COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Thursday, 2/7/02 1:14 p.m. Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, PA - - - BILL 010529 - An ordinance amending Section 20-501 of the Philadelphia Code relating to the boundaries of Councilmatic Districts by revising the boundaries of Councilmatic Districts, under certain terms and conditions. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK J. DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 2/7/02 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE INDEX WITNESS Michael McCray, President..................... 17 Feltonville Recreation Center Advisory Council Wilfredo Rojas, Delaware Valley............... 27 Voter Registration and Education Project. Will Gonzales, Executive Director, SAVA....... 31 Robert Brown, Chief Legislative Aide.......... 38 to Councilman Clarke (Presentation) Nelson Diaz, Esquire, Acting City Solicitor... 68 3 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529
Good morning, everyone. This is the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill No. 010529. I would ask Mr. Mezzaroba to please read the title of the bill.
Bill No. 010529, an ordinance amending Section 20-501 of the Philadelphia Code relating to the boundaries of Councilmatic Districts by revising the boundaries of Councilmatic Districts, under certain terms and conditions.
I was just given a copy of proposed amendments. Does everybody have a copy of them at this time? Yes, no?
About the specific amendments, the white pages, I assume, are the amendments to the pink bill. Are there any highlights as to what exactly the amendments are? You know how it's usually underlined or bracketed? Is there any specific change?
You're asking me what? 4 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529
Sometimes when we get amendments, they're either bracketed or underlined what information is added or deleted, and is there anything that's significantly different from the pink bill?
This is a replacement. Yeah, that's why it's amended.
And are there any -- no, I understand. Is there anything in the white pages that indicate what was changed?
It was pretty much all changed, so we submitted the amendment in this form.
The only change is now instead of nine signatures, there are ten.
For the record, Madam Chair, will the changes be read into the record so we can understand -- my only point is I'm trying to understand it better, 'cause usually if it's underlined, you know what's going in, and if it's 5 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 bracketed, you know what's coming out. And if it needs to be read into the record, I could follow it.
Madam President and my colleague, number 1 says, "Delete Section 1 of the bill in its entirety and replace it with the following." So it does indicate that it's an entire change. We can read that, but in lieu of that, everyone has it. It lists each ward in each division. It's pretty evident, it seems to me, as to what it is.
I withdraw the request; I'll figure it out myself. Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have anyone to testify on this bill? Are there witnesses here?
Yes, Councilman 6 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 Cohen?
Following the question and answer between Councilwoman Blackwell and Councilman Kenny, do I understand that this amendment replaces in entirety the entire bill 7 before?
What was advertised in the -- as noticed? Did the public have notice? Did the public have notice? I'm thinking of what we call the "Max Weiner" --
The public has notice of the pink bill, No. 010529, as was introduced. We certainly did not know what the amendments were at the time that we had to publicize it.
I'm just questioning the possible legality, and I wonder if there's anyone from the City Solicitor's Office here who could tell us whether the notice requirements, as defined by the Pennsylvania courts, have been complied. I'm concerned about the fact that the amendments are apparently an entirely new bill. And did the public know that there was going to be 7 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 a new bill presented, or did they think there was going to be consideration of the original bill? And has the City Solicitor studied this, and are they prepared to give us an opinion as to whether our action today would be legal, working on an amendment as a replacement for the original bill?
Madam President, I'm glad to respond. The Law Department has reviewed the amendments, and as the President just said, the bill was advertised -- the title of the bill was advertised. Everything was done properly and in order, and it was reviewed by the Law Department.
Well, this is an amendment that replaces the whole bill.
The title was the same, I say to my colleague. Amendments are amendments. There's no change in the title of the bill, it was properly advertised, and it was reviewed by the Law Department. Everything's in order.
Well, I would ask, is there an opinion by the Law Department?
The Law 8 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 Department already reviewed the bill. Everything that was done with regard to this bill --
But do we have anything in writing from the Law Department stating that an opinion of the City Solicitor, consideration of this amendment today would be legal? That's what I'm trying to --
An opinion was never requested. The Law Department reviewed it, as it does with every bill. We had no request for the Law Department to be here or for a request to -- for an amendment.
Well, there was no 20 reason to have a request from the Law Department because until a couple of hours ago -- maybe until just now -- I did not know what the bill was going to be, but I'm requesting now an opinion from the City Solicitor as to whether the procedure whereby Council considers a totally replacement bill for 9 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 the bill advertised would be legal. And I think we ought to have a City Solicitor's opinion on that score.
And I'd make the request to the President to ask for just an opinion.
In order to save time, can we proceed with the hearing, and in the interim, we'll ask someone from the Law Department to come here to address your issue? (Unintelligible; Council members talking over each other.)
My understanding is that the Law Department not only reviewed the bill 18 but helped prepare it based on input that they received, and that if we need a written formal opinion from them ascertaining what we already have been told, that we have a week for that to occur before final vote, and we'll certainly have it in front of us at that time. Rather than bring them back here, try to find a lawyer today and -- well, we know they've prepared the bill; it's not like it 10 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 was prepared by two staffers and they weren't involved in it. Thank you.
It would just confirm the City Solicitor, so we do have a City Solicitor and we can have an opinion, I'm sure.
I think what Councilman O'Neill has said is that we can proceed with the hearing. Since the City Solicitor's Office was involved in this and have seen it, that we could get something in writing from them between now and the final vote.
Well, I appreciate the Councilman's statement about what the City Solicitor believes, but I think the City Solicitor is the appropriate official to state his view, and if the City Solicitor approves it, fine, let's hear it from him.
Well, would you mind if we went on with the hearing.
We will make a phone call to the City Solicitor to come over before the end of the hearing, that's fine. 11 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529
But I do request that the City Solicitor be asked to come here, but we can go ahead.
No, not for every amendment, no. But this is a case in which an entire bill that was advertised to be heard is being replaced by an amendment.
The bills were advertised, but since 1968, during the years, 19 during that period during which I've been in City 20 Council, I do not recollect a single instance in 21 which a hearing took place on a bill that entirely 22 replaced the advertised bill, and that's what this 23 amendment does. Now, that's the reason I'm asking 24 for the City Solicitor's opinion.
We're making an 12 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 attempt to call the City Solicitor's Office; however, in the interim, I do think that we ought to proceed with the hearing.
Madam Chair, I disagree with the characterization that this is an entire replacement. If this were done line by line, which would probably be about a hundred pages, 70, 80, 90 percent of the bill -- of the amended bill are the same as what's in the original bill. There are districts that are exactly the same as in the original bill. To say that this is a total replacement of the original bill is just a mischaracterization. I would also, at the appropriate time, ask for a vote on whether Councilman Cohen's motion to wait for a City Solicitor's opinion, if we have to wait, on my motion to get the City Solicitor's opinion be ruled on.
Now, I'm getting very 13 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 annoyed, Madam President. I have never made a request during this hearing for the proceedings to halt while the City Solicitor comes. I've been as clear as I know how to be to say I have absolutely no objection to the hearing proceeding. What I have stated is that the appearance of this bill constitutes a replacement of the bill 9 that was advertised by an entirely new bill. The normal procedure for amendments is to have the brackets eliminate what was going out, retaining what stays in with there being in italics the new part. What appears from this bill is that the entire sections of the old bill are being eliminated and entirely new sections are being put in. One reading this bill cannot see at all what the changes are -- I cannot tell and you cannot tell, Councilman O'Neill, from this amendment what is being changed in the original bill, because the bill -- the amendments say "Delete entirely Section 1 and replace it with this language." Now, that's the reason I'm asking for a City Solicitor's opinion as to its legality. I 14 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 have no objection whatever to the hearing proceeding while the City Solicitor's Office comes to the hearing and states its opinion.
And if he is not here by the time that we end the meeting, then we'll ask for a written opinion.
I will agree with Councilman Cohen: Looking just at the amendment, I can't tell what is changed in the original bill, but I will add that looking at the original bill 12 and the amendment, I can tell everything that's changed. Can I tell in a second or a minute? It probably would take me a little longer. But taking the bill and the amendment, I can tell everything that was changed. And I think the record should be clear --
Councilman O'Neill, would you please state for the record what is it in the 1st District that constitutes the change in the 15 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 amendment.
Everything that is different in the amendment than what's in the bill 5 has been changed. Thank you. That's the end of my answer.
Thank you. There are a number of lights on. Are we going to -- do people want to be recognized now or -- I think we do have a number of witnesses here. Shall we have the presentation? I see that there's going to be a presentation made. Would you want to make the presentation first so witnesses could better understand what is being proposed? Councilman Goode.
I just wanted to make a very brief statement. I think that it's common knowledge that we are redistricting based upon new census numbers that came out of 2000. I think we are in agreement in terms of what the population of the City is according to those figures. We are clear that there are 10 districts in the City, we are clear that there are 66 wards, we are clear that there are 1,681 divisions. 16 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 And I think there's no misunderstanding about the fact that we are dividing that number in terms of population by ward and division in the most equitable way fashion. I think there's no way that we can conclude, although I won't try to make a conclusion, and we can allow the City Solicitor to make that conclusion, but there's no reason why we can't move forward in good faith, knowing that everyone knows what we're here to do today. Thank you.
Thank you. I believe we're going to have a presentation. Is it the desire that the presentation be shown first before we hear witnesses so that the witnesses would be aware more clearly about what changes are being proposed?
If that's your choice, I was willing to ask that the witnesses go first because they've been here for some time.
But if the preference is to allow -- I mean, either way is okay.
Wilfredo Rojas? (No response.) 17 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529
Is Michael McCray here? (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon, Mr. McCray. Thank you for your patience. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you very much, Madam President. I'm Michael McCray. I'm President of the Feltonville Recreation Center Advisory Council, and I have to tell you I haven't seen the latest amendments, so I'm not really sure if I support this bill or not. However, I'm kind of discouraged by the process only because in three different bills in this process, I've been in three different districts, and my neighborhood's been split up between two different districts two or three times. You know, I'm very discouraged, and you know, what is its definition of "disenfranchisement"? People talked about that in the previous bills when they got -- didn't vote fro 'em or the Mayor vetoed 'em. I mean, you know, there isn't anybody speaking for me. Am I going to 18 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 be pushed around three times? I mean, it's a very small number of groups that we're actually changing here, but, you know, it's affecting everybody. And for me personally, I like where I was but, you know, I'm not that affected by it. However, you know, my community itself, you know, what district am I going to be in? I really don't know at this point, and I don't know, I haven't seen the amendments yet. And it's kind of confusing to me the whole process that it doesn't look that difficult. I understand how hard it is, and I have worked with some of the people in your office on the second bill that got vetoed. And I was kind of happy with that bill but, you know, now it's, like, I'm here today, I'm here to testify at a 10 o'clock hearing this morning and I couldn't even get the amendments at 10 o'clock, and I'm here testifying now and I still don't have the amendments. I've been asking for 'em all day. So I don't know what this bill says.
Can someone please share the amendments with Mr. McCray?
Thank you. 19 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 Well, I mean, that -- to me, it's not the bill itself, but I think it's the process, you know, and I kind of feel like there isn't anybody representing my best interests here, there really isn't. I mean, if I can be in three different districts in three different bills, I mean, you know, I get redistricted into a district, and the Councilperson comes out and in public says he's not interested in serving me. I mean, you know, how am I supposed to feel in this process. I don't know. You know, it's very disturbing to me, it really is. I mean, normally, this is something that you would think that wouldn't be that much of a problem. But to me, it's, it's ...
Mr. McCray, do you have a copy of the proposed amendments?
Yes, and it appears my that community is probably split up between the 7th and the 5th. You know, I think my only part in this process -- I was hoping that we could all be at my 20 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 old community for one time and, like, my whole community could all be in one district, but obviously, that hasn't happened here again, so I can't support this bill if it doesn't put our whole community in one district. And I'm not sure what the percent of Hispanic in our district, in the 7th district, would be, but, you know, if that doesn't reach at least the 43 percent the Mayor asked for, I couldn't support this bill anyway.
Just a moment, Mr. McCray. Councilman Goode. You wanted to be recognized?
Yes. Good afternoon, sir. I enjoyed our conversation earlier looking at the maps.
I'd like to clarify for the record, did you say that you worked on the second bill?
I did talk to some people on 21 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 the second bill, Council President Verna's people had, and I had sent a letter and they had contacted me, and I just -- just on concerns that I had had, 'cause I was concerned at being redistricted --
Yes. I have a number of times on both the bills that the Mayor vetoed, on both times, and your office also.
Thank you. Just a moment, Mr. McCray. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
-- gave you the bill 24 that covers the amendments that have been proposed today. Which district did you say you were 22 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 interested in?
Well, my community looks like here between the 7th and the 5th
Can you tell by looking at the bill what the amendments to the bill are in those two districts that concern you?
At a quick glance, I can probably tell you most of it, the ones -- but I only know the wards and divisions I'm concerned with and I know the ones that are in my area, but I can't tell you beyond that, you know, like sitting here looking at this right now for the first time. And, you know, I agree -- I have to say I agree with your point. I think it's just -- it's something that's just being -- just put here in front of you, you know, and in 30 seconds, am I going to look at this and say I'm happy with this? I can't tell you for sure. But, you know, I know where it puts my division -- divisions where it puts me as far as being in one district or two districts, and it doesn't put me all in one district, and I can't support it.
All right, I 23 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 have no further questions.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
According to the documents that they just gave me, the percentage of Latinos in the district goes down to 42.7 from what I --
42.7 from what I considered the ground floor, which was 44. And this is assuming that these numbers are accurate. So it's -- because as you said, we just got these numbers given to us at the same time.
Right. Then you and I are at the same disadvantage, Councilman. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Mr. McCray, did you testify at the hearings on the first two bills, the ones that were vetoed?
No, I didn't. I wasn't able to be there in either one of those. I sent 24 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 letters.
I didn't support the first but I supported the latest one that the Mayor vetoed. I didn't support the first one, but I did support the second one.
Thank you. Any other questions of this witness? The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'd just like to make a brief statement to the gentleman. I, like you, am somewhat confused throughout the process 'cause as the 5th District Councilperson under numerous proposals, I had pretty much been recommended to represent every part of the City of Philadelphia.
But understanding the process and understanding the difficulties associated with redistricting, trying to achieve various goals, political, creating a Latino district, having certain variations, you know, fall 25 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 within the guidelines is an extremely difficult process.
So it sometimes calls for us to come up with something at the last minute. I, myself, have had numerous individuals from parts of my district that have sent letters, that have sent -- that have come in and testified about their concerns about being a divided community. Unfortunately --
Unfortunately, in redistricting and under the certain guidelines that we are trying to achieve, it just happens that way, and it's important --
I mean, you know, in the best-case scenario, we would draw ten blocks in the City of Philadelphia, but it just doesn't work like that. So I, you know, I understand you. 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529
I understand your concern. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. Are there any other questions of this witness? (No further questions.)
Thank you. I did want to add one last comment. I did want to say that I kind of wish -- and I was -- I didn't get a chance to be at the hearing, but I was listening to the hearing in December when you passed the second bill that the Mayor vetoed, and I don't usually like to single people out, but Councilman DiCicco said something that was really kind of very simple and very to the point: He said, Whatever I get redistricted into, I'm going to serve those people the same as I serve everybody else, and it doesn't matter. He said, If they get redistricted into my district or not, I'll serve 27 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 'em. You know, and I wish more people in this body would take that under consideration Thank you.
I appreciated the comments, Madam President, of that last witness, but he was not my witness today. Thank you.
Good afternoon, sir. Thank you for your patience in waiting to testify.
Thank you. My name is Wilfredo Rojas, and I'm appearing here before the Delaware Valley Voter Registration and Education Project. I testified here back in September, a few days before the tragic events of September 11th, and at that time I was testifying to ensure that the City of Philadelphia would have a place in 28 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 Philadelphia where a Latino can run and possibly win a District Office. Today, I'm appearing to voice the support of the amendments proposed by Councilman Clarke and Councilman Mariano because we feel that it addresses, the issues that were raised by the Latino community in terms of political empowerment, and we also feel that it more closely meets the standard of the law of the one person/one vote. We think that the Latino community has been satisfied with both bills. I want to let this Council know that we appreciate the efforts that you initially put into this to ensure that our community was taken into consideration when you proposed your bill, but now we're coming back to this Council and asking you to take into consideration the one person/one vote standard as set forth by the law. We believe that in the case of Councilman Clarke and Councilman Mariano, they are being singled out as the two individual District Councilpersons where we're trying to carve out redistricting. We're doing redistricting around those two particular districts, as opposed to 29 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 equalizing the number of residents throughout Philadelphia. That is why I wholeheartedly support the amendments as proposed by Councilman Clarke, and the Delaware Valley Voter Registration Project will continue to work with this Council in getting Latinos involved in the election process. Thank you.
Thank you very much, sir. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
You understand that under this proposal, the percentage of the Latinos goes down.
Yes, I do understand that, but at the same time, I think that with those numbers, we can elect a Latino in that district, as we have proven in the legislative districts.
Thank you, Madam Chair. No more questions. 30 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529
Thank you. Any other questions? Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say with respect -- and it will probably be more detailed in the presentation that the Latino percentage is in fact less than the Latino percentage in the last bill, but the minority population in the proposed 7th Councilmatic District is extremely higher, upwards of 65 percent. Additionally, the Latino population in this proposed bill, they are the majority of the population in that particular 7th District. So the opportunity to elect a minority representative is increased in this particular bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Any other questions of this witness? (No further questions.)
Seeing none, I would ask that the next witness be called, please.
Will Gonzales. 31 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Sorry I had to prepare my presentation here on the computer and I wasn't able to print it out. Let me just ... Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Will Gonzales. I'm the Executive Director of SAVA (ph). SAVA is a consortium of organizations in the Latino community. Its membership currently consists of (indiscernible), (indiscernible) Credit Union, Hunting Park CDC, (indiscernible) CDC, the Council of Spanish-Speaking Organizations, and the Norris Square Civic Association. We are grateful for the opportunity you have given us today to testify on the latest proposal to redistrict the City of Philadelphia. SAVA looks at the issue of redistricting through the prism of housing and economic development. Accordingly, we consider the preservation of neighborhood integrity the primary principle when redistricting the City. " It is more than a 32 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 cute label; many people in the City identify with their neighborhood and organize themselves accordingly. Cohesion is such within each community that people in the neighborhoods create organizations to come together to work for the benefit of their area. The work of SAVA and its member organizations covers the neighborhoods of Fair Hill, West Kensington, Hunting Park, Juniata Park, and Olney, among others. These neighborhoods share a commonality of interests, they face serious common challenges in housing and economic development, they share much commonality in their demographic data. One of the prime commonalities between them is the strong presence of Latinos. This trait also creates commonness among the seven neighborhoods in sharing Spanish as a second language and Hispanic traditions as an additional source of culture. The reality of the commonalities in geography, demographics, and cohesiveness of institutions makes it important for development purposes that the seven neighborhoods remain 33 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 together in one City Council district. Bringing together the neighborhoods under one common Councilmatic umbrella is more than a matter of keeping maps neat and keeping people with commonality of interests together. It is a tremendous step forward in efficiency, economies of scale, and coordination to meet development opportunities. City Council district persons play a significant role in matters pertaining to their districts. Issues of zoning, City funding, and development often must have the direct input of City district persons. The neighborhoods and the myriad organizations and businesses within them can be more productive if they had the ability to go to one Councilperson instead of several to address their needs or to seek support for their projects. We ask that as you carve out the City and create Council maps of Philadelphia, that you do the right thing and think first of how to best maximize the impact of your work in addressing the needs of neighborhoods residents. The upcoming work of the City in addressing issues of blight make redistricting on the basis of neighborhoods 34 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 important in its efficiency, and it becomes more important than ever. Our proposal may be politically naive, but the challenges our organizations face are tremendous, and one of the clear ways out of the problems is a cohesive and compact City Council district map. One of the best ways to find your way out of trouble is to use a good map, and we hope that City Council can at least try to do that. We also would like to comment on the redistricting process. We know that the process has not been easy for Councilpeople because you have not received a paycheck for four months. The process has been very difficult for us as well, because it's very hard to know what's going on.
Proposals fly around, they are not presented with enough time for us to digest them, and to grasp these proposals, one has to have a map to see what they mean, and those maps should be presented contemporaneously at the same time that you present the bill in its language form. We politely suggest that Council ensure that from this time on that when it considers 35 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 redistricting matters, that it make public not only the language of the bill but the map for it. We also hope that you make these measures and maps public, not only by publishing them in the major dailies, but also in the community newspapers. The Pennsylvania legislature does that for the whole state; why can't Philadelphia do it for the City? Another logistical matter that has made this process difficult for us is the way that Council has organized the public hearings. I don't want you to think that I'm being disrespectful by using the very microphone you give me now to speak to criticize when and where you let me use it. The very first time when Council organized these hearings, we were summoned to be here at 9 o'clock in the morning, and it was not until after 6 that we were able to speak. Some of us, however, had to leave to attend to other commitments. Today, we were summoned for 10 o'clock, and the hearing was postponed twice, and it started at 1. Participation by people in this redistricting process deserves better attention. To finalize, I'm going to make sure to 36 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 express our thanks to Mayor Street for his veto of the original legislation. I know that this may not sound nice to some of you, but for the Latino community, that veto meant an increase in the way that it is housed within the 7th Councilmatic District. The current measure, whatever its latest incarnation is, is not perfect, but it dilutes less the cohesive minority group, the Latino community, at a time when it can finally begin to participate in the electoral process in a meaningful manner. We urge you to continue to work to make the City's districts more compact, more cohesive, better form so as to maximize the opportunities for community development in the neighborhoods, and to ensure that the Latino community gets a chance to have a better presentation. Thank you.
Thank you The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz. Your light is on, sir.
Yeah, thank you, Will. The next chance for that is going to be, like, ten years from now, in terms of the next redistricting 37 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 process that takes place, and I agree with you that this process has been fraught with mistakes all throughout the time that we've been handling it, and that the people have really not had a clear say as to what it is that they're voting on. As you can see, the Councilmatic 7th District is not a compact district; it is anything but a compact district. And I would agree with you that we, the people, should have had a greater notice to be able to speak to these things. The latest amendments we just got we ourselves. And so that we still have not internalized what the impact is and how the demographic changes in our community, the movement of population within the Latino community, is going to be affected by these new lines. We still have to see that. I don't know yet. But I agree with you, I agree with what you are saying in terms of the process and what's lacking and how it should be and it hasn't been. So I thank you for coming forward.
Thank you. Any other questions from members of the 38 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 committee of the witness? (No further questions.)
And we do apologize for the delay in the hearing. Our next witness?
I believe that Mr. Feder is supposed to be on his way over.
Good afternoon, Madam President and members of Council. My name is Robert Brown, I'm the Chief Legislative Aide to Councilman Clarke. In front of you on the slide show 39 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 projection is a blown-up version of the amendments to Bill 010529. I'd like to spend a little time talking about how the bill got to this place, the way that it was amended, and some of the substantive changes in the bill. Bill 010529 was introduced in the Committee of the Whole at the same time the original bill that was vetoed -- the first bill 10 vetoed by the Mayor was introduced. It was heard in the Committee of the Whole and a hearing was held and the bill was held in that committee. Bill 010529 was originally written in the form that Councilman Cohen is familiar to, whereby all the districts are listed and then specific deletions are made. After the Law Department had made some revisions, the Council President's staff had also adopted the style in which 010529 was presented and deleted Section 1 in its entirety so as to put divisions and wards listed specifically. So what we have done in this particular amendment is the same style as was done in the first vetoed bill. The first bill started -- had a Latino percentage of 34 percent and rose later on to just 40 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 under 40 percent. 77 percent. It also is a majority-Latino district and has a greater percentage of minorities in the district as compared to either the first or the second vetoed bills. Speaking a little bit about how the substance of the bill came to be, after this bill -- the text of this bill is substantially similar to amendments proposed in Bill No. 010626. After that bill was circulated and seen by Councilmembers, Councilmembers met in the Council President's office to discuss a possible compromised plan. The text of that compromised plan, as was circulated by the Council President's Office, is substantially similar to the bill that you see in front of you now, with the exception of three changes: The first change exists in the 31st -- exists in the 23rd Ward of the City of Philadelphia. The 23rd Ward is Frankford, and I'll blow it up on the screen for you. The 23rd Ward boundaries. You'll note at 41 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 the top of the screen the three intersections would be the Oxford Circle, where you see the cursor -- this is the Oxford Circle along Harbison Avenue. this is bridge and Pratt. This is the Frankford Creek. In the original provisions of Bill 010626, as circulated, Councilman DiCicco had the 23rd Ward Divisions 1 and 2, the 19th and 20th Divisions. In this particular iteration of the bill, as different from 010626, Councilman Mariano has Divisions 1, 2, 20, and 19. As a result of that change, Councilman DiCicco's population was under what we thought was an acceptable variance. The second major from 010626, which was circulated by a map seen by Councilmembers, were the five divisions that were in the 31st Ward, have been removed -- the five divisions that Councilman Clarke -- the 5th Councilmatic District had in the 31st Ward were put into Councilman DiCicco's 1st Councilmatic District. That leaves only one other change different between what was circulated in the forms of amendments to 010626, and that would be the 42 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 addition of the 21st and 25th Divisions of the 43rd Ward to Councilman Clarke, as opposed to Councilman Mariano's district. Aside from the specific substance of the bills, redistricting in this particular -- these particular iterations, it's been difficult for a couple reasons. One -- if I can zoom out. Generally speaking, districts in the Northeast of the map that you see in front of you contains dark lines, which are major streets and roads; red are interstates. And this is a map of the City of Philadelphia with the adjoining counties.
The redistricting process has been difficult because population losses occurred primarily in two districts in the City of Philadelphia: The 5th Councilmatic District losing 16,000 people, and the 1st Councilmatic losing 9,000 people, as compared to the 1991 redistricting maps. Further, population gain, so to speak. Has been in the 1st, the 7th, the 6th, and the 10th Councilmatic Districts, which are in the Northeast. As a result, districts have to shift towards the 43 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 Northeast. And in this particular iteration, you'll note that Councilman Clarke's district, the 5th Councilmatic District, shifts to the Northeast. This line here which the cursor's going along is the Boulevard. Councilman Clarke's district, which previously had its northern-most boundary at Luzerne, now extends all the way above the Boulevard to Oxford Circle, and extends across what I believe to be Frankford Avenue.
Point of information, Madam President. I think he made a mistake. I think the other district that lost the population was the 2nd, not the 1st.
I apologize, I misspoke. The 2nd Councilmatic District has lost --
The 2nd Councilmatic District has lost population; the 1st Councilmatic District has gained population. The other difficulty in doing a 44 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 redistricting map is this bulk that you find in the 7th Councilmatic District here. In order to keep a Latino percentage at about 42 or 43 percent, you had to add divisions that had over 43 percent Latino population. The vast majority of these are located between 9th Street, Kensington Avenue, Frankford Creek on top, and Girard Avenue. As well, this mass could not be shared by people adjoining to it to gain population. So in order to keep a high percentage here without having too much population loss had to occur in the northern districts, which, you will note, the 14th Division of the 56th Ward is now in the 10th Councilmatic District, and Councilwoman Krajewski's district extends into the 56th Ward across the Boulevard in the form of the 26th and 39th Divisions. However, the sum and substance of my comments for today is that this bill is substantially similar to the amendments circulated in 010626, with three exception: The 31st Ward is now contained wholly by Councilman DiCicco, with the exception of the 2nd and 9th divisions; 45 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 Councilman Clarke has taken two divisions in the 43rd; and Councilman Mariano retains divisions 5 in the 23rd Ward. 6 Thank you very much, Council President. 7
Thank you. 8 The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. 9
Thank you, Madam 10 President. 11 Mr. Brown, I know you put a lot of work 12 into this, as have many other people did, and I do 13 appreciate it, although I may not agree with the 14 final outcome of it, and that will be noted in my 15 vote today. You keep referencing the 31st Ward as having been in Councilman Clarke's district and now it will be in my district. Just for the record, currently, I do represent those divisions; is that correct?
And those were divisions that early on, on the first bill back in September, I believe I suggested if anything needed to be taken from my district that I represent today 46 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 to move the boundaries in any way, shape, or form to come to some agreement, I said those divisions were on the table for discussion.
That is correct, Councilman. When I spoke -- on your first question, when I spoke earlier, I -- just so I'm specific, I meant that the divisions you had all -- the 1st Councilmatic District had always represented that section of the 31st Ward. The change that I speak of is in the --
Okay, and I just want to make that clear because that was part of what I offered as an opportunity to see if we could come to some sort of resolution on the issue.
And there was also some concern from my colleague Councilman Clarke about the demographics of the neighborhood and how that may not be working for him at the time.
To speak to that specifically, 47 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 the -- what is noted in the offering in front of you is the 7th Councilmatic District, as proposed by this bill.
No, I'm just laying out the lay of the land. Because we want to keep that compact, Councilman Clarke's district needs to pick up 16,000 people, so under either iteration, it either goes north over the Boulevard; or as in the previous iteration, it goes under the 31st, as you had suggested.
I understand that. I'm just trying for the record to make sure that everyone else understands that. So those divisions that I currently represent in the 31st Ward, at some point during this lengthy process, we, I thought, had an agreement that they would go to Councilman Clarke. Subsequent to that, as recent as today, it is understood by myself and Councilmember Clarke that those divisions would now be retained by me.
I -- without speaking for the 48 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 Councilman, I never understood it to be our position or the Councilman's position that we wanted to have the 31st Ward as part of the 5th Councilmatic District. Our preference was to go over the Boulevard, and the difference between that is just that it's a more integrated neighborhood -- (Unintelligible; parties talking over each other.)
If it sounds like I'm suggesting that that's what you wanted, I certainly would retract that. What I'm saying is that there were issues that we were talking about to try to get to some agreement that necessitated in a sense that some of those divisions in the 31st would go to Councilman Clarke, even though that was not his most desirable --
I would agree with that. My only difference would be, my recollection was that Councilman Clarke had never agreed to have as part of the 5th Councilmatic District the 31st, but I think we're saying substantially similar things.
It never was his intention to have the 31st Ward, they were never 49 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 divisions that he -- that he sought.
Point of order, please I just wanted to clarify my statements associated with the 31st Ward and one of the proposed redistricting plans. My statements were the following: That my preference was to move north and represent the divisions that were proposed in the plan that Councilman Mariano and myself presented; secondly, it was indicated to me that the demographics of the particular divisions on the southern end might not be divisions that were favorably to me politically. It was also suggested to me that the people in those divisions may not view me as a favorable Councilperson. That's what the statements were.
Well, would the Councilman care to expound on that as to why you think you would be --
I don't know, I've never represented that area before. Frankly speaking, I'm not familiar with that area. 50 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529
But your testimony is now that those are divisions that -- that people indicated --