did work with the Newsstand Association on a fee-for-service basis to remove graffiti, and we ceased to do that after a demonstration period. Quite simply, the pictures that are attached to my testimony are not the issue that we want to project in our prime business district in the center of our growing hospitality industry. So my point of departure in this bill is very simple: The Center City District is not in principle opposed to providing newsstand owners with expanded rights for commercial advertising, but I have three significant reservations: One, the CDC would support this expanded right if there was a specific requirement that graffiti be removed from all newsstands, just as it is from every surface in Center City, and that there be strict penalties for failure to comply. 111 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. I understand the good intentions of the Newsstand Association, but the frequency at which graffiti is put on objects in Center City means, even at 72 hours, which is not a frequency we're seeing them remove graffiti, it stays in the public right-of-way. And newsstands, like honors boxes, for some reason, are a huge target for graffiti. So they are frequently marred with graffiti despite the best intentions. As been said by several people, including Councilwoman Sanchez, whatever you may legislate, both the Department of Licenses and Inspections and the Department of Streets are incredibly short on enforcement staff, so you can say in legislation what you would like them to do, but their ability to perform has been incredibly limited, and there has not been a lot of enforcement. Before anyone objects that putting a very strict requirement for 112 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. graffiti removal in the legislation and with very strict penalties, before you say that it's an unfair burden, I want to remind you that you're licensing these newsstand operators to locate for-profit enterprises rent-free in Philadelphia's densest business district, where they're filled each day with thousands of shoppers, visitors, and office workers, and the impression people form is formed by the things they see in the public environment. My second concern is, there does not seem to be a provision in this bill to require operators to upgrade their newsstands. Over the last decades, members of the Newsstand Association have retained a designer and improved some of the designs of their newsstands, and the new newsstand design is one that's very attractive and that I support. But the last time we counted -- and I may be slightly out of date -- only 37 out of the 104 newsstands that are in 113 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. the boundaries of our district were upgraded to the design. It simply has not happened at the frequency and the speed we would like to see.
At a minimum, it ought to be a requirement for every newsstand operator to upgrade their facility immediately as a precondition to getting the right to advertise. We have old, deteriorated wood newsstands, we have rusted newsstands. There is one I look at each day at Seventh and Chestnut, right next to my office, that's rusted, falling apart one block from the Liberty Bell. And this leads to my third concern, which was partially addressed by Steve Buckley this morning: How this proposal would fit into any comprehensive approach. Again, the theory of street- furniture contracts is that advertising companies are licensed to sell commercial advertising in the public right-of-way in return for providing amenities to the City 114 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. it could not otherwise afford such as transit shelters, benches, public toilets, and increasingly in some cities shared bicycles In the Street Administration, newsstands were carved out from the street furniture competitive bid process; I served on that committee, so I'm intimately familiar with it. But as a result, at the end of that administration, no contract was awarded. As a result, the current provider of transit shelters in Philadelphia is now in their fourth or fifth year of one-year renewals. This is citywide on all transit shelters. With a one-year renewal, no 18 transit shelter provider has any incentive to do major improvements to them, so they are etched with graffiti, they simply cannot afford to make the capital costs So where we sit today for reasons beyond anyone's control in this room is, we have very deteriorated transit shelters that are 15 years out of date and 115 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. graffiti-covered newsstands. I think we've got to solve both of these issues. Now, to conclude, from my perspective, there should be a sense of urgency about addressing this issue of street furniture, because in a recession, the last thing you want to do is have the public environment deteriorate further; that just sends, I think, a really negative message But I worry that any bid process for street furniture in this environment will not yield us very good bidders, because this is a very challenging time. But I am not sure in that environment that it makes sense to dilute any potential revenue stream to the City from street furniture by licensing newsstand operators to sell advertising and then allow them to keep all the revenue for their own benefit So I heard and have worked with the Newsstand Association. They have lots of good intentions, and they have fulfilled some of them, but if you don't 116 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. legislate them as requirements, promises don't get fulfilled Thank you for the opportunity.
Understood. Thank you, Mr. Levy. Mr. Rocco or Beller or Cunningham, would you please come back to the witness table, please. (Witnesses return to witness table.)
Paul, don't leave. We may have some questions for you.
And this may come up when they come up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Levy, with all due respect, I think on your point two, you sort of have it, in my personal opinion, backwards. You say don't let 'em do anything till they make repairs. I think the point is, they need the money to make the repairs. That's what we're trying to -- that's why we're trying to give 117 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. them the ability to --
By absolutely requiring in this bill that if they have this right, they are then obligated; you do not have that in this bill.
Okay. You didn't -- but that's not what you said. You said earlier you tell 'em to make the repairs before you give them the ability.
If they don't have the ability to make revenue, I think that's a part of their problem.
Councilman, I mean, I respect the design that they have developed.
But if the argument 118 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. is that they need this revenue in order to finance those improvements, then make it a requirement in the bill so we get a public benefit. I would be interested, you know, in hearing an updates of how many of the newsstands in Center City -- my count is about two years old. How many newsstands in Center City have been replaced and how many of the 104 that we counted are still the old, wood and deteriorated ones. My suggestion to you is: Give them a right, give them an obligation.
I agree. There is an amendment to the bill and I think it addresses some of your concerns, and I don't know if you've seen it. It says: "All newsstands, including any security gate or other approved attachments, shall be painted and maintained so as to prevent rust, rot, graffiti, and other deleterious 119 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. conditions. All such deleterious conditions shall be removed or remedied within 72 hours" -- it used to be five days -- "of their appearance." The question is: How do we enforce it?
Which is my next -- which is why I asked these gentlemen to come back up. Mr. Rocco, presently, when your association removes graffiti, do you have an outside contractor that does that, or do you do that within your organization?
And why do we still have as much graffiti on -- and rust? Maybe they're not dealing with rust; do they just deal with the graffiti?
They deal with graffiti, and they also repaint the stands when they're in disrepair. 120 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS.
But I know -- and I know the one at Seventh and Christian, 'cause I still can't, for the life of me, ever figure out how that was ever allowed to be there 'cause the sidewalk's about inches when you look 8 at the face of the newsstand and the 9 curb. 10 Why do we have these problems -- 11 why are they still existing if we're 12 doing it within 72 hours? 'Cause the rust I see is not new rust; it has been there for a while.
There are certain locations that seem to be hit more so than others, like 15th and Ranstead, 11th and Walnut. No matter how many times we go out there, we repaint them, we get the graffiti off, it comes back. We try to be diligent about this, we try to be proactive, but it just seems as though no matter how many times, the graffiti comes back.
I 121 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. understand the graffiti issue, but I'm talking about the general maintenance of many of the newsstand; whether there's graffiti on it or not, they're rusted, the paint is -- and I don't know if you have that copy up there, Paul, but if you could show him some of the pictures we're talking about. I mean, some of this stuff -- the one on the upper right-hand corner; I mean, you could tell by the little platform that the newspapers are left on in front of it, I mean, that stuff is old, that's not new. The graffiti may be new but other conditions -- the rust and the fading of the paint -- that's not new stuff; that's been around. And this may not be -- this stand may not be within your organization.
Right, right. One 122 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. of the primary goals of this bill is to make sure that we can get people who have the older newsstands transferred over to the newer newsstands. This bill would allow the incentive to take place.
And I guess I'm going to make a suggestion that maybe you and Mr. Levy -- and I don't want to put any more work on the district, but maybe you and Mr. Levy ought to have a discussion. It seems that the Center City District folks have a stellar record when it comes to attacking graffiti and other things that deface public buildings within the Center City District. Now, obviously, this wouldn't apply to the neighborhoods, but you may do better, depending on what the costs are, if the Center City District is willing to contract, because they're out there doing that all day long anyway, and they'll see it.
Let me respond on the 123 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. graffiti issue. I absolutely agree that there are sites in every one of our neighborhoods that are repeatedly hit, and the way you address those is not by coming back every 72 hours, but to be there immediately after they're hit. Because graffiti is about notoriety.
And the minute the person who puts it up sees their name gone within 12 hours, the game's over. So the only way we succeed in Center City is that we have a routine route of cleaning every single building about every three weeks that has graffiti on it, but if there is any corner that is hit, we're back there the next morning, if it's really bad, to get rid of it right away, 'cause graffiti attracts graffiti. So the intention is good, but I think that we need a requirement, and we need a funded requirement. And I'm not 124 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. looking for the business.
We'd be glad to do it, but someone needs to be funded to do this on a regular basis because we are talking about prime locations in the downtown. The second issue again -- and I respect the work of the Newsstand Association, but they do not represent all of the newsstand operators in the downtown. And they can create an incentive; but just if you create an incentive and people choose not to do it, then we're still in the same condition. So I would like for you, if you're going to pass this bill, to tie this right to an obligation both to improve the newsstand, 'cause the designs they came up with are excellent, and an obligation to clean these with incredible frequency. This is the center of our hospitality industry, this is the center 125 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. of our business. Just as in every neighborhood corridor, this has that same vitality.
You know, I agree, and I think that the amendment -- and I'll talk to Brian about it -- we may be need to tighten that up a little bit, and I think we can either add something to that or just create another line to the amendment that may address some of those questions. But, again, I don't know what you're paying, John, in terms of the maintenance contract that you have. Is it a contract or is it --
-- when you just call? How long does is that contract for?
It's up? Again, it's a business decision. (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
We've worked together before, and we have no 8 reservations about working together again.
And you might want to look at that, 'cause they're out there hours. I mean, they 13 can eliminate that within 24 hours, I 14 think we could safely say. Maybe not 15 within 12 but I think within 24. 16 And, historically, he is 17 correct: If you let graffiti last longer 18 than 24 hours, it becomes that much more 19 difficult to discourage people from 20 coming back and doing another hit. 21
Thank you 22 very much. Thank you for letting me go 23 first, Councilman Jones. 24 On a serious note, Mr. Levy, you mentioned that at one point, you guys 127 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. worked on a pilot where you were doing some other removal. Can you speak to that? What happened and why that arrangement --
Yeah. I think at the time we were using a type of equipment that we can clean them at nighttime and not during the daytime. So there was a concern that, obviously, they didn't want us really doing major work on their stands at the time they were operating. I think we have ways now we could clean them while they're operating in the daytime. So, again, I want to emphasize that I am not here trying to negotiate in Council; that's really their decision, what they want to do, but we have the capability to do this, but they have a free business --
Was there a financial arrangement at that time, when you did the pilot?