Right. And, Councilman Rizzo, I think when Patrick Mulligan and some of others folks come up to testify, I think some of those questions will probably be more appropriate for them. But just to let you know -- and I hope everyone understands that what this bill says, this really puts us back in compliance with the State code. The State code says that if you have a handicapped placard or plate, you get a one-hour grace period beyond the period that the meter allows. So if it's a two-hour meter parking, you still can park three hours free 'cause short -- meters were intended for short-term parking, regardless of whether someone was disabled or not. They were never intended for long-term parking, and they are placed only in business districts for the turnover so that we can continue to do business. Business people -- you know, we deal with all of these issues all the time, where the business community has been complaining -- and rightfully so, in most cases -- about the high 136 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 cost of doing business in Philadelphia. And all this does, I think, is put another layer on that by giving them inability to have turnover to be able to accommodate their customers. People can go over the bridge and park in New Jersey in any mall basically free. There's a cost associated, I understand, with the cost of the bridge toll and some gas, but it's still free and less expensive than here. And if someone needs to go shopping more than three hours, which is typically the two-hour meters are allowed in commercial district, I don't think they're really just doing shopping. And if someone has to go to work, whether you're disabled or not -- if I'm -- I'm not disabled, I have to park in a garage, I have to pay if I'm going to be there for 8 to 10 hours a day. I don't think that this is being disrespectful or insensitive to folks who are truly in need. The bill has provisions for severely handicapped folks who are disabled veterans; they can still continue to park free. And for those folks who had vehicles with ramps, 137 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 they can still continue to park free. But the rod-setter in South Philadelphia who can pick up this table with me and you and sitting on it and throw us across this room, who had a knee injury two years ago, and has since been rehabilitated and walks around in my face and parks there all day, is doing an injustice to everybody -- more importantly, to the folks who are truly handicapped. They don't get a shot at it. It's -- there's no equity here. It's very, I think, discriminatory for those who are truly handicapped people who want to come in to shop. We're telling them to come in and shop, we're trying to make accommodations for them. But if you've got to go pick up a piece of jewelry or you're going to go to one of the other department stores to pick up a package or buy a gift and it's only going to take you an hour -- You got to read through some of these statistics I handed to you. In 1997, 2,000 extra vehicles are put on the streets of Center City at peak hour, because there is that many less parking spaces to park. Then we'll get into air quality. And you want to talk about revenue, which most 138 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 people say, Well, this is the only reason this was designed; it's not just designed for revenue, but the City of Philadelphia is taking almost a $3 million hit in loss of revenues at parking meters along. That's a significant amount of money -- in addition to what the business community is losing. And this isn't here just to promote -- it's not just for the business community. I think it's for every citizen in the City of Philadelphia, to have an equal opportunity to be able to pull in a parking space anywhere from one minute to two hours or three hours, if you have a placard or a plate and shop and do what you have to do and get back in your car.
The guy I used as the example, who works at Bell Atlantic at Ninth and Race, parks on Race Street. Race Street is a commercial corridor. There are restaurants, people want to go in and get lunch, they want to have a bite, maybe have dinner. They're not going to be there all day. They are forced to go into a garage because that guy who climbs a ladder all day, who's been rehabilitated for the better part of 139 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 four or five years, is still using the tag. I don't know how many hours we're going to have with the police worrying about -- standing at that car, waiting for that person to return to show them identification to prove, in fact, they are the person that the tag had been issued to. I think our police should be doing other things. Any more comments? Any more questions to these witnesses? Councilman Cohen?
I agree that you have a problem on Sansom Street, but I think the best approach, first at least, to see whether it works, is to take the handcuffs off the police. I don't understand why for a moment the police don't ticket cars if they believe there is an abuse. There's a court system we have, people that get tickets can appear if court. And if they've been given the ticket improperly, they have, you know, a right to come in. If -- you know, the Chairman of the committee earlier talked about a businessman on one of the blocks in Jewelers Row who uses -- I don't know whether he has the handicapped or 140 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 whether he's using wife's handicapped, you know, I don't know what the circumstance is, but he abuse it and parks all day long. That many ought to be getting a ticket every day that he parks there improperly. And we ought to find out what the true picture is. I don't believe that you -- just because of abuses, you don't solve the abuse by taking a hatchet. You know, there's that famous saying about, you don't think the best way to remove a fly from somebody's forehead is to use a hatchet to get rid of the fly. It seems to me that we're doing some -- I understand your problem and I agree it is a problem. I think we ought to eliminate that abuse and I think we ought to be talking about how we punish the abusers and get them to stop abusing it.
The best way is for the City to have the same law as the State and not to go ahead and give additional unnecessary, unwarranted free usage for someone to park eight hours a day. That is hurting the handicapped person that needs that spot. I want the handicapped to be able to find the spot and to 141 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 have free use of that spot. You are preventing that by allowing an able-bodied person to abuse it. And that's what this whole situation comes down to.
Wouldn't it be wrong for that businessman to use that spot for three hours, just as it's wrong for him to use it for eight hours?
He's not going to use it for three hours because in three hours, he may have a customer and he can't get out to his car and then he can get a ticket, and then he'll park in a parking lot, where he should be.
And I think, Councilman Cohen, the issue, again, is a police officer has to be at the site, at the space where the car is parked in order to be able to ask for identification. And you have Sansom Street -- well, maybe you could do it a little easier there 'cause there's 16 cars there every day, just block off the street and not let anybody out until you show I.D., but in other places where it's sporadically done, you know, what's the chances of having a police officer at that location at the 142 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 time that the person is coming back to their vehicle. You know, when I speak to 54 or 60 percent of the core of Center City, there are about 1100 parking meters in that core. You're talking almost 600 spaces that are used on a daily basis for any length of time over and above the grace period, which is the hour over the metered parking.
I don't believe the police officer has to be there to see it; he can act on information that's given to him, if it's reasonable information.
Well, I'll let the police answer that question. But thank you, thank you for your testimony.
Thank you for coming today. Mr. Mulligan, I believe you're the next witness. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. 143 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Patrick Mulligan, and I'm Deputy Managing Director, in charge of parking and traffic management for the City of Philadelphia. I'd like to read in a couple proposed amendments to the Bill 000359.
Excuse me, Patrick. Do you have copies of those amendments?
Amend Section 9-601, part (2), part (g). City of Philadelphia police officers and Philadelphia Parking Authority officials shall be authorized to enter public garages for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of subsection 12-1117(4)(b) relating to improper parking and accessible parking spaces. We'd also like to amend Section 9-601, part (4), section (e). City of Philadelphia police officers and Philadelphia Parking Authority officials shall be authorized to enter parking public lots for the purpose and enforcing the 144 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 provisions of subsection 12-1174(4)(b) relating to improper parking in accessible parking spaces. In addition to this, the other proposed amendment to Bill 000359 as follows: Section 6 9-601, part (2). The applicant provides accessible parking in accordance with the following: Except that a public garage existing at the time this subsection became law, which does not permit self-parking and at which vehicles are parked only by attendants need not provide any particular number of accessible parking spaces but need only provide at least one accessible drop-off and pickup, provided that the garage accepts for parking all vehicles modified for people with disabilities, including vehicles equipped with hand controls. And an additional amendment. Subsection 9-601, part (8). The applicant provides accessible parking in accordance with the following: Provided that a public parking lot existing at the time of this subsection become law, which does not permit self-parking and at which vehicles are parked only by attendants, need not provide any particular number of accessible 145 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 parking spaces, but need only provide at least one accessible drop-off location and pickup location, provided that the parking lot accepts all parking of vehicles modified for people with disability, including vehicles equipped with hand controls. The Traffic Code, as we've been discussing here --
Patrick, you need to pull the microphone up a little closer. I'm sorry.
The Traffic Code currently permits vehicles bearing plates or placards for people with disabilities free unlimited parking at parking meters and in time zones. Pennsylvania law only requires that people with disabilities be granted one hour over that posted time limit. The purpose of this proposed ordinance would make City policy consistent with Pennsylvania law. As you all know, in 1992, the City Council adopted the current ordinance sponsored by then-Councilwoman Joan Spector, and passed it with a 16-to-0 vote. Under State laws, vehicles with disabled stickers were allowed to park at meter 146 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 spaces for free for up to 60 minutes. Spector's bill did away with the one-hour time limit, providing unrestricted parking at meters and in time-limited zones. Without a time limit, a person with disabled credentials is allowed to park free all day in metered spots and in time zones. My understanding of the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act is that people with disabilities are to be treated in the same nondiscriminatory manner as everyone else. And to accomplish that, reasonable accommodation is a necessary requirement. It seems to me that free, all-day parking is not one of those reasonable accommodations. When the Spector bill was passed in 1982, parking in Philadelphia was difficult for the disabled due to the lack of curb cuts allowing access to many buildings. Since the inception of the ADA in 1990, the number of sidewalks in Philadelphia without curb ramps is almost nonexistent. Although there are some sidewalks in the City of Philadelphia that do not have curbed ramps, that is not the case on both ends of the 147 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 walkway. There have been -- since the inception of the ADA, there have been 16,000 curb cuts in the City of Philadelphia. Currently, there's about 117 -- approximately 117 locations in the City that are not able to have curb cuts due to other restrictions. Curb spaces are regulated in order to provide sufficient turnover so the greatest number of people will have access to short-term parking spaces. Time limits are generally set so that adequate time is provided for customers to transact business and return to their vehicles within that time limit. Recognizing that the disable community often requires more time to get to and from business, the State has provided one additional hour beyond the posted time limit in order to ensure equal access to the disabled community. It is clear that the current State and federal law is to provide equal access. Unfortunately, the current City ordinance has done the opposite effect. The problem is with abuse of the placard system. The problem lies directly 148 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 with PennDOT's criteria on how these placards and HP plates are issued. Non-disabled drivers are allowed to use placards if they are using it to transport a person that is disabled so long as the placard is only used for the person it is assigned to it. Many people with a grandmother, disabled sister, brother, friend, may use these placards in addition for their own self work. Many of them have received them for injuries that have already healed, but due to PennDOT's system, these placards continue to be renewed without review. The economic incentive due to free, all day parking at meters and the high parking rates in garages has increased the fraudulent use of HP plates and placards to an all-time high. The disabled community will say we should create a separate placard to be honored only in Philadelphia. This is not only expensive, but also, it would require people with disabilities to apply from for a placard or a plate both the State and the City. This would also cause hardship upon the many visitors our city receives every year since they would not 149 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 qualify for our system.
Cities that have adopted similar ordinances, such as the one proposed here, are Baltimore, Maryland; Arlington, Virginia; Phoenix, Arizona; Columbus, Ohio; New Orleans; and Orlando, Florida. The following Pennsylvania cities also follow State law: Allentown, Bethlehem, Erie, Harrisburg, Lancaster, New Hope, Pittsburgh, Reading, Scranton, and Upper Darby all follow the State law. People with disabilities say they need the free space to park close to businesses or offices of their destination. Most, if not all, of the space is occupied early in the morning, leaving no space for disabled and non-disabled persons alike. Driving into Center City for an appointment at noontime and finding a parking space on the street is highly unlikely. Center City meter occupancy, especially within the core area of Center City, is at an excessive 98 percent. The resulting parking, traffic, and transit impacts from motorists unable to find convenient metered parking create public safety and environmental problems and contribute to the 150 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 public perception of Center City being a parking nightmare.
I'd just like to make a statement. Are you claiming that finding a parking space in the core of Center City during the daytime is because of the disabled taking up all of the parking?
No, I'm not. I'm saying it's now the actual disabled, but the abuse of the placard system has resulted in that. A lot of these figures were created by parking surveys conducted by the Parking Authority in November and December of 1999 and in April of this year. The number of vehicles parked with plates or placards for people with disabilities continues to grow to the point where it represents 40 percent of the parking meter spaces in the core of Center City. That means that more than 1600 parking spaces are effectively unavailable for patrons of business because they are taken early in the morning by people with credentials or by people with disabilities who remain there throughout the day. This means that more than 500,000 parkers, including people with 151 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 disabilities, are displaced annually. This, in turn, creates additional unwanted traffic congestion on our streets throughout the City due to people searching for a parking space. When a motorist fights traffic in search of a parking space, they add to congestion, increased fuel consumption, and has a reduced effect on the timeliness of our mass transit system. The Parking Authority performed a percentage of analyses on meters both by physically disabled vehicles and non-physically disabled vehicles. For both, the core and the fringe areas of Center City -- the core encompasses the area within Race to Locust and Eighth to 20th Streets. This enables them to separately determine the degree of turnover and occupancy that occurs on meters in general and on those metered spaces not occupied by physically disabled vehicles. Those percentages were then applied to the standard number of parking opportunities available on Center City meters. During a typical 8-hour work day within the core and fringe, the 152 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 results are: within the core, nearly 1600 motorists in search of parking meters may be displaced by physically disabled-permitted vehicles; in the fringe, due to the relatively high number of meters and lower occupancy rates, the number of displaced motorists drops off to 577 daily. Eliminating unlimited free parking for the physically disabled-identified vehicles should significantly improve meter space availability and vehicle turnover within the core. Although this original City ordinance 14 sought to address the disabled community's needs, the current ordinance has actually become a disservice to them and to the general public. The abuse of the system and the proliferation of the placards and handicapped plates has actually made it harder to find a metered parking space in Center City and has created greater problems for disabled in their efforts to find close, affordable parking. The proposed ordinance eliminates the provision for free, all-day parking, and applies the provision of State law, which allows one 153 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 additional hour. This proposal will increase parking availability by increasing turnover at parking meters, while accommodating people with disabilities who may require additional time to return to their vehicles after completing their business. It also accommodates those individuals who are unable to operate a parking meter by exempting the vehicles which are equipped with lift devices from the time limit and meter fees.
Thank you, Mr. Mulligan. Before we get into any questions, the Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to do make sure I could get on the record that I know that this hearing actually started some time ago, about 9:30 this morning. There are a number of community residents who are here still for the streets and services committee hearing for the resolution on retaining walls, driveways and alleys, and I just wanted to make sure, Mr. Chairman, to let them know, 'cause they're starting to get a little concerned, they've been here since 10:30. They would like to be able to testify based and, I 154 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 believe, on our earlier conversation, the resolution for that matter will be coming up next; is that correct?
Thank you, Councilman. Any questions for this witness? Councilman Rizzo?
Mr. Mulligan, the amendment in reference to Philadelphia police officers and Philadelphia Parking Authority officials entering a private garage for the purpose of issuing a violation for parking in a spot that's for handicapped, would that also authorize the Parking Authority to use City-owned vehicles to tow that out of there?
We didn't address it in that way. We addressed it as a ticketing infraction point, and typically using the Parking Authority enforcement officers or are a police officer who has been called into a garage to enforce, such a law should be enough. We did not 155 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 intend for the car to be impounded.
So, for the record, it would not include towing services.
It would not include towing services. If I may say my personal feeling. I don't think, you know, in that case, you should -- unless it obstructs something or there's a person there who needs that vehicle, then you relocate that vehicle within the property, but you don't impound the vehicle.
That leads me to my next question. Why do we need this amendment? If a parking garage operator has a vehicle that's improperly parked, taking two spaces or parking a vehicle in a way that's precarious to the operation of the garage, I believe they're authorized to call a contractor that works for them to relocate the vehicle or to take the vehicle away, if necessary. Why do we need this amendment if they're authorized to remove a car that is improperly parked on their property?
Well, what I'm saying is 156 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 that we shouldn't use City property to remove the vehicle. If they want to use a private contractor, that's fine.
But why do we even need to issue a ticket for that vehicle that's parked there when the garage already is empowered to deal with that issue? Why do we have to expose our police officers, expose our Parking Authority representatives to go to private property to enforce this improper action when that operator, to the best of my knowledge, is already allowed to remove a vehicle that is not conforming to the policies of that facility?
We wanted to provide a way for enforcement. And by creating more turnover on City streets, you're creating opportunities for people in long-term parking -- who meet disabilities for long-term parking in a garage, in a garage. There are garages out there -- there are companies out there who run the garages very efficiently and there are garage companies out there who only care about getting the cars in and getting the bottom dollar. We want to ensure that 157 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 those spaces are every day available for an individual if the need exists.
Well, couldn't that be -- and I hate to burden the other regulatory departments, but couldn't that be a function of L&I to check to see if this garage is not just using those spots for revenue rather than for their intended purpose? And legally, are they required -- how many spots is an average garage -- is it a mandate that they must have handicapped spaces?
Yeah. The mandate is in the building code, it's already a part of the code, from when the garages are being built. It's one space for every 25, and it's already mandated in there. And I agree with you, we could make it a part of L&I.
You know, I just personally have a problem with sending police officers and Parking Authority people into private property to start issuing tickets.
Thank you, 158 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Mr. Mulligan, I have a quick question. I just wanted to get some clarity on one part of the bill. It talks about the wheelchair lift- equipped van being operated for the transportation of a physically disabled person or a severe disabled veteran. Does the severely disabled veteran apply to this particular vehicle, or is that a separate category?
Okay. My request is the following. And the lady earlier talked about politics and people that vote, and it kind of made me think of that two committee people that I have in my district. One is a gentleman who has a disable veteran tag, who's probably healthier than me. The other is a lady who has a relatively 159 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 old station wagon, and she needs a walker to get around from time to time in the neighborhood. She uses one of the motorized vehicles, but she does not have that type of vehicle that will allow her to park unlimited. And I'm trying to get some clarity. Why should the individual with the disabled veteran tag have the ability to park unlimited and this lady does not?
Well, there's two types of tag for a disabled veteran. There's the disabled veteran tags and there's the severely disabled veteran tags. There's two different criteria as to how they are issued, and I can't tell you verbatim exactly what the rule is, but someone who is mildly disabled and has full function of all of their bodily functions, and if they apply for a disabled veteran tag and they're a veteran, they typically get assigned it. You have to be severely disabled in order to get the severely disabled veteran tag.
So does that severely disabled veteran have a more rigorous medical history? I mean, do they have to, like on 160 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 a six-month basis, keep going back to the doctor or does this person have an injury that they will never recover from?
Again, Councilman Clarke, I'm not a physician and, you know, I don't know the law verbatim; I would have to go back and consult the law itself. But a person who is a severely disabled veteran typically is, you know, needs assistance once they're out of the vehicle in getting to where they need to go.
Okay. So this lady who has to use a walker and a motorized vehicle, because she's not veteran, she, therefore, doesn't have ability to park unlimited like this veteran does.
She has a handicapped placard, but it's not in this 161 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 particular category, so she's limited.
It was not an exclusion on the veterans; it was an exclusion for people who -- the thought process was severely disabled individuals typically do not possess the motor functions to feed quarters into a meter, and those individuals typically were in wheelchairs with hand control type lifts. And to accommodate their needs in this proposal was to give them the freedom to park all day, and those numbers are very small.
And so they traditionally are able to drive themselves is what you're saying?
A severely disabled vehicle without a lift is also a part of the exempt; is that what you're asking me?
Well, I mean, this lady's a low-income lady, she doesn't -- I don't think she has the wherewithal to buy a vehicle with a lift. She has a 1970-something station 162 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 wagon. She gets around. You know, she gets out, she needs a walker, and she's not covered under this, and I'm just trying to --
Well, neither is the disabled veteran unless they have a lift-equipped vehicle.
I'm sorry. I wasn't making myself clear and I apologize. So she and the disabled veteran, if they're driving same vehicles, except one walks with a walker and one doesn't need the assistance of a walker, they're still the same, they're identically the same.
So unless you're a severely disabled vet, you still have to be in a --
Councilman Rizzo. 163 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359
Could I read one short letter into the record first. I have a letter here addressed to me from Nicholas J. Maile. "I want to expend the support of the Multiple Sclerosis Society Delaware Valley Chapter, for the above ordinances. The handicapped parking spaces and privileges addressed by the ordinance are of great importance to the thousands members of the Society, many of whom are dependent on these privileges in order to get about and attend to heir daily activities. The abuse of these privileges harms our members greatly by reducing the availability of such parking for those who are in need. "Your attempt to address the misuse and abuse of these privileges will benefit the public at large and our membership in particularly." Signed by Nicholas Maile, M-A-I-L-E, Chair of Government Relations Committee for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Thank you. 164 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 Councilmember Rizzo?
Mr. Chairman, for a brief period, I have to leave the chamber, and I'd like to leave my vote for the various bills before this committee. I'd like to vote yes on all bills, except Bill No. 358, and I'm going to vote no on that one.
Any other questions for these witnesses? Councilman Ortiz?
I'm troubled again. I want to know, is this really a problem? I mean, how big of a problem is it? How many people are misusing this that it needs legislation by this Council to fix this, or there something that could be done with the law enforcement laws that we have now on the books in terms of ticketing, in terms of other aspects? I -- it seems like we're legislating for every little problem that comes up, and usually it's to limit some rights in some 165 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 way. And it troubles me and I'd like to find out how big a problem is this. Is it real, and who is being bothered by this problem, who is being hurt and so on down the line?
With the proliferation of placards, the occupancy of the meters in Center City, starting back as far as the fall of '92, the Parking Authority is keeping records and has done some surveys. In fall of '92, the core area of Center City had about 11 percent occupancy for the disabled, who were using 11 percent of the parking spaces in Center City, the metered parking spaces. In the fall of '95, that increased to 20 percent. In June of '97, it increased to 24 percent. And as recently, as I stated before, as December of '99 and this past April, it has concluded that 40 percent of the meters in Center City are going to vehicles displaying the handicapped placard or the handicapped plate. This is not trying to keep disabled individuals from getting parking; it's actually geared to give them a better opportunity to have a space that they have a given right to as much as 166 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 anyone else out there driving a vehicle. We understand there's a large abuse problem, like in many states, and the State law has accommodated people with disabilities by adding one hour to the posted time limit. Therefore, if the meter in Center City has two hours time on it, the person displaying a disabled tag or placard gets three hours if it takes in certain accommodations over and above, and that is considered a reasonable accommodation based on the ADA law.
So they use -- the meters are timed, and they come into the City and they stay there a couple of hours and then they leave, right?
We are finding that most people come in and stay all day stay, they stay for the entire balance of the day. Forty percent of the meters are being occupied all day, Monday thank you Friday.
Well, that can be taken and done by making sure that meters -- no 25 one uses a meter more than the allocated time. 167 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359
In '82, the State Code was amended by City Council to allow people unlimited time at meters in Philadelphia. What we're asking is to repeal that, go back to the original intent of the State Code, which would give you 60 minutes beyond the posted time. Councilman Cohen and I were having discussion, why don't we just a little bit better at enforcement? If you know someone, you in general know someone who is abusing it, why don't we just ticket them? I have my own answer, and maybe you can answer or maybe the Parking Authority would like to answer that. I mean, I see some problems with it, but -- maybe could someone attempt to answer that question?
My name is Richard Dixon. I'm the Director of on-street parking for the Parking Authority. The difficulty with trying to enforce determining whether the person who is actually in control of the vehicle is the person to whom credentials were issued for a disability is that 168 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 you are almost never there when the person parks the vehicle. So the parking enforcement officer coming in contact with the operator of the vehicle happens so infrequently that it would be almost impossible to find the person who is driving the vehicle. When our officers patrol the streets, they see an expired meter, they write a ticket on it. If they see a vehicle that's bearing credentials for a person with disability, there is no way for them to know whether the actual operator of that vehicle is the person for whom those credentials were issued.
But on the example given by the group from the Jewelers Row, they know of a person who owns a jewelry store, apparently, who, every morning, a fully able person every morning parks his car this all day long, day after day. If they would have inform the police officer, give him the car and the tag number, the police officer would have a basis for issuing a ticket. Councilman DiCicco knows of a person whom -- I don't know whether he knows him 169 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 personally, or sees him, who parks in the same way, you know, a jogger or somebody. Nobody wants these abuses. What we're saying is, there ought to be a method of enforcing the law. Maybe there has to be a lot of work done. I'm very suspicious of bills that come in at the last minute and hurriedly are being bushed, which take away rights from people. If the disabled community itself gets together -- we had one view from the multiple sclerosis organization, we have other views from others. They may be helpful in resolving this problem. I think issue deserves study. We don't want an abuse. It hurts everybody whenever there's an abuse. But the answer to abuse isn't to take away everybody's rights. The answer to abuse is to develop a program to deal with abuse. Somebody ought to sit down find out who's entitled to what and develop a program. If we could move 40,000 abandoned cars off the street -- everybody said it was impossible, but it was possible. All we needed to do was to get people to begin thinking and using some real thought process to 170 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 develop an approach to a problem. This, if it is in fact a problem -- and I think it's a problem if a single person abuses it -- we ought to develop an approach, instead of coming in saying, We don't care what happens to the disabled. The disabled community is a community which has struggled so many years to obtain recognition of the fact that they have a right. Like all other groups of minorities, they have a right to become citizens in the mainstream, they have a right to jobs. And they've shown by the ability that they have that they can hold many of these jobs. Why should we make it tougher for them in order to eliminate abuse by well-bodied people. What you're doing is, you're punishing disabled folk because you're not willing to take on the problem of solving abuses by those who are physically able, and that ought not to be. I'm suggesting that we ought to study this problem immediately. We have a Mayor's Commission on Disabilities, we ought to bring in all of the groups and begin developing an answer so that we don't take away the rights from the 171 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 disabled. They have an awful tough time surviving. Many of them are very low-income because they never have had the good fortunate like the rest of us to have a decent job and decent pay. And I think we ought to be looking for ways to assist them, not ways that may hurt them. (Applause.)
I would think that the studies -- and I don't know if either of you two gentlemen can speak to it, but the studies were probably done when the State originally created enacting legislation in order to accommodate people with needs. That was the reason they enacted that legislation, was to give people an opportunity to be able to move around a little bit more freely and accommodate them by offering them an additional hour over and above whatever the posted time was. And in Center City, if we're speaking of Center City, you park three hours free. I mean, I think that's a reasonable accommodation.
But for many years in Philadelphia, Philadelphia unanimously back -- 172 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 was it in the early '80s -- passed a law that said, We don't have to be limited by the narrow rules of the State on this. We believe Philadelphia citizens are entitled to more rights. They passed this. For twenty years, apparently it's worked. Suddenly a bill comes in, and immediately we want to take away rights and suddenly we find great wisdom in the State law. Well, I don't think so. We didn't find wisdom in the State law before, it wasn't broad enough. Let's get together and discuss all of these issues and come to some conclusion that eliminates the abuse. It will be better for able-bodied people and it will be much better for the disabled community.
I just want to say that although I introduced the bill about a month or so ago that I don't think anybody rushed in to change this. When this bill was first presented back in 1982, or the amendment to the State Code was enacted by the City Council, over those years -- and your statistics point out -- what was a minimal amount of parking spaces being used are now, almost the majority of the parking spaces are 173 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 being used, and I think that's what prompted this. This isn't something that just came up overnight. And normally, we don't agree with State law, I agree, I understand that.
Councilman DiCicco, I don't know anything about these statistics. I would like to have an opportunity to form a judgment. I ride around the City and downtown Center City very, very frequently. I have not been aware of this, and I often look at license plates.
Well, Councilman, not to be disrespectful and cut you off, but we did -- and maybe a week wasn't enough, but we did hand a packet out to all members of this committee last week so you'd have some time to look at some of those statistics, all members of City Council, so that you would have some opportunity to look at some of the statistics.
Well, I said it may not be sufficient, but there is information that is out there. 174 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 Mr. Dixon, were you looking to make another comment?
I was just going to comment that the Authority's job in this is to manage what is a very scarce resource available in the City of Philadelphia. As in every other old city, we have a limited amount of curb space and we need to regulate it in a way to maximize its availability to the greatest number of people who want to shop and do business in the City. That includes people with disabilities. In order to strike that balance, I think Councilman DiCicco's two bills -- we spent almost all of the attention on one bill, but there are two bills that he's introduced. The first mandates that the operators of all parking facilities set aside spaces in those facilities for people with disabilities to be available for long-term use. In that way, we balance off the needs of those people that only need parking opportunities for short-term use and provide a reasonable accommodation for those people who have a more difficult time getting to and from their destination by providing an additional hour beyond 175 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 the time limit for those people mobility impairments that limit their ability to get back and forth. Those people that have the need to park all day to work or to transact other business and obligations in the City will now have the opportunity to park in off-street parking facilities because the law will now mandate that those facilities set aside spaces exclusively for their use. And that was the reason that the amendment was proposed, as Mr. Mulligan just said, that the Police Department or the Parking Authority could enforce the provisions of the law concerning that set-aside and make sure that people who do not have credentials for people with disabilities do not take those spaces in those off-street facilities as well.
Thank you. And I just want to point out for the record -- and, Councilman Cohen, you make mention of the fact that, you know, we enacted this law for the citizens of Philadelphia. It's people who are not just citizens of Philadelphia who are taking, in my case, most people are taking 176 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 advantage of this free meter parking. Of the five cars that I observed on Chestnut Street on the 1300 block last Thursday or Friday, two of the five cars had New Jersey plates, so it's not just Philadelphia residents. And I see in my community, in South Philadelphia, along South Broad Street, the majority of the vehicles that are parking there all day are non-Pennsylvania tags. They're either Jersey or Delaware. These are people who were, in most cases -- many cases, I should say -- former Philadelphians who have move out of the City, have a placard or plate, live in South Jersey or live in Delaware, park on South Broad Street in South Philadelphia, get out of their car, walk to the bus stop or walk to the subway station, get onto public transportation, come into Center City, work, go back at the end of the day, and leave the City at the end of the day.
So, again, your answer is, I have to point out, because of abuses by people who are not disabled, disabled people are going to have some rights taken away from them. 177 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359
But disabled people who are truly disabled who may want to go shop in South Philadelphia or conduct business or go to doctors or dentists on South Broad Street now have less parking spaces available to them because of some former Philadelphia residents -- whether they're former or not is not the issue here. Non-Philadelphia residents who work in Center City take that parking space away from the very people we would rather see park there at least for two or three hours. If you're a Philadelphia or a Pennsylvania resident or a non-Pennsylvania resident and you have to go to a doctor, you have to go shopping on South Broad Street, that space is now taken up for anywhere from 8 to 10 hours a day free by someone who's working in Center City because they don't want to pay for parking in Center City.
Representatives of the disabled community came and testified today and that said this bill was harmful to the disabled community. I think we owe them the courtesy and I think they have the right to expect an opportunity to discuss the issues and to 178 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 participate in the solution instead of having just us make the decision to deny them their rights.
Councilman, we are the decision-makers, and I agree that --
Yeah, but I think there ought to be time. I don't think in this case we're being reasonable decision-makers.
Okay. I can agree with you to a certain degree that we may need a little more time, but I think that the folks who came in to testify today I think, when you say that they're in here today saying that this is something that's going to be harmful to them, I respectfully disagree. I disagree because meters are for short-term parking, that's what they were created for. They were never intended for long-term parking. The State, although I don't normally agree with a lot of things that they do, saw fit back in the early '80s to give those folks with placards or plates an additional one hour over and above and beyond the posted time that other folks get free.
The State in its 179 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 wisdom also saw that there was absolutely no need to do anything about assault weapons that are killing our kids on the streets, so don't say because the State did something, that proves that it's a great thing.
I said I don't normally agree with them, but in this case, I do.
All right, okay. Any other questions for these witnesses?
The residential permit parking, and it's somewhat unrelated but related in terms of our ability to enforce and how aggressive we are. Can neighborhood, the residential permit parking -- well, actually not the permit parking. The handicapped parking signs that, from my understanding, are being abused to the point where we've actually have news stories on it, how aggressively is the Parking Authority 180 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 going after it?
We've established a program by which when a zone is approved, the applicant's physician sends the medical documentation to an organization that is contracted with the Health Department to review the medical documentation to make sure that the person is mobility-impaired and is not some other kind of disability. We also require that the applicant be the principal driver of the vehicle and they not have off-street parking available to them. When the Health Department approves the medical documentation that's been submitted, he recommends to the Parking Authority that there be a review on a one- to three-year basis determined by the nature of the disability. So that is, if it's only a short-term disability, the Health Department would say, This one should be reevaluated in one year. If it's a more long-term disability, it may be three years. And we sent out restriction forms to those applicants based on that cycle that's been given to us by the Health Department.
Okay. So could a 181 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 similar formula be applied -- and I know we could probably only do Philadelphia and maybe Pennsylvania residents -- in terms of parking placards to cut the abuses?
They are issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, not by the City of Philadelphia. And they're also issued by each of the 50 state transportation departments.
So have we asked the State to look into possibly changing the formula that they currently use?
A couple years ago, there was correspondence back and forth between the City and the State regarding the way these placards particularly are issued. They did make some changes in the application procedure, and I believe that there is now a recertification involved with that. One of the problems still associated with those forms, I understand, is that any applicant -- the disability could be certified by a physician or by any police officer. I'm not aware that police officers are trained to make it 182 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 their determination about people's medical conditions, but that is an acceptable certification by the Department of Transportation for an applicant's disability.
Well, okay. As was mentioned earlier by Councilman Cohen, he talked about this abandoned vehicle issue, and the State was a key participant in resolving that, and I'm just wondering if we get our heads together, can we come to some resolution as it relates to abuses on the State level as aggressively. As we did with the abandoned vehicle issue, maybe we can be as aggressive on this particular issue.
I can't respond to the level of how aggressive it was. The problem has been that Harrisburg perceives this as a problem that is unique to Philadelphia, and because of that, has not been as interested in addressing it. Their response initially was, the reason it's a problem in Philadelphia is because the City has created an economic incentive for people to abuse these things, and that is the reason they feel it's not necessary for them to deal with it as aggressively. 183 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 And the other issue related that is the issue that Councilman Cohen raised before, in that maybe the placard was issued legitimately to a person with a disability but it is not being used by that person, it is being used by a family member or someone else. And the ability of the City to enforce that is very limited because even if -- even if we got information from an individual that this particular person is abusing it or that and we were able to issue citations based on that, we're talking about thousands of people in the City every day, and it's impossible to enforce that in an equitable way across the City without having hundreds of officers out there virtually on every block, trying to make determinations as to whether this person or that person is the person to whom those credentials were issued.
So if they ticketed all of the vehicles that were parked illegally, does that person -- if that person, in fact, could prove that they were legally the driver of that vehicle, is there an appeals process that that person can come in later on the adjudication 184 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 currently?
There is a process where someone could adjudicate that, but that would mean writing violations on every vehicle that was bearing credentials for people with disabilities and then putting the burden on the operator of the vehicle to then prove that they are the person to whom the credentials were issued and they were the person that was being transported on that day and would have to appear before the Bureau of Administrative Adjudication to then have that ticket dismissed.
All right. I would just, you know, just ask that you -- regardless of what happens with this bill, that you kind of reignite that discussion about the issuance of handicapped placards, 'cause I think that's probably the biggest issue here -- citywide, not just in Center City where we have this problem with meters. I think we really need to look into it that. And thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Any other questions for these 185 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 witnesses? (No further questions.)
Is there a representative on the City's Commission on Disabilities here by any chance?
They declined to testify. Robin Schatz, my chief of staff, did contact them and they refused to testify.
Thank you. The clerk will read the title of the resolution.
Resolution No. 000041, authorizing the Council's Committee on Streets and Services to hold hearings on the dangers and damage caused by the deterioration of retaining 186 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 walls, driveways and alleys, and the complications involved in coordinating necessary repairs by abutting property owners; and to determine the scope of these dangerous conditions throughout the City and the cost to repair them; and further authorizing the committee to formulate a program to correct these hazardous and dangerous conditions in neighborhoods through the City. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Resolution No. 000041: The Department of Streets has a long and intimate history in dealing with these structures. The abatement process for these alleys, driveways and walls crosses divisional lines within the Streets Department and departmental lines with the involvement of the Health Department. The process for this interaction is clearly outlined by State law and administrative 187 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 direction. Briefly, this policy sets the procedure to be followed in the abatement process. The Streets Department is directed follow up on requests for repairs with inspection. After this inspection, if the condition is deemed serious, it is to be reported to the Health Department to be condemned. The respective homeowners could jointly make these repairs, or after 60 days' notice, the City would let a contract for the abatement of the nuisance, with the bills for the repairs going to the homeowners. Over time, there was increased community pressure to have more of an input into this process. This process was continued and refined by a committee formed in 1972. This committee within the Streets Department tried to allow more time for the homeowners to hire a contractor without City involvement. This sometimes slowed the process but was more easily accepted by representative property owners. This process was in place but always difficult because costs were increasing and the public sentiment expressed at community meetings 188 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 was becoming more resistant to this procedure. Finally, on September 16, 1980, an amendment was issued by the chief highway engineer stating that no further action on alleys, driveways, or retaining walls could be taken unless a majority of the abutting property owners signed a petition requesting the City to contract for the repairs. In the formal testimony, I've given a year-by-year breakdown. I think that would be difficult to read now and I'll just continue and refer to the written testimony to that part. I'm going to summarize later in the report.
This is a brief history of the Streets Department's involvement with this issue in the past. The next part of our report deals with the problems and conditions of today. As we were charged in this resolution, we have labored to find the most current information on the existing conditions of these structures. I'd like to outline the steps we have taken to assure this committee of our diligence. We in the Streets Department are 189 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 charged with keeping many records of our research and billing methods. We have searched through our files and come up with the following information that has made this task possible. We keep on file in our Bridge Engineering section all requests for failed retaining walls. We broke this list down by survey district and asked the district survey and regulators which of these walls were repaired or not repaired to actually make a field inspection. Since we do not know where the problem walls exist, the Council President requested other Councilmembers to ask for constituent help. We then took the list of walls not repaired and did a current cost analysis on each wall. We next placed these walls in our geographic information system and broke them down by Councilmatic District. This graphic is a compilation of this effort. The cost estimates are shown there. On driveways. Although most of our effort was spent on walls, the problem of driveways is just as pressing. Not as individually expensive as walls, but much more 190 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 numerous, these structures are also in need of repair. Since the Survey Bureau is charged with assessing the cost of these driveways, we have kept records of these charges. This will serve as a benchmark in what we can expect of these driveways when they fall into disrepair. We have again asked our GIS system to show us the driveways that are used as trash pickup routes. This is an overwhelming majority of the driveways. The replacement value of the driveways is shown on the second graphic. This is not meant to imply that these driveways need to be replaced. However, they do have a finite life span. We do have records of over 200 driveways that people have complained about and have never gone to contract. We estimate this work, which would be our current estimate, would be below approximately $8 million. Philadelphia a city of rowhouses, and most houses built before the 1940s had rear yards facing alleys. These alleys were primarily used for safety exits and garbage pickup. Since garbage is now collected with the trash, these alleys get very little use. Like driveways, these 191 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 alleys are private and within the deeds of the abutting property owners. Our only access to information about these alleys is through the alley lighting program. However, this information is contained in old books and has not yet been converted to our GIS system. The Survey Bureau has kept track of the assessments for repairs of these alleys and we kind of presented how many of those were done earlier in the testimony. One other problem with alleys is access. Many have been illegally gated, many are overgrown with abutting vegetation and some simply have vanished, being taken over by the abutting property owners. Now, these are expensive to reconstruct since all work must be done by hand with wheel barrels. Both excavation and concrete placement also adding to the expense is the abutting fences that almost always need to be replaced. We feel that if further research is needed, it should be done on a case-by-case basis, and we'll glad to comply with this request. In summary, the problems of alleys and driveways and retaining walls has been with the 192 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 City for many years. Our first formal occurrence of the wall problem was a collapsed wall in 1926. Since that time, the City has wrestled with the issue many times over.
This case tested a law passed in 1923, Public Law 1032, that outlined all our involvement in this process. Through the 1950s and '60s, the infrastructure of the City aged while new construction outside the inner-city boomed. The City, at that time, used its powers it had been given to keep these private structures in good repair. Following are the number of alleys, driveways, and retaining walls that were constructed and repaired, using private funds from 1950 to 1980: 541 alleys, 520 driveways, and 49 retaining walls. The following are the number of alleys, driveways, and retaining walls that were constructed or repaired, using private funds, from 1980 to 2000: alleys, driveways, and 5 retaining walls. The difference is striking. In 1980, we received a directive, stating that no formal action would be taken in the condemnation process 193 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 unless a petition was received by a majority of the abutting owners asking us to continue. This administrative decision changed our responsibility towards these walls, driveways, and alleys. It became the responsibility of the abutting property owners to say if these structures should be repaired. We, as an operating department, work under the direction of the Manager Director and the Mayor. No one has ever questioned the private ownership of these structures, but we look at the quality-of-life issues and our moral obligation to facilitate the repair of this deterioration. I talked to the my counterparts in New York, Baltimore, Chicago, and Pittsburgh. The only other city that has taken over some of their driveways is Pittsburgh. Robert Booker, Chief Maintenance Engineer of Pittsburg, relates that as much as 30 percent of his maintenance budget goes to the repair of these driveways. We also are concerned over the legal issues. We feel comforted by the fact that we have an amendment from the Law Department outlining the legal issues with regard to the 194 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 repair of these structures. I've enclosed a copy of this memo for your files. The alley, driveway, and retaining wall issue is one that should be discussed and decided by the citizens and their elected officials. The Streets Department is ready and able to carry out any mandates that are in our charter and follow the directives of the Administration to the best of our ability. That's my formal testimony.
Mr. Lonie, do you have any information for the moment that you'd like to add to the record?
I'd just like to make a little bit clear the graphics that are there. The driveways that are shown in the figure of $86 million is a total replacement value. We're not saying that they have to be replaced right there, but that's probably pretty close to what it would cost to replace all of the driveways.
Do you have a sense of what -- and I understand that you're showing us 195 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 what the universe of driveways may be based on the routes of the Sanitation Division. Do you have a sense of what the narrower universe would be of driveways that have either failed or are in extremely deteriorated condition, how many that would be, and what the proposed costs would be?
We have on our record approximately 200 that have been reported deteriorated and should be repaired that we have no records of every contracting anybody to fix them, and we estimate of cost of those repairs to be approximately $8 million.
Okay. So you have $8 million in repairs for driveways, and my sight is pretty good but not that good, but my recollection is that there are 90 retaining walls, at a total cost of $9.4 million?
That's approximately correct. One thing I would like to say, when we went out and made this physical survey of all the walls that had been prepared, one of the things that we were absolutely surprised about was that 58 walls that had been reported to us as deteriorated had been repaired. We don't know 196 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 how. They didn't come through the City. They simply maybe hired a contractor, or the neighbors got together with troughs and did some fixing or whatever. But 58 was the number that we had found that had been repaired that we had no record of that repair.
Well, approximately, we started with about 190 and 58 were repaired. Some others were deemed not to be serious, maybe they'd been repair 30 years ago. And 90 are the ones that we found were critical.
Approximately 90 that had been reported as deteriorated were still falling down, had not be repaired.
Right. And is it from the map I have or from the chart over there, 60 of the 90, I understand, are between two Council Districts -- the 4th with 24, and the 8th with 36. I think the 8th has the largest number of retaining wall problems in the City? 197 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041
Okay. And the 9th, I think, has 12, and that gets you up to, I guess, about 72 out of the 90 are in 3 Councilmatic districts.
Okay. And for the driveways, do you have a sense of what that breakdown is of the 200 and how they're broken out throughout the City?
You know, mainly you have to look at a driveway as a finite life. And if your -- people or builders didn't start building driveways until the late '30s, early '40s, really booming after World War II. So if you start looking at neighborhoods that were constructed somewhere right around World War II, they're the driveways that are critical. The ones that have been built in '50s and '60 are still in pretty good shape -- they will fail eventually. And the ones before that didn't have them; they had alleys.
Just again for the record, I heard your testimony, and the entire 198 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 testimony will be entered as if you had read the entire testimony, but just so we're clear, the history on this is, the City used to do this work some number of years ago. And then in 1980, was it, a directive came down that for all intents and purposes, either put the work to an end or placed an additional requirement on the neighbors that -- this is where we got into the signed petition routine?
Right. Well, no, the City never, in its history, has ever done these repairs. What the City did would condemn the driveways and force the neighbors to have them done. What the City stopped doing was basically forcing the neighbors. They said, If you want it done, fine; if you don't want it done, well, okay that's fine, too.
But these are walls that have been condemned primarily by the Board of Health as a danger to the public health, safety, and Welfare?
But then the City said, If you want to get it done, fine; if not, 199 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 that's your problem?
Well, the City always said, just like any house, if you have a house that's condemned by the Board of health or something like that and has to be torn down, it's the same as a driveway. These are structures that were built to facilitate the houses, they were built on private property, they were not built in the rights-of-way. They were built so that a builder could build more homes and things likes that, and it's generally never been considered public property.
Well, I understand that, but similar to the house example that you gave, when the house has been deemed imminently dangerous by L&I, the person gets a notice, the owner. They can either do it or not do it, but at some point in time, L&I will come in and just knock the property down and that's the end of the story, right?
Well, again, that's the way we did things in the past. We would say, You have to get this fixed. And if people said, Well, we can't it afford it, we would let a contractor out 200 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 and we would have the walls repaired and then we would pay the contractor and the assessment bill 4 is made out in the name of the abutting property owners.
Why don't you give us a little more information about that whole payment and scenario and how that worked out.
Okay. What had happened was, there was a company that used to specialize in collecting municipal loans, and this person would go and look at a driveway or a wall, and he would bid to the contractors how much he would discount their bills, and it could be as much as or 30 percent. Contractors hate to collect 16 bills; they're in the building business, not in 17 the bill-collecting business. 18 And what would happen is, under -- 19
Why don't we try to 20 use some numbers in this example. Let's just -- hypothetically, the person went out and said, This wall will probably cost about $100,000.
And the person would then say to the contractor, I will give you 201 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 $80,000?
He would get $100,000 worth of bills and he would pay $80,000 for them.
Okay. And so then his job and responsibility and goal, naturally, was to try to collect as much of that percent 14 discount as possible. 15
And that's how he 17 made his money and life went on. 18
Exactly, that's how he 19 would do that. 20 Regrettably, he went out of business and no one really replaced him. I was a surveyor and regulator in the 8th Survey District when the last driveway -- I signed all the bills when the last one was done, in 1989. And he had told me that this was his last job. He was going out of 202 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 business simply because anymore, people were just, in a way, getting too smart and they were hiring attorneys to block the bills, and he just could not make any money in this business any longer. That word also spread to the construction community and different things like that. We tried subsequently to bid out the driveway and where, before we were estimating for our streets work at $45 a square yard, the lowest bid we got from a contractor was $125 a square yard. It's just not fair to go to these folks and say, hey, you know, you're going to pay five times what you're actually getting because your neighbors aren't going to be paying. And this is where we always ran into trouble. We want to organize, we want to help these people do that, but there's just certain things we can't do.
So in that scenario, the good neighbor, the paying neighbor, would literally end up subsidizing the nonpaying neighbor.
And the way the 203 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 industry dealt with that was to super-inflate the bills, anticipating that a certain number of people wouldn't pay.
Right. And you'll hear testimony later from a community group that I had met with, that Councilman Cohen had recommended I talk to about -- sometimes what can happen on the other side of that, one of the things that the contractors will ask for is to put the money up front to these people. Sometimes, though, as you'll hear, you get what you pay for.
Right. Why don't we get some of the community people on. You're able to stay 'cause I'm going to need to ask you some additional questions.
Yeah. I would be stunned if he didn't. 204 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041
What I'm going to do is call up a number of community people all at the same time. You can pull up some chairs and get right to the table, maybe four or five. Mr. Ed Bradley, Mr. Albert Carter, Mr. Ralph Wynder, Miss Carolyn Sutton, Mr. Michael Moffitt and Mr. Robert Fortt. (Witnesses come forward.)
Why don't you just start, whoever's closest to the mike. Tell us your name for the record and tell us a little bit about your situation, and then we'll spread it around.
Good afternoon, Councilmembers. My name is Michael Moffitt and I'm representing the Berks Street and Euclid Street community group. And, again, I'd like to thank you for allowing us this opportunity to testify again regarding the retaining wall between the 5200 block of Berks Street and Euclid Street. The residents here have tried for over twenty years to have this wall repaired. Over the 205 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 years, there have been numerous meetings, and we have been in touch with various City officials, including Councilman Michael, to try to facilitate the repair of this retaining wall. To this end, there is a virtual mountain of paperwork and correspondence between the residents and various City agencies regarding this particular wall. This retaining wall urgently needs repair. The large hole and broken debris pose a serious health and safety hazard to the children and residents of these two blocks. The condition of the wall also affects those who serve this area in other capacities as well. , have fallen into the hole and have had to be towed. Trucks other utilities, such as Bell Telephone and PECO, have also been stuck in the hole. Over the past year, at least five to six vehicles have been towed from this area. As the wall continues to deteriorate, the safety issue becomes more pressing. On May 17 the of the year 2000, officers from the 19th Police District became all too aware of the danger that this wall poses when 206 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 an officer almost drove some feet off the ditch created by the deteriorating condition of the wall. Had she driven just a little further or had her vehicle rolled over, she could have been critically injured. Instead her patrol car, which was patrol car 1916, sat precariously on the edge of the damaged drive until it could be towed hours later. We have been very fortunate that to this date, no one, particularly a child, has been critically injured as a result of the condition of this wall. In September of 1993, a meeting was held at the Tuscon Recreational Center at 60th and Columbia Avenue with Mr. Donald S. Graham, coordinator of highway projects. At that meeting, Mr. Graham stated that the wall was determined to be the property of the 5200 block of Euclid, and that they were soley responsible for initiating repair of the wall. Subsequently, the residents of Berks Street could not initiate repair or any alterations to the wall. Mr. Graham also stated that the City had condemned the wall in 1975. He noted that while the primary cause for the collapse of the wall was heavy traffic, primarily 207 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 from City trash trucks, the City takes no 3 responsibility. Several of the properties closest to the most damaged portion of the wall are, or were, PHA properties; thus, PHA certainly bears some responsibilities regarding the repair of this wall as well. PHA inspected these properties prior to the property sale to private owners. In many cases, the City has held title to these properties and passed them on to unsuspecting owners through programs such as homesteading and etc. for low- and middle-income families. The City then makes the new homeowner responsible for often overwhelming problems with the homes that they knew existed before they sold the homes. In my particular situation, it was a purchase of a property through the Philadelphia Homestead Program. A thoroughly itemized inspection report was rendered prior to sale. The damage to this wall was not even mentioned. We were not warned prior to our purchase of this property that the wall was deteriorating. This damage should have been repaired prior to the sale 208 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 of the property. At the very least, buyers of homes surrounding the most damaged area of this retaining wall should have been made aware that these repairs were needed prior to the sale of the property.
This way, prospective owners would have been fully informed of what we were getting. Yet, this was not the case. The City should not be allowed to avoid its responsibility in contributing to this dangerous situation. L. 1032 of July 11, 1923, the mechanism to repair the retaining wall was in place in 1975 when the wall was condemned. If these repairs had been effected at the time the wall was condemned, the costs would have been minimal compared to the estimated quotes to residents in 1993. However, since no 18 action was taken to remedy this condition, the cost has continued to soar. The deteriorating condition of this values also affects the salable value of properties in this area. The value of our homes continues to go down because of this situation while ours taxes have continued to rise. In most cases, the purchase of a home is one of, if not 209 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 the largest investments families make. It is disheartening when this investment crumbles before your eyes through no fault of your own. The pride and morale of our neighborhoods has to be affected by the crumbling condition of that wall and the lack of movement by City officials to help. On April 22, 1999, Councilman Michael Nutter introduced Bill No. 990250 to City Council. In addition to Mr. Nutter's comments at the public hearing for this bill, Councilman David Cohen noted how we, the residents of these two blocks, have been avoided, stalled and, stonewalled in return. He very eloquently outlined the long history of constant stonewalling by City officials with regard to repair of this wall, and indicated that it is now time to do something about this situation. Councilman Frank Rizzo Jr. expressed astonishment that this situation had been allowed to continue for so long. He compared it to raging fire that City officials are watching burn while they try to figure what it will cost to put it out rather than consider the safety and welfare of the residents first. We wholeheartedly agree with him 210 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 that this crisis has been gone on long enough and should be taken care of now. Councilman Angel Ortiz was not able to be there for the entire meeting but also made it known that when the bill reached City Council for a vote, he would support it. The support of these Councilmen and their agreement that this matter require immediate attention is gratifying. While we have not received official word of the outcome of the vote on the bill, a neighborhood publication, the Neighborhood Leader, October 30th through November 14, 1995 reported that Bill No. 990250 has been passed by a 16-to-0 vote. We are hopeful that this means that the repair of the wall is imminent. Gentlemen, we watched last summer as the City moved quickly to resolve the problem of sinking homes in the Wissinoming section of the City. Within a matter of days, the City rushed to pack, store, relocate, and demolish and compensate private-property owners to the tune, according to a 10-NBC news report, of up to $4 million. Yet, in over twenty years, residents of the section of 211 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 the City, after repeated requests for help, are unable to get what would have been $11,000 worth of repairs done to this wall. According to Mr. Nutter's most recent correspondence, as many 189 retaining walls are projected to need repair in the City. However, of those, only 68 are now seriously deteriorated, and certainly this wall between the 5200 block of Berks Street and Euclid is among the worst, if not the worst. Bill 990250 was introduced in May of last year and apparently approved. Yet, a year later, we are considering more legislation, as in Resolution 41, to remedy this matter. What will it take before this damaged wall is taken seriously. It will not be long before someone is seriously injured or there is significant property damage.
It is our sincere hope that this resolution receives a favorable hearing and response from City Council, and that this will be the final piece of legislation needed to facilitate the immediate repair of this retaining wall.
Thank you. Thank 212 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 you, Mr. Moffitt. Mr. Bradley?
Thank you, Councilman Nutter and gentlemen. Good afternoon. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak today on behalf of my friends and neighbors who live on the 6400 blocks of Woodcrest Avenue and Morris Park Road. First of all, I'd like to say that I wholeheartedly agree with everything that was just said by my friend to my right. I think he put his finger on exactly what the problem is. I want to take a minute, however, to explain to you our story, which, I'm sure, will be very similar to all of the stories that you hear regarding this issue. I live, as I said, on the 6400 block of Woodcrest Avenue in the Overbrook section of Philadelphia. I have lived in that section of the City my entire life. It's a wonderful neighborhood and the neighbors are all quite happy there. However, there are occasionally some problems such as this which crop up. Our street shares an alleyway with our 213 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 neighbors behind us, who live on the 6400 block of Morris Park Road. That is a concrete alleyway, which, for as long as I remember, living in the neighborhood, has been in deplorable condition. From 64th Street to 66th Street, it is cracked, it is broken, it is full of rubble, which comes up from out of large potholes and other hazards, which go from end to end. This condition represents, obviously, a hazard to those who drive along the driveway, making our alleyway or our driveway an obstacle course for drivers, making it a hazard for those who would like to walk across or along the alleyway, making it impossible for our children to safely play in the alleyway. After I moved into my current home on Woodcrest Avenue, I undertook a little research with some of my neighbor regarding how we might go about repairing the driveway. This was approximately six or seven months ago. I learned, after calling the Streets Department and speaking to some engineers in the Streets Department, that one time, as has been explained to you, the City would become involved in the repair of the 214 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 driveways. They would condemn the driveway, they would bid the repair of the driveway out, and then they would assess owners and assist in the collection of the payment. I was told, however, that in this day and age, there is no assistance to be provided by the City under any circumstances. I was told that the repair of the driveway was exclusively the responsibility of the owners. At that point, I undertook to bid it out myself, to find a contractor who might do repairs, and too, with the help of some of my neighbors, organize those who live along the alleyway. We held a meeting. Of the 100 or so residents who border our driveway, we were able to draw about to 30 residents out. All expressed 18 an interest in participating, all expressed an 19 interest in participating by way of offering some 20 payment. 21 We undertook to survey the remainder of 22 our neighbors. To date, we have collected 23 approximately 60 percent of the names of the 24 owners along the driveway who have agreed in 25 principle to participate by paying. However, 215 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 there is a large percentage of individuals who have said that under no circumstance will they participate by paying anything. As the number of those individuals who will not participate grows, the cost to the remaining neighbors grows as well; and the number of neighbors who are willing to participate, therefore, begins to go down as the cost becomes prohibitive.
Mr. Bradley, I'm sorry. If you could just repeat. Was it 60 percent were in favor of doing something and 40 percent said --
Well, to date, we have collected the names of approximately 60 percent who have said in principle that they are willing to participate by paying. That's not necessarily a hard number because there have been residents we had not been able to contact, and there is a large percentage number of residents who have flatly said that they will participate at all. I suspect there's going to be a certain number of residents that we never are able to speak to at all.
The people who said that they flat out don't want to participate, is 216 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 it because they don't think it's dangerous, it's not dangerous near them, they think the City should take care of it, or they believe it's just someone else's responsibility?
It's actually a combination of factors. Some have said, It's not dangerous behind my house, it's not cracked there; therefore, I don't care about what it looks like at other parts of the block. Frankly, I think those people are mistaken because, frankly, from end to end, it's a mess. There are some people who say, I don't have the money, I'm raising a family, I have children, I'm trying to pay my bills, and I simply can't afford to have this done. Other older folks on our street who live on fixed incomes don't have the wherewithal to participate and, understandably, have said that though they would like to help, unfortunately, they cannot. So we are faced with a very difficult situation in terms of repairing this. Interestingly, before -- before I lived on Woodcrest Avenue and in other homes in this neighborhood, I lived on Morris Park Road, the 217 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 street behind where I know live. At the time I lived there -- and I'm talking some 30 or 35 years ago -- my father attempted to organize neighbors at that time to try to repair driveway because at that time, it was in what he considered to be a deteriorating and dangerous condition. He was unable to get the driveway repaired at that time because he ran into the same obstacles with the City that we are running into today and the same obstacles with neighbors that we are running into today. I agree with what has just been said, again, by my friend seated to my right, that the City cannot abrogate its responsibility here. The City cannot simply say that because the driveway is jointly and severally owned by 100 people who happen to abut it, we are not going to do anything about it. The reason that I feel that the City cannot do that is because it, frankly, is a part of the infrastructure of the City. It is something that the City uses in its trash collection, and it is something that will not, I feel, ever realistically be repaired through the efforts of the homeowners alone. 218 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 In my neighborhood, people have the wherewithal to make choices about where they live. Some of those people ultimately may make the choice, if this part of the infrastructure continues to deteriorate, to move. Other folks, unfortunately, don't have the wherewithal to make those decisions, and those folks wind up trapped in neighborhoods that are falling apart around them that become dangerous to them, to their children, to their parents, and to their grandparents. And that simply is not right either. I think in a day an age where this Council and other members of our political community are going to be discussing paying 500, 600, 700 million dollars for the building of stadiums -- and this is going to be a refrain that I'm sure you're going to be hearing more of, and you may not happy to hear it now, but in a day and age when you're going to undertake that, I think that it is a responsibility of this Council and for all of those responsible for the health and welfare and safety of our citizens to consider, before building a stadium for millionaires to get 219 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 richer, to think about repairing the driveways, the alleyways, and the retaining walls for the people who want to make this City their home. I think that is a responsibility that should be first foremost and one that should be properly considered by this Council. And I hope that some resolution which is satisfactory for everybody can be reached.
The two gentlemen to my left said what I'm going to say, but I'm going to say it anyway.
I just want to make sure the 8th District is represented today.
I have been a resident at 1912 Nedro Avenue for 42 years. Here's a brief description of our problem. Our rear driveway is not a through-driveway. You can drive from 1956 220 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 Nedro to 1912, that's houses, and then you have to back out or vice versa. There's a gradual incline from 1956 Nedro to 1912; or from ground level to about feet high. The adjacent 6 driveway is level, which is the rear of the 1900 7 block of Conlon Street. There's a retaining wall 8 along the entire driveway to hold the Nedro Avenue 9 driveway in place. 10 Approximately 15 years ago, our 11 driveway showed serious signs of deterioration. 12 We attempted to get it fixed by having meetings, 13 estimates, petitions, and politicians, to no 14 avail. Finally, a section of the wall collapsed 15 in the rear of about three or four houses. 16 We, the residents of the Nedro Avenue, 17 had more meetings after meetings. On 3/1/95, we 18 got notices from the Department of Streets that we 19 would have to reconstruct the wall and repave the 20 driveway, or the City would get it done and bill 21 the homeowners or put liens against their property. That never happened. We had more meetings among ourselves. We finally got a contractor to do the job. Some homeowners of Nedro Avenue put out a set amount of 221 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 money and signed a contract with a contractor in October of 1997 to get the entire driveway paved and a section of the wall replaced. The job was completed in 1998, late '98. In August of 1999, less than one year later, part of a wall he built collapsed. The contractor said he would only fix it if a judge ordered him to do so because he had no money to fix it. We cannot afford a lawyer to sue the contractor and we cannot get residents interested. Some are sick, some are older, some poor, etc. can't our City government help us? We have pictures of the severity of the problem. It is very dangerous. Children play all around the driveway, the soil is eroding under the driveway. And three of the residents got notices from the City Department of Licenses and Inspections to demolish or repair the wall immediately or they, the City, would have it fixed and put liens against the property. We, the residents of the 9800 block of Nedro Avenue, support Resolution 41. Thank you. And I do have pictures of the problem.