COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, November 10, 1998 2:30 p.m. - - - Bill No. 980716 - An ordinance amending Title of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Public 14 Property," by prohibiting billboards, commercial signs, or other advertising signs on City property 15 unless Council shall have, by ordinance, authorized such signs, all under certain terms and 16 conditions. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER, Chairman COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 I N D E X Mary Tracy, President . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Society Created for the Removal of Urban Blight (SCRUB) 6 Reverend Jessie Brown, Acting Exec. Director 17 National Association of African Americans for Positive Imagery Uptown Coalition for Tobacco Control & Pub. Health Jeff Barg, Editor, Physicians Digest. . . . . 28 Chair, TEACH Jane Rozmiarek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Fairmount Park Commission Advisory Council Gray Smith, AIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Chair - Zoning & Code Enforcement Committee South Street Civics Association Bob Turino, President . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Upper Roxborough Civic Association Darlene Messina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Residents United for Greater Manayunk Judith Eden, President. . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Center City Residents Association Kathy Tomosky, President. . . . . . . . . . . 62 the Manayunk Neighborhood Council, Connie Winters, President . . . . . . . . . . 64 Germantown Business Association Ann Buchart, President. . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Kensington South Neighborhood Advisory Council Craig Melidosian, Private Citizen . . . . . . 72 Richard Lombardo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 City Planner 3 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 (Index, cont'd.) Carl Primavera, Esquire . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Counsel to Keystone Outdoor Advertising Co. Stephanie Franklin-Suber, Esquire . . . . . . 130 Philadelphia City Solicitor Richie Feder, Esquire . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Deputy City Solicitor 4 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716
Ladies and gentlemen, we now have a quorum of the Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. I'd like to get the hearing started. We apologize for any delay or inconvenience. I'm Councilman Nutter, Chair of the Committee. To my right is Councilwoman Donna Reed-Miller. To my left, appointed by Council President Street for today's hearing, is Councilman Cohen. To his left is Councilman Ortiz and -- I'm sorry, it's actually Councilwoman Blackwell to my right and Councilwoman Donna Reed-Miller to my left. Sorry about that. This is a public hearing on Bill No. 16 980716, introduced October 8, 1998. The title of the bill is: Amending Title 16 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Public Property," by prohibiting billboards, commercial signs, or other advertising signs on City property, unless Council shall have, by ordinance, authorized such signs, all under certain terms and conditions. Members of the committee have a schedule of a list of witnesses. We've received a number of calls inquiring about citizens wanting 5 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 to testify. Others have sent letters, and we will address those in a few minutes,. Just one housekeeping item. The City Solicitor and Mr. Feder are here, although they are not scheduled to testify at this moment, and it is my understanding that they have one other matter somewhere else in City Hall to deal with. For purposes of keeping the committee moving, what I'd like to do is acknowledge their presence, and they will make themselves available later on, after their meeting that they need to attend. Councilmembers have a copy of the testimony from the City Solicitor's Office, as well as a -- I'm sorry, we'll get you one, it was sent up, Councilman -- as well as a memo from Richie Feder to the City Solicitor, and we'll get one for Councilwoman Clark, articulating a bill if not an opinion with regard to Bill 980716. The Solicitor and Mr. Feder are excused to go to their meeting, and we anticipate seeing you some time later on today. Thank you. The first witness for today's hearing is Mary Tracy for the Society Created for the 6 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 Removal of Urban Blight. Miss Tracy, come to the -- Councilman, what do you call this now? This is not the witness table? Councilman Cohen doesn't like to call it the "witness table"; some people call it the "hot seat." (Mary Tracy comes forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. " SCRUB was formed in 1990 to enable community groups, health organizations, religious organizations, and the business community to speak as one voice on the issue of outdoor advertising. The coalition, through a citywide network of these groups, lobbied vigorously for the passage of the 1991 sign control ordinances. SCRUB strongly supports Bill No. 980718 for the same reasons that we supported the 1991 sign control ordinances, agreeing with the 7 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 legislators' finding at that time that the excessive number of outdoor advertising signs: Contributed to the visual clutter and distracted from the aesthetic beauty of our city; That billboard proliferation contributed to the appearance of deterioration of commercial and industrial areas and, therefore, have a negative impact upon the economic vitality of our city; That outdoor advertising signs jeopardize public safety by distracting pedestrians and, to a greater extent, passing motorists, since these signs, by their nature, are erected in areas intended to be seen by drivers of motor vehicles. We also believe, as Council did, that billboards can prevent a serious threat to the health and welfare of Philadelphia's children because of high concentration of alcohol and tobacco advertising that are promoted on billboards. Billboards dominate or obscure important scenic vistas and gateway areas and detract from the beauty of Philadelphia. Council 8 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 determined in 1991 by a unanimous vote that the removal of these signs would protect public and private investment, promote economic development and commercial revitalization. Our ordinance was hailed in 1991 as the first city in the United States to really set tough standards for outdoor advertising signs. Philadelphia's lack of enforcement of these signs -- of this ordinance is a national embarrassment. There is a constitutional crisis in our city when an elected body passes an ordinance that is not enforced by the administration. The major areas of concern regarding this lack of enforcement are the identifying tags which should be affixed to every licensed sign in this city. They have never been distributed. There are also over 1500 illegal signs, signs that have never been licensed have never been licensed, have never paid any money to the administration of this city and yet continue to exist, and most of these signs are located in our poorest neighborhoods, and they proliferate with messages of tobacco and alcohol. 9 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 There's also in the ordinance that was passed reconstruction of billboards in certain prohibited areas was prohibited. The City of Philadelphia has never monitored that reconstruction, and we actually know of several locations where new billboards have emerged that should have actually been removed because they were located in prohibited areas. And while I've been speaking about the 1991 lack of enforcement of those ordinances, I'd also like to just mention for the committee that the 1988 Vine Street Expressway bill had a clause in there for amortization, which actually meant that all of those signs should have been removed by 1993. Not only have those signs not been removed, but we have seen the Zoning Board of Adjustment grant variances to add new signs in that prohibited area. And, lastly, I would just like to say that SCRUB and the community has been at wit's end trying to gain enforcement before the Zoning Board of Adjustment of these fine laws that were passed unanimously by City Council through the intervention of neighborhood groups across the 10 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 City.
And despite the overwhelming support of stronger sign-control laws and despite testimony of neighborhood groups and SCRUB members before every Zoning Board hearing, the Zoning Board of Adjustment has granted out of variance 7 requests since this law was enacted. 8 The very first one that was -- the very 9 first Zoning Board variance that was granted was 10 to a property at 1200 Byberry Road, and I would 11 like to pass to the committee for references, this 12 particular location SCRUB appealed, and it went 13 all the way to the Commonwealth Court, and the 14 Commonwealth Court overtured that decision with 15 the very clear message that the billboard laws in 16 Philadelphia should be enforced, and that there was no reason -- there was never a hardship that could be proven to erect a billboard in a prohibited area. And yet, the Zoning Board of Adjustment continues to grant these variances. And I'll be just very briefly 'cause I know there's so many people here from the community who are interested in this issue that would like to speak today, and I don't want to take a lot of time, but I think it's just 11 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 important for everyone to understand just how great of a problem this has been. On Front Street, in the food distribution area, which has always prohibited billboards, it's an area where our taxpayers have paid over $21 million to redevelop that land, and any store or business that opened there signed a deed restriction saying that they would never put a billboard up. And despite the long history of billboards not being allowed in that area and an ordinance later being imposed saying that no 14 billboard could be allowed in that area, on February 6, 1997, the Zoning Board approved four billboard locations to be erected in the food distribution center. And then about six months later, on New State Road, another non-accessory sign across from a park, another prohibited area, the Zoning Board granted a variance allowing that billboard to go up. And then on Vine Street, an area that was within 660 feet of a school, a park, the Benjamin Franklin Bridge, and within 500 feet of 12 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 four other billboards -- not to mention that it's in sight of the Independence National Mall -- and the billboard would be placed on the same rooftop as an existing sign. I mean it's hard to image that a body, a governing body in this city would so ignore such clear laws and grant variances to this industry. But they have, and SCRUB has made appeals. And recently, First Union Center has received two variances to erect billboards in a parking lot. A sports stadium is a prohibited area. You're not allowed to have more than one sign on any one lot. You can't have signs so close to I-95. These pretty much abut I-95. I mean, it just goes on and on. And yet, these signs are granted variances.
Should we take it as a major part of your testimony that you oppose generally the placement of billboards on publicly-owned property? Is that --
Yes. We oppose -- and I know I've sort of gone off onto what the old law was, and I apologize. 13 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716
But I do think it's important to understand why we've come here today. And I think it's because not only is the City not enforcing a law that was passed in 1991, but now we are moving on to a whole new level. We are saying, Well, why not join the industry in putting up signs on City property? Hey, we all can make money here. And, you know, it's not -- it's not for the City to use public land to make money on billboards which our policy has been so clear since 1991 and even before then, that billboards are not considered an asset in the city, that they do not promote tourism, that they do not attract residents or new businesses. And for the City to continue on in this vein is something that SCRUB would like to see stopped, and we strongly support this law.
And before I end, I'd also just like to pass up for the perusal of the committee some correspondence between our 14 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 Philadelphia Department of Transportation, which strongly criticizes the granting of variances and has said that that actually jeopardizes our federal highway dollars, because not only are we not following our own City guidelines and ordinances, but the federal and state highway laws are also being completely ignored at the granting of these variances.
We'll get that testimony from you. County Cohen, do you want to ask a question?
You referred to the Zoning Board granting variances for billboards. If mystifies me, I know they've been doing it. My understanding has always been that the only basis for granting a variance is a hardship, and I cannot understand how denying the Water Department the right to put a billboard on its property is any kind of hardship. So I think we're going to have to revisit it. I don't know whether legally or not Council has the power -- I believe it does -- to pass an ordinance that takes away the right of the 15 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 Zoning Board to issue variance with respect to billboards 'cause I don't know of any legal basis for the grant of variance except an indiscriminate abuse of power by the Zoning Board, which is what I regard has been happening. So I would just like to make that comment, Mr. Chairman, and I hope I didn't go beyond what you intended, but if anyone wants to address that subject, we're ready for combat on it. Thank you.
Councilman, regardless of whether I thought you had gone beyond what I intended, would have gone there anyway, so I really don't --
It would certainly seem to me that City Council's ordinances have been greatly diminished, if not totally ignored, through the process of the Zoning Board variance applications. And I would believe that any measure that could be taken to assure that Councilmatic laws are being enforced in the city 16 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 would be greatly necessary and I think, indeed, necessary.
And thank you for waging the battles the organization wages before the Zoning Board and in the courts against the grant of variances. I just hope you continue. I think every case ought to be battled all the way up to the Supreme Court because I see no legal basis whatever for the actions that the Zoning Board has taken with respect to billboards.
Well, thank you, Councilman. I agree with you but, it falls on a very grass-roots organization with very limited means, and it would be very much appreciated if City Council could come to the rescue of the enforcement of its own ordinances because it's getting beyond our very limited means.
Okay, thank you. 17 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 (Reverend Jessie Brown comes forward.)
Reverend Jessie Brown, Acting Executive Director, National Association for African-Americans for Positive Imagery, and Uptown Coalition for Tobacco Control & Public Health. Please identify yourself for the record.
I'm Reverend Jessie Brown. You gave me all the hats I had on. I'm also a clergy person here in Philadelphia. I want to first remind of what we actually said in the ordinance in 1991. And provisions A, B, and C read as follows: A. Existing regulations have done little to prevent citywide proliferation of commercial outdoor advertising signs, nor to provide for an adequate source of funding to administer the insurance of permits, licenses and violations for inspections of these signs. B. The excessive number of commercial outdoor advertising signs contribute to the visual clutter and distract from the artistic beauty of the City of Philadelphia. 18 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 And C. The proliferation of commercial outdoor advertising signs contribute to the appearance of deterioration in residential, commercial and industrial areas of the city and, therefore, negatively impact upon the economic viability of these areas. Now, what changed? And I raise that question because we are here to support the bill. The City has -- the Rendell administration has blatantly failed to enforce the law as we worked so hard to get it passed in 1991. Even the provisions of the law that said that all the billboards had to be licensed is not being followed through. The distance between billboards being more than 500 feet has not been followed through. The tagging of all billboards in the City has not been followed through. The making sure that these billboards are not placed in front of churches and other areas that young people congregate have not been followed through. And I see no reason at all for someone, a poor corporate citizen as an outdoor sign advertiser having to receive grant or any special protection, whether under the laws of variance or 19 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 under some variance or other some other provision, and I think we should take this opportunity now to stop the outdoor advertising industry from continuing to proliferate the number of the billboards, particularly in light of the flouting of the law. It's most disappointing that Philadelphia -- the Rendell administration seems not to care whether communities are inundated with outdoor advertising. This past December, I found some kind of disturbing trends. The outdoor advertising deliberately did this, but it was part of our preparation in looking at the billboard law. We surveyed neighborhoods, selected neighborhoods of comparable area in Philadelphia, looking at neighborhoods in North Philadelphia, Northeast Philadelphia, South Philadelphia, and so forth, and we began to identify where in particular tobacco and alcohol billboards and signage was placed. We quickly noticed that, first of all, the African-American communities usually had twice as many and as much as three times as many outdoor advertising signs than there are in other 20 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 comparable communities. Secondly, we found somewhere upwards of 60 or 70 percent during the months of December 1997 to January of 1998, that 60 to 70 percent of all of the signage in those communes were tobacco and alcohol. Even more disturbing to me was the fact that even though we have the law on the books that say they cannot put advertising up in front of our churches, we found that a higher percentage of those outdoor advertising signs were in front of the churches in the African-American community. I then took the responsibility to go and check other parts of our neighborhoods, whether it be Kensington or Northeast Philadelphia, and I quickly found that I could not find a single -- not one single outdoor advertising sign that had tobacco or alcohol on it in front of any religious institutions outside of the African-American community, and that is a disturbing, a very disturbing fact. And now I also want to go one step further from this meeting to lay a challenge on the table.
We know that there have been -- that 21 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 they have not kept up and done what they wanted to do with the billboard law, so why not treat all of our legal billboards like all other legal notices in the paper, putting in the addresses and how much money they got from those billboards, publishing them. The City could do it. And if the City doesn't do it, I hope the news media publishes them so that the communities can see how they're being treated. Secondly, regardless of what the Rendell administration does about billboards, it is clear to me that they want the communities to go ahead and take matters into their own hands and figure out how to take down the illegal billboards that are still up and figure out what to do about billboards. Also, in that '91 law, there was a provision there essentially saying that before we do anything about outdoor advertising, we have to make sure that the companies that are seeking these things will feel that it's the law and not just a simple request. All of us are held under those kinds of restrictions or provisions. So passing this law simply puts a dot on the i or 22 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 crosses the t on something that's already been passed once, which we're having to revisit again some seven years later.
Reverend Brown. Just for the record, and I think you said it earlier, what is your particular view of this bill 8 as it relates to prohibiting, under certain terms and conditions, billboards on public property?
Absolutely. I believe that there should be no billboards on public property, including billboards that are on the bus shelters. Advertising should be removed even from those, but particularly tobacco and alcohol. And there is no reason why a private entity should be able to make money off of public property.
Okay. One last question. In the statement that you made, that private entities should not make money off of public property, one of the arguments I'm sure we're going to hear at some point in time is that not only will the private entity make money from advertising revenue, but there is the prospect of the public entity, or some group associated with the public entity, that they might share in the 23 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 proceeds from the revenues generated from a billboard on public property. Do you have any particular view of that?
Sure. I would still argue against it for the real reason why we didn't want the proliferation of billboards, which is that we didn't want to give the perception of the deterioration of our neighborhoods and communities. We wanted the quality of life to appear to be bright, not gloomy or cast over by big signs. And since we have little or no laws in Philadelphia that govern what goes on those billboards -- in other words, content laws -- I would be very, very skeptical to give the outdoor advertising any more space to put up negative images, negative information, tobacco, alcohol, or gambling on these billboards.
Aren't you, Reverend Brown, a plaintiff in a recent case in lobbying -- I think it's tobacco and -- 24 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716
Well, I wanted to commend you for that. Reverend Brown was very instrumental, together with some others who are here and others who are not here in the passage of the original 1991 bill. The year of passage was 1991, but the activity to get the bill passed started some four or five years before that. And I think you're absolutely right. I think in this case, the Rendell administration's appearance, it looks very bad because, in fact, it is very bad. Instead of ever doing anything to enforce the law, they've come up with excuse after excuse after excuse, and finally, apparently, joined the opponents; that is, joined the people they were supposed to be against, the proliferation of billboards, and they're aiding it. As I understand it this bill, Mr. Chairman, and I think that's what Reverend Brown was referring to, basically, the 1991 law outlawed the kind of billboards that this bill is also aimed at protecting, except that this bill goes one step beyond that -- even if a legal billboard 25 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 could be put up, if it's on government property, City property, it can't be put up even if it otherwise meets the legal requirements.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Reverend Brown, I heard you mention the bus shelters, and I'm presently working with the administration. Many people aren't aware that the bus shelters, as you mentioned, are public property in that they don't belong to SEPTA; they belong to the City of Philadelphia. Your concern with advertising. I'm also concerned that the City administration allows alcohol and tobacco COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 advertising on those bus shelters, and I'm pleased to report that it appears that at the next renewal of that advertising contract, that they will prohibit alcohol and tobacco advertising on those structures, but we're working on how we can make this binding so that a new mayor, a new administration won't allow alcohol and tobacco advertising. I heard what you said, that you would like to restrict all advertising, but at least it's a step in the right direction that my efforts and my staff, we've been able to get an agreement from the administration that when that contract renews -- and I think it's in 2001 -- that the alcohol and tobacco advertising will not be allowed.
We would be more than willing to work with your staff on constructing even a -- particularly a content bill around tobacco and alcohol advertising. I recently convened a national conference on August 8th, at Morgan State University, on the billboard laws nationwide. We have collected them and determined, of course, 27 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 what the Supreme Court has upheld in those laws, and we have model legislation that we could certainly suggest to you, or at least pieces of those legislation that would be appropriate for Philadelphia, that could be used and legally be upheld should there be a challenge to that in the Supreme Court. There is another piece to this that we might want to discuss -- that we don't have to wait on a law. The tobacco industry has already conceded the notion that tobacco advertising -- that they have stopped advertising tobacco in at least four states. Why wait? They could remove them now, and we could go ahead and pass the law.
The Public Property Commissioner is empowered to decline any advertising that he chooses today. He could do that, but he does not want to do that, and I'd be pleased to hear what you just described. But, again, in 2002, my staff informed me, is when the contract renews. But I'm really pleased to hear if there's a way that we could get on this thing today, starting today. And I'm also pleased that you're here 28 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 today, and I learned additional information about a subject that I have a lot of interest in.
Sure. Thank you very much, Reverend Brown. Jeff Barg and Dave Nichols. (Messrs. Barg and Nichols come forward.)
If you could identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Jeffrey Barg. I am Chairman of TEACH, the Tobacco-free Education and Action Coalition for Health. I have a very brief statement and then I'd be happy to take any questions you might have.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I've enjoyed the privilege of working with City Council and the Rendell administration 29 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 on a number of successful tobacco prevention initiatives. Together we are making it less likely that our kids will die prematurely of nicotine addiction. But the tobacco industry has not given up on seducing our kids, and we have still not provided adequate protection for them. While it has been several decades since we've banned tobacco advertising on television and radio, our kids are still exposed to countless tobacco ads on billboards throughout the city -- even next to schools, parks, playground, and churches. Back in 1991, City Council attempted to correct this, but the will of Council has been thwarted. This is the first piece of legislation I ever worked on so I remember it quite well. My colleagues and I, flush from a successful battle against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company over release of a new brand of cigarettes targeting African-Americans urged Council not only to limit the number of billboards, their concentration, and their placement near locales full of children, but to also ban all tobacco advertising on billboards. And I know Councilman 30 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 Cohen will remember this well. To my surprise, the ban of all tobacco billboards was voted out of committee with a favorable recommendation. But on the morning of the final vote, the then-City Solicitor circulated a legal opinion of the ban, advising that it violated federal law. The tobacco advertising ban was summarily stripped from the bill without debate, and the weakened bill passed a week or two later. I must add that since then, tobacco billboard limitations in Baltimore have withstood legal challenge all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. But we supported the weakened bill 17 because we thought it would provide some level of protection against child exposure to tobacco advertising and to the concentration of tobacco advertising in low-income neighborhoods, which Reverend Brown was referring to before. But, unfortunately, we were wrong. The billboard companies have routinely flouted the 1991 law with impunity, aided by their appeals to the Zoning Board. Now these same companies are 31 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 hoping to further expand the number of billboards in direct contradiction to the 1991 law by putting billboards on City-owned property. Such a proposal calls into question the credibility of our City government. Bill 980716 is a modest attempt to forestall the further steamrolling of the City by new billboards on City property. But the public deserves more. At a minimum, this bill should stipulate that there will be no tobacco advertising on public property, period. And I commend Councilman Rizzo for his proposal. Council also should take measures to ensure that the 1991 law is enforced, as intended. And, finally, Council should re-examine stricter limitations on tobacco billboards such as are now existing in Baltimore and other cities around the country. Thank you.
Just a comment. Everything I said about Reverend Brown also applies to you, because you were two of the most 32 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 stalwart stalwarts that we ever had against billboards and in getting that 1991 bill passed. And thanks for telling us about the Baltimore situation. I think the Council will be acting on your recommendations. I think the bill, as weakened back in 1991, ought to be restrengthened again. And we will be taking your recommendations very seriously. Thank you.
Any other questions? (No further questions at this time.)
Thank you, thank you very much. I had a call to Dave Nichols, although I did not see him come up. Darlene Messina? (Not present.)
Please identify yourself for the record. And I'm sure you'll say 33 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 your name exactly the way you want it said, so. . .
You did fine. Good afternoon. My name is Jane Rozmiarek. I'm a resident of Philadelphia, a member of the Overbrook Farms Club Board of Directors, and I'm on the Fairmount Park Commission Advisory Council. It is in this capacity that I address you today to support Councilman Nutter's Bill No. 980716. Since 1885, there's been a park in Philadelphia -- Fairmount Park, which has grown to 8700 acres, touches virtually every section of the city and offers recreation and other leisure activities to Philadelphians and visitors. Since 1991, there has been an ordinance 18 in Philadelphia governing size, placement, and proliferation of billboards. The ordinance 20 specifically prohibits billboards within 660 feet of parks and playgrounds. This ordinance has gone largely unenforced, which means that in several areas of the city, billboards virtually abut the park. A glaring example is in the Parkside Evans area, 34 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 very near the Mann Music Center. Four large billboards and one small one, all of them illegal, remain standing, unchallenged by the City. In addition to being an illegal eyesore, these and hundreds of other illegal signs represent a loss of revenue to the City in uncollected fees for billboards which are legal, and in uncollected fines for illegal signs. Enforcing the existing ordinance and strengthening it would more than offset any income generated by new signs, which are clearly illegal and undesirable. Thank you.
Gray Smith and Bob Turino. (Messrs. Smith and Turino come forward.)
Good afternoon, Mr. 35 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Gray Smith. I am the Chair of the Zoning and Code Enforce Committee of the South Street Neighborhood Association. Our President, Fluffy Palmer, who participated in the preparation of this testimony couldn't be here today. I should also mention that I'm one of the founding members of SCRUB back in those four years where we fought to pass the bill in 1991. My comments are very brief and focus on a couple of different issues than have been discussed before. Philadelphia is a beautiful city. As an architect, I believe that -- except for a few major flaws. One of the rips in the fabric is the preponderance of gigantic advertising billboards in the most visible of locations. And I have copies here of my testimony if somebody can. . For example, the drive to and from the airport on I-95, at 65 miles an hour, consists of a steady bombardment of monuments to liquor, cigarettes, casinos, go-go bars and the rest of the seven deadly sins. 36 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 In 1991, the members of the South Street Neighborhood Association rejoiced in the passage of the comprehensive billboard ordinance 5 championed by Councilman Cohen and shoe-horned in the City policy by the good work of Mary Tracy and SCRUB members, our colleagues in the City's neighborhoods. At that time, the City Planning Commission, part of the City administration, was extremely supportive in that process, and we thank them for that. We applauded City Councilmembers who voted for that ordinance, and we hereby thank Mary Tracy for her unswerving persistence on this critical area to this day. We would like to believe that the 1991 ordinance has prevented billboard purveyors from blighting our very commercial neighborhood, the South Street corridor, from Front Street to Broad Street, where 30 to 40,000 people, including lots of young people, come every weekend. Recently, however, that belief was shattered by the appearance at Third and South Streets of a three-story high, sixty-foot long Budweiser beer advertisement on the side wall of 37 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 Mako's bar. There's a photo of it attached to my testimony. Such advertising may not now be prohibited by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. That's why we say thousands of bill 7 banners strung on the parapets and the front walls of every bar and restaurant in Philadelphia -- again, unpermitted and unlicensed, of course, because that state law is no longer in effect. But that Budweiser billboard, in full view to all the kids who populate South Street, is against Philadelphia law. It is next door to some very expensive condominiums in Abbott Square. And there too, some half-a-million-dollar townhouses and historic buildings in Society Hill. It's one block from St. Peter's School and Church, probably one of the most prominent private schools in the City of Philadelphia, and it's near three other internationally-famous churches and three synagogues, and it is near the new charter school that is being installed in our neighborhood at Fourth Street. And this Budweiser billboard is one of those in a not-North-Philadelphia neighborhood. 38 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 It's very close to the churches and advertises bill and liquor. The billboard and our review of what allowed its creation -- it's not permitted and it's not licensed -- demonstrated to us the inherent weaknesses in billboard regulations in Philadelphia. To begin with, there is to little enforcement of the current billboard ordinance. It is a part of the zoning code and within the enforcement responsibilities of the Department of Licenses and Inspections, and I noticed that nobody I recognize from L&I is attending this hearing. Yet there are hundreds of these monstrosities that get no L&I scrutiny.
Many are unlicensed, are unpermitted, and are in the most prominent of locations, certainly noticeable by L&I inspectors. A larger number of Philadelphia billboards fail to meet the criteria of the 1991 billboard ordinance, licensed or unlicensed, and L&I does little about it. There are no billboard police in L&I. If it weren't for the Mary Tracy's out there, there would be zero billboard 39 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 enforcement in Philadelphia. A second problem. Without permitting licensing and enforcement, by the City, the City has lost thousands and thousands of dollars in tax revenues. Third, since billboard erectors and their clients represent, quote, big business, unquote, and economic development in the mind of Mayor Rendell, there appears to be a look-the-other-way policy rather than an obey-the-law policy at the very top of our administration. Everyone who deals with the Zoning Board of Adjustment -- and I do frequently -- knows that the Zoning Board is keenly aware of the Mayor's wishes on such matters. I mean, he appointed them all, right? To the extent that the Art Commission is involved, its members also adhere to the Mayor's messages. Thank goodness the City Planning occasionally shows some real moxie on this issue and opposes in front of the board, in front of the commission. And the fourth problem with the current billboard ordinance is that now that a City 40 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 property is being proposed for a very prominent billboard location, City Council apparently has no 4 say in the matter -- you're left out of the deal, No matter how many millions it represents. Hence, the need for Bill No. 980716 to become an ordinance. It is essential that City Council participate in decisions of this nature. Currently on matters of this kind, the City Planning Commission -- who, incidently, opposed the latest City property billboard deal -- has been ignored by the Mayor. And it should be quite interesting to watch the Art Commission squirm over the matter when it reaches its agenda. Therefore, City Council's oversight is absolutely essential. Now, we would like to propose a couple of additions to the bill, if we could. An added agreement to the ordinance might also be the requirement that City Council review and approve all contracts and leases between the billboard erectors and the City if a billboard location is ever approved by the City Council within the confines of the new ordinance. In other words, the ordinance says if 41 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 somebody wants to do this, they can come to you with a special ordinance. I suggest that you participate in all the inner workings of the implementation of such an ordinance, if you ever approve it. Another bite at the apple would give City Council more say in the matter. And in this event, assurance of Art Commission review, for what it's worth, must be emphasized. We would also suggest one important technical improvement for the ordinance -- and I say this because I deal with the zoning code almost on a daily basis and with people at L&I who administer it. Since the lion's share of billboard control language in the City is found in Section 18 14-1604 of the Philadelphia Zoning Code, and this new ordinance, which deals with Section 16 of the City Code, should be then repeated in that section 21 of the Zoning Code to make sure that approvals are not improperly granted by zoning officials. I mean, L&I have no authority within Title 16 of The Philadelphia Code, and zoning examiners are very limited as it is when they 42 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 review these things. And to put anything besides zoning code provisions in front of them might confuse them terribly. So it needs to also be folded into that code.
Mr. Smith, if I could, on that particular point, we believe that -- there is an amendment that has been drafted. It will be offered shortly. It may not exactly mirror the language that you talked about, but it does address the issue of even upon approval, if a billboard were approved at a particular location, the site is still subject to the rest of the Zoning Code, that that approval is not superceding the regular zoning ordinance. There is the, though, legally, the ability through legislation for a particular site to supercede, and I feel compelled to put that on the record. But that would certainly be at the discretion of the member introducing such a bill 21 to authorize a particular billboard at a certain location.
Right. I'm just simply wanting to make sure that the information in your bill, should it be passed with any amendments, be 43 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 always in front of the zoning reviewer whenever someone comes in proposing to put a billboard on City property, that they know that the first prohibition is that it can't be done.
I mean, all the other prohibitions, assuming it can be done, would then come into effect.
As an adjunct to this issue, we would recommend that City Council -- and prior testimony, I think, has emphasized a need for this too -- that City Council insist on a public hearing and a thorough review of L&I's current permitting, licensing and enforcement activities regarding billboards already in the City. Chances are you might discover that the potential fees, penalties, fines, and revenues from the enforcement and demolition -- permit fees, for example -- of illegal billboards would yield a lot more cash for the City's coffers than the 20-year rental income sought by Mayor Rendell at the Water Department's sludge site. 44 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 Again, we need to find that out. We talked about it with you, we talked about it in 1991. Nothing's changed, there's no enforcement, and all those fees have been lost, all those fines have not been collected. Thank you for the opportunity to present our comments from a neighborhood perspective. We hope that you will pass this ordinance with suggested additions as well as stimulate L&I's focus on this major citywide problem as well as ask them to go after that big Budweiser billboard in our neighborhood. If not. Philadelphia can add another accolade to its tourism brochures: "Philadelphia, Billboard Capital of the World."
Just for my understanding, in the material that you passed up, I mean as I look at this, I'm left with the impression that this is not so much a billboard in the classic use of the term; I mean, this is something that is, I assume, painted on the building. I mean, the building almost looks like one of our SEPTA buses with that shrink wrap stuff 45 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 or however they do that. I mean, I don't know how they did this, maybe it's just paint. I mean, this is really a building be something participated on it.
As opposed what we commonly refer to as "a billboard," which is a big sign with a supporting structure. I mean, it is what it is, right?
There is not an independent sign mounted on this building. The entire side of the building has been used as billboard, and it still fits the definition in the Zoning Code, and it is an advertisement.
It's an advertisement, okay, all right. Any questions? Councilman Cohen.
Again, another comment. This room is full of heroes in the original struggle to get a billboard control ordinance passed by City Council. And Gray Smith has been among the group that I've referred to 46 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 before and been out in the forefront. You know, you made the point about economics. It's kind of ironic that the Mayor, who has permitted millions and millions of dollars in permit fees from the various billboard companies to go uncollected, is now attempting to justify this bill billboard on the ground -- the one on the Water Works down at Delaware and Pattison Avenue, on the ground that it's going to produce some pittance of revenue.
The irony of it all. Also a further irony will be that, undoubtedly, we'll hear from the City Solicitor 'cause this is what city solicitors do. There will be an opinion by the City Solicitor saying that City Council has no right to do anything in this area, that it's merely a matter of mayoral prerogative. I just want to note for the record that in a state law, the outlying of Council's responsibility on zoning is clearly defined in what lawyers refer to as 53 Perdon (ph.) Section 25 14758 entitled "Approval by Council," which says 47 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 that any zoning action must be approved by City Council. And beyond zoning, it's a basic City policy, whether City property should be permitted to be defamed really by a billboard sign. And the City Solicitor will undoubtedly say that this is a mayoral prerogative, and I'm hoping that before I have to leave this hearing, I will have the opportunity to read into the record what the President of City Council said is the worth of the City Solicitor's opinions to City Council. In a court case, ongoing, in which I happen to be the plaintiff and the mayor is the defendant. City Council President Street was called as a witness. And he was asked the following question, and I will read his answers. This appears on of the transcript. The attorney questioning the Council President was Mr. Stretton. And Mr. Stretton asked: "Now, as City Council President, you are to give great weight to opinions you seek from the City Solicitor; am I correct, sir?" Answer by City Council President 48 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 Street. "You are not correct." Question: "Well, when you seek an opinion from the City Solicitor, do not they have some binding effect on you as Council?" Answer: "They have no binding effect on us whatsoever. Literally, we can take them and put them in the trash." Now I'll. . .
The reason for that is, unfortunately, one of the quirks in the City Charter, the Mayor appoints the City Solicitor subject to confirmation by City Council. But once City Council has finished approving the selection, the City Solicitor becomes an adjunct of the Mayor's Office. No City Solicitor could remain in office if an opinion were rendered that the Mayor disagreed with. So, Mr. Chairman, I mention that simply because I may not be able to be at this hearing when the City Solicitor presents that opinion. There's a Bar Association event honoring attorneys who are veterans of World War II, and I understand 49 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 there are about 150 of us still left, and so I'm going to ask shortly the permission of the Chair to leave this hearing to participate in that ceremony. But I did want you to know that we're used to the City Solicitor saying that the Mayor is all-powerful; City Council doesn't count. And I guess all executives -- all legislative bodies would disappear. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I'd just like to add that Councilman Cohen is one of my heroes, so we're not the only ones over here.
Okay. And I am quite sure the Solicitor will regret your absence from the chamber. (Laughter.)
Incidentally, may I just add, City Council President Street was appearing on behalf of the Mayor's Office at the time he made that statement. He was a witness 50 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 presented by the City Solicitor's Office.
Mr. Turino, please proceed with your testimony, identify yourself for the record.
Would you pull the microphone a little closer to you, please.
I am President of the Upper Roxborough Civic Association. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to share with you the views of my neighbors in upper Roxborough. Although we don't have much of a billboard problem right now, we believe that billboards are a quality-of-life issue, as we have other issues in Roxborough of the same nature. We believe the City would be misguided to take this direction now about signing and billboards. We as a city will be on display to the world with the Republican National Convention. And we believe what need are more green spaces, small parks, and gardens on City property, possibly with art work of local talent on display. With regards to the sludge treatment 51 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 plant, it's a fact of life. By putting a huge billboard on the site, it will only draw the wrong kind of attention to it. We believe that a stand of trees, maybe a large mural painted by local people would be a better image. The people of Philadelphia care about their city, even the sludge plant. So clean it up, dress it up, don't put a spotlight on it to say how ugly it is. This is another attempt, we believe, to sell the city to the lowest bidder. It's a quick buck, it's not long-term planning. Do we really want people to come to our city, as was quoting in The Inquirer by one of the sour grapes who lost the Republican National Convention -- people only come to Philadelphia because they have to. That's what the statement was, not because it's a wonderful and unique city with much to offer. Will the people who live in Roxborough benefit from the Eagles NovaCare project on City property? We don't believe so. Do the people in Pennypack need a billboard to look at from their park? We don't believe so. We don't believe 52 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 Roxborough needs any more TV towers, and we don't believe the City of Philadelphia needs any more billboards advertising liquor, tobacco, Atlantic City. Everybody has the right to drink and smoke, everybody knows where Atlantic City is; we don't need billboards to tell us where. We believe all of the above are quality-of-life issues, and we'd like to see the billboard ordinance made stronger, if possible. Thank you for the opportunity to express our views.
As I mentioned earlier, there are a couple of proposed amendments for the bill, and I'd like to read them into the record. At this point in time, Councilman Cohen needs to be excused and wishes to leave his vote on the amendments as well as the bill. These amendments have been circulated to members of the committee. If there are any other Councilmembers, 53 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 we can get copies of the amendments to them as well. The proposed amendments to Bill No. 5 980716 read as follows: Amend of the bill, Section 16-204, paragraph (2) to read as follows: (2) No structure used to display any billboards, commercial signs, or other advertising signs shall be -- delete the word "placed," insert the word "erected" on any City land, buildings, or facilities related thereto without specific authorization of Council by ordinance, comma. . . Delete "except for the following," insert "with the following exceptions," colon. The second amendment. Amend the bill at Section 16-204, paragraph (2) by striking small letter a, small letter b, small letter c, and replacing them with (.1), (.2), and (.3). The third amendment. Amend the bill, Section 16-204, by inserting a new paragraph (2)(a) to read as follows: a. This section shall not prohibit the display of the following signs, colon. 54 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 The fourth amendment. Amend the bill, Section 16-204, paragraph (2) by inserting a new (2)(b) to read as follows: b. This section shall not prohibit the erection of a structure that is an inherent part of a City building or facility and not erected for the primary purpose of displaying signs. The last amendment. Amend the bill, Section 16-204, by adding a new paragraph (3) to read as follows: (3) Nothing in Subsection (2) is intended to supercede any other provision of the Philadelphia Code, including, without limitation, the provisions of the Zoning Code. If Council by ordinance authorizes the placement of a billboard, commercial sign, or other advertising sign on any City land, building, or facility, pursuant to Subsection (2), the placement of such sign must also comply with all other provisions of The Philadelphia Code, including, without limitation, the licensing provisions of Section 9-602 and the provisions of the Zoning Code regulating the size and location of such signs. (Copy of above amendments attached to 55 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 testimony.)
Mr. Chairman, I request permission to leave the meeting to attend to the function that I previously mentioned. And in so doing, at the public meeting that will follow this public hearing, I would like to have my vote recorded in favor of the amendment that you've just read and in favor of the bill, whether amended or not. Is that agreeable?
Well, I'm asking to leave with permission to cast my vote in favor of this amendment and then in favor of the bill, as amended; or if the bill passes without the amendment, I would be in favor of the bill, in either form. I assume the bill will be amended, but if it happened not to be, I still would want to be in favor of the bill.
And I support 56 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 reporting the bill out favorably, with a favorable recommendation as a City Council, and with a request for the suspension of the rules and to permit first reading at the next session of Council, which occurs on Thursday.
Okay, thank you, thank you very much, Councilman. Let's have -- I think she's in the room 10 now -- Darlene Messina, Judith Eden, and Kathy Tomosky. (Ms. Messina, Ms. Eden and Ms. Tomosky come forward.)
Hi. My name is Darlene Messina. I represent a civic association called "Residents United for Greater Manayunk." Thank you for allowing me to testify today on behalf of Bill No. 980716 prohibiting the City of Philadelphia from erecting billboards on City-owned properties, unless specifically authorized by Council ordinance. I represent one of many Philadelphians who promote the City of Philadelphia as a liveable 57 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 city, a memorable place to visit. We have chosen to live here. In some sense, we are ambassadors for the City of Philadelphia. Whenever and wherever we travel, we are the best advertisers of the City of Philadelphia. There are many reasons why one would want to live here. Philadelphia is a city with multiple appeals. We have a cultural and architectural richness rooted in history like no 11 other city, an urban scape uniquely located between two scenic rivers, a vibrant arts and entertainment community, vast park land, and thriving neighborhoods and more. It is our belief that we should allow our magnificent uniqueness to shine. More specifically, we strongly believe we should avoid cluttering our extraordinary urbanscape, neighborhoods, and river banks with billboards and advertising. Billboard and advertising signs create a disjointed and blemished skyline. They are distracting and destroy our sense of place. Information about a place is gathered by what people see. What they see is their first impression. First impressions are often what 58 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 people remember. Few people like outdoor advertising and billboards. We realize it is difficult to place a measurable economic benefit on prohibiting additional billboards on public property. However, we believe by supporting this bill, tourism will increase. Tourists will see Philadelphia without the visual clutter; therefore, Philadelphia will become a more inviting and welcoming place to visit, and our magnificent urbanscape will leave a favorable and lasting impression. Sign controls are conducive to healthy economies. Many states in this country with thriving tourism economies have implemented sign control ordinances, and all have recognized that the aesthetic benefit has increased tourist dollars, an aid to the local economy. Please allow Philadelphia to stand apart from other cities and shine in its glory and history without the billboard clutter by proudly supporting this bill. Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is 59 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 Judith Eden. I am here on behalf of the Center City Residents Association, one of the largest and oldest civic associations in Philadelphia, with a membership boundary from South to Market Streets, from Broad to the Schuykill River. And we were one of the original groups supportive of the billboard regulation legislation in '91, and we continue to be active in this area until today and have participated as a protestant before the Zoning Board with SCRUB and other community groups in, I would estimate, approximately ten cases in the last year. None of those billboards are actually located within the membership area that I have just described. And a question frequently asked is, Why does Center City Association, with the Rittenhouse Historic District residential area, care so much? We care so much because we want to be Georgetown in Washington, D.C. We want to be like Beacon Hill in Boston. We want to be like these areas that you go to as a premiere residential area without a forest of billboards. And we recognize that the original legislation was intended to improve and protect 60 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 the gateways of I-95, 76, the Vine Street Expressway, the airport corridor, the bridges over the Delaware River, areas that have plenty of City-owned land, which, of course, brings us here in support of today's bill. I think we often do not have the chance to see ourselves as others see us. But I guess with the Republican Convention, we will. I'm fortunate enough to travel a great deal and also to entertain many people who do come to Philadelphia for business. And they ask me, you know, What do you do with these civic groups? I say, Well, you know, I'm very active in a group that's trying to keep the city beautiful. Ten years ago, they'd say, God, you have your work cut out for you. You know, the streets and sidewalks are so dirty. Well, we've made progress on that front. And now when I say this to people, the most common answer is, Wow, you have your work cut out for you, all those billboards. So, here we are, a number of years later. And in many ways, nothing has changed. When we were here before, there was a thick stack 61 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 circulating around of 1200 illegal billboard locations. And another thing that I think was kind of noteworthy that I remember from those hearings -- and I brought a copy today -- was the testimony that had been prepared by David Wismer, the Deputy Commissioner of L&I, pertaining to the advertising sign permit and license fee revenue. And I think one of the reasons this bill passed unanimously in '91 was because there was a realization that from the City's revenue points of view, this is not an impressive industry. There may be a lot of money or value to the leased areas of these billboards, but it's not a real estate-taxable item. This is also not a labor-intensive industry, so there's not a lot of wage taxes. So the primary element really was the licensing fees, which then were $92,000. And I did bring this with me today. I also -- we also have with us today another fat stack, and this is a fat stack of the legal billboard locations and their current status as to whether they pay their $100 location fee. 62 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 It's 56 pages, and I would estimate that revenue has now fallen from approximately 100,000 to less that $10,000. So in a way, we are not where we were even further back. And I'd like to close just by relating one little inner change that took back at the Zoning Board hearing pertaining to the sludge plant. An expert witness for the billboard company was asked, What other municipalities near Philadelphia permit billboards on City-owned property? And the answer was Atlantic City, and Pennsauken. And I wanted to jump up and say, We rest our case. Which I can do today. Thank you.
I'm Kathy Tomosky, President of the Manayunk Neighborhood Council, Democratic Committeewoman, organizer of the Manayunk Garden Club, and an advocate of Tree Tenders and Green Space. I come here today before you, my 63 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 Councilman, to appeal to you to get the bill 3 passed to eliminate billboards from our life.
Well, I don't know if I can go that far today. I'm just dealing with public property.
You know, outdoor advertising is not new. Ted Turner's father started his lucrative business in billboard advertising, and thank God his son went into broadcasting. Lady Byrd Johnson, in the sixties and seventies advocated most beautiful highways, and fought for the elimination of billboards. I guess Mayor Rendell doesn't remember her. I have never seen an attractive billboard that I would look twice at. In fact, the mere fact that they are not only distracting in a negative way, they are anti-green space. I am for City Council to forfeit the use of billboards as revenue raisers. Billboards should not be placed 500 feet from his historic bridges or buildings. The Art Commission and Historical Society should be responsible for that aspect of advertising. 64 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 Therefore I summarize my testimony and authorize my members also to help to eliminate billboards altogether. Thank you.
Connie Winters and Ann Buchart. (Ms. Winters and Ms. Buchart come forward.)
Please identify yourselves for the record and proceed.
Hi. My name is Connie Winters. I own and operate Historic Properties in Germantown. And for the last year, I have served as President of the Germantown Business Association. I'm here to testify on behalf of the bill proposed by Councilman Nutter. I understand this bill to be a further effort to get the City to uphold the billboard law that is already on the books. I would like to put this issue in the broader context of encouraging business in the City of Philadelphia. 65 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 Everyone knows that Mayor Rendell has gone to extraordinary lengths to bring business back to our city. And on the face of it, it appears that our mayor is attempting to increase revenues to the City by making an exception to existing legislation which was intended to regulate billboard proliferation in the City. An article by Tom Feret (ph.) estimates that the deal proposed by the Mayor will bring in $60,000 a year to the City. This is not much when compared to the potential real estate tax base that is lost when homeowners move to outlying suburbs. This is not much when compared to the revenues that are lost every time a new business decides to locate outside of the City of Philadelphia. What makes middle-class homeowners and small businesses decide to leave Philadelphia? Well, I can speak to that issue because I am one of them myself. Philadelphia should change its motto to "The City of the Special Deal." "Philadelphia, the city where you need to have influence to get your government to do the job." Is this the case in every city? No, 66 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 it's not. Is this the case in neighboring Lower Merion? No, it's not. But it is the case in Philadelphia. When an individual buys a house, he buys into a set of rules known as "the Zoning Code." This Zoning Code should guarantee that the property surrounding his property will be utilized according to certain rules that protect the value of his or her property and guarantee that certain standards will be maintained. This individual has a right to expect that the Zoning Code will be upheld, without a protracted legal battle. When a city gets a reputation for making exception after exception, then that reputation gets around and individuals decide to buy outside of the City of Philadelphia in areas where the ground rules are clear and the law is upheld. In Philadelphia, citizens are expected to hire layers and file appeals on their own time and at their own expense, just to see that the law is upheld. Ultimately, this reality and the reputation that follows damage real property values and property tax revenues. This is a far 67 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 greater cost to the City than $60,000 that will flow in if the administration makes another exception to the law. A month ago, I was privileged to attend the 21st Century Neighborhoods Conference, at which Mayor Ed Rendell gave opening remarks. I don't know if he was in the audience for Mayor Riley's (ph.) presentation on his efforts in Charleston, South Carolina, a city which is known as "the most beautiful city in America," a city which has revitalized its economy by enhancing its historic buildings and making aesthetic standards mandatory. Mayor Riley talked at length about his efforts to create beauty in public spaces in Charleston, beauty for all the citizens to enjoy. He attends to the smallest detail and insists on high standards. Mayor Riley does not make exceptions for billboard companies. I lived in Charleston, and I know that zoning laws are rigorously upheld. Citizens, property owners, and businessmen can count on the same level playing field. A level playing field that consists of 68 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 enforcement of the laws that are on the books will encourage business development in the City of Philadelphia and will ultimately result in greater revenues to the City. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Miss Buchart.
Good afternoon. My name is Ann Buchart. I'm here as a resident of Kensington South and also as President of the Kensington South Neighborhood Advisory Council. The Executive Board of the Kensington South Neighborhood Advisory Council supports the enactment of Bill No. 980716, which would prohibit the erection of commercial signs and billboards on City-owned property. Effective control of billboards has a direct economic impact on neighborhoods such as Kensington South. I pause to point out that Kensington South is one of the three empowerment zones of Philadelphia and is adjacent to I-95 and the Frankford-Market El. Studies have shown that billboards are 69 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 a disincentive to developers, in large part, because removal of an already-existing billboard is time-consuming, expensive, and difficult. Communities like ours, which are attempting to rebuild and re-populate will be challenged by the erection of billboards on City-owned property. The rooftops of our schools and our playgrounds would be attractive to billboard companies since an elevated sign would be visible to travelers on I-95 and the Market Frankford line. Additionally, by encouraging commercial use of City-owned property, the City embarks on a dangerous precedent. If a billboard company can lease City property, who can't? This short-sighted approach to utilization of City resources can and may prove to be a major legal problem for municipal government. This use raises questions about expanded municipal liability for accidents that may occur when billboards are not properly maintained or are neglected. The City could easily be found to be financially responsible for injuries to children hurt while playing on 70 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 billboards in recreational or educational facilities. We are also concerned about the products and services advertised on the signs. The City has an abundance of billboards greeting motorists, advertising everything from Delaware's lottery to Atlantic City's casinos, to the various strip clubs, as well as numerous beer and cigarette brands. It seem incongruous at best for City government to actively participate in the aggressive marketing of goods, service, and products that do not further the health or well-being of Philadelphians. For these reasons, Kensington South Neighborhood Advisory Council supports Bill No. 17 980716 and encourages its immediate enactment. I've been asked to bring with me today statements from two neighboring communities -- the Friends of Fishtown, I have a letter from Sandy Saltzman, the Co-Chair; and a letter from Theresa Youngblut, the Executive Director of the Northern Liberties Neighbors Association. I've also spoken today with Sister Carol Keck (ph.) and Patricia DeCarlo of the 71 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 Norris Square Neighborhoods. All of these communities are what is considered to be East-North, Philadelphia. All of us share the same concern because we all abut the Market-Frankford El and I-95, and we all represent lower-income communities. They join me today in requesting that this bill be enacted and in thanking you for your support.
Thank you. Just, again, for the record for both of you, there's certainly been a lot of discussion about the content on various billboards, and this particular bill does not address content issues. It is a location-based bill. And just for the record, is it your testimony that you both oppose the locating of billboards on public property? Notwithstanding whatever may be on them, but the issue of billboards on public property without some Councilmatic approval.
Okay, thank you very much. 72 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 Any other questions? (No further questions at this time.)
Let me read by name and organization and acknowledge to get into the record various people who have sent letters of support and some letters of opposition. Before I do that, though, are there any other members of the general public who wish to be heard in support or opposition to this bill that we may not be aware of? Carl, we have you. You're a citizen of the world; you're not a general member of the public. Seeing none, we received letters of support -- I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry, sir. Go ahead.
Thank you for this opportunity to address you. My name is Craig Melidosian, M-E-L-I-D-O-S-I-A-N. I'm a member of the Fairmount Park Commission Advisory Council. However, I come as a private citizen, and I live in the southwest section of Philadelphia. I'm a frequent business user of I-95. I wanted to make some comments that are 73 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 more or less esoteric in how we look at what comes before us today. One is the concept of beauty of orderliness. We have an ordinance before us that was previously passed that, anecdotally, we are told, is not being adhered to in terms of accruing as much revenue as possible. When we go to a football game or we come to Council chambers, we understand best the process when the rules are adhered to. And normally, fairly strong sanctions are made against those who fail to adhere to the rules; they're asked to leave our groupings. So, one, I would indicate that we should vigorously enforce previously-passed legislation. Two is the greater concept known as "the mythology of culture" and what the values of our culture are. That we pass these things on, we make a statement now that stays with us for years to come. When I came here today, I realized that I had been a part of a family that has lived in Philadelphia for a hundred years, and I hope that my offspring have no intention of leaving. Thirdly is another issue, an issue of 74 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 education anecdotally by innocence. Being a typical Philadelphian, a single parent, my wife and I did not have the financial opportunities or means to move to the far ends of the earth so we chose the far ends of Philadelphia -- she, living in the northeast; I, in the southwest. As a result of being a single parent, I frequently travel children up I-95. And, interestingly, each of them being separated by several years in age raised one question: What is the smell on I-95, why is it there? I thought it was rather interesting because despite going over the issue over and over again about sewage waste and it's a necessity of the form of culture that we're a part of, they were not terribly accepting of it and felt that we as adults and leaders had an obligation to do a better job. Now, later, after going over that, they then raised independently the issue of billboards and signage. Quite frankly, they did not buy into the concept that it was an effective form of advertising, despite what the outdoor advertising industry tells us. 75 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 I say that because they are our legacy. If our children do not buy what we are doing today, it is unlikely that they will subscribe to that and other things that we are attempting to promulgate to them. And, fourth, being a business person, I am very aggressive in an attempt to generate revenue for the City. Income never meets what the outgo is, so I am suggesting that as a side item, we consider issues of licensure of personal property. I have been at other meetings where the Mayor tells us he has the best-looking tie here. So, therefore, I suggest that when members are duly elected to City Council, that they surrender licensing rights to PAID, who will act as their representatives. The simple issue would be men would surrender licensing rights for their ties and their T-shirts. And women, the more comely and demure members of Council, like Jannie Blackwell --
No, I'm being, I'm -- 76 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 when you look at branding issues, we are currently branding everything.
We brand First Union, we brand our football players, our basketball players.
There is an attempt to be facetious, but it is educational. There are other ways to find revenue.
Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I only issued that caution because I know how testimony can go, and the next thing you know, Kenneth Starr will be in touch with the chief clerk's office, looking for a copy of this transcript. (Laughter.) 77 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716
Let me read into the record the names and community organizations who have sent in letters of support, and there are some in opposition. The support letters are from: Maggie Powell, Executive Director, Eastwick Project Area Committee, Inc.; Florence Liebman, Corresponding Secretary, Woodside Park Civic Association; Forest Aegiano, President, Wissahickon Neighbors Civic Association; Sister Sally Daly, St. Timothy School Library; Michael J. Toklish, President, Friends of Andorra Library; Don Whalen, President, Andorra Homes Civic Association; Patricia Wilson Aden, Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Programs, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia; Frank Vespe, Vice President for Policy and Communication, Scenic America; Lorraine Brill, President, Upper Northwood Community Council; 78 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 Judy Cerrone, President, Stadium Community Council, Inc. Stephanie Bell Andrews, Executive Director, Friends of Philadelphia Parks; Ruth H. Becker, Senior Consultant, Pennsylvania Resources Council, Inc.; Theresa M. Youngblut, Executive Director, Northern Liberties Neighbors Association, Inc. The letters in opposition are: One from Joshua L. Grimes, Attorney at Law; And one from the South Philadelphia Community Civic Association, from Anthony A. Greco, Jr., President. Continuing with our witness hearing list, the representatives of the City Planning Commission, originally, I think we were trying to have Barbara Kaplan. Her schedule did not allow her to directly participate, but we have Rich Lombardo, who drew the short straw today. (Laughter.) (Richard Lombardo comes forward.)
Good afternoon, Mr. 79 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 Chairman and members of the Committee. We are here responding to your request. Basically, I don't want to bore you, so you tell me how much you want to hear about the history of the current legislation, the legislative history.
Okay. Just to set a few things straight. This current package of bills is really -- though it did have all this community support and it was sort of a coming together of a lot of different groups, it was also a bill that had at its beginning, its genesis, the business community. This was a bill that was sought by the Chamber. And if you go back and look at the old records of these package of bills, it has the testimony of the Chamber of Commerce, the Tourists and Visitors Bureau --
Mr. Lombardo, just so our record is clear, when you continue to refer to "this bill," I'm assuming you're talking about the 1991 bill. 80 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716
That's right, I'm sorry. The licensing bill, the Vine Street Corridor bill, and the general citywide bill on billboards. And it had in its genesis the business community. It began over the -- at that time, construction of Vine Street and looking out and seeing a new road without any billboards and saying, We don't want -- you know, the business community saying, This is Center City, we don't want to see it look like 95 does look, so we -- before anything was built, we would adopt the Vine Street bill. Subsequently, that grew into saying, Let's also put a cap on any more signs on 95. And, by the way, let's also start licensing and collecting revenue for the existing signs that -- we were deeply involved only in a drafting process, both for the Chamber and the Central Philadelphia Development Corporation originally 81 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 asked us to participate in drafting a bill. And at that time, Councilman Cohen, who was Chairman of the Rules Committee, and Mayor Goode, who, ultimately, when these bills were all signed, you're going to have to remember, had a signing ceremony on Vine Street at the foot of one of the billboards basically saying that this would be one of the few billboards standing on Vine Street because of this new legislation. The issue about why the billboard -- you know, why the various groups were involved really centered around that one point. I talked about the business community and the interest that was talked about by other witnesses about liquor and cigarette advertising in the vicinity of schools and playgrounds. And that's why the legislation, when it finally came out of committee and was signed and adopted by Council, had a prohibition of billboards near schools and playgrounds. We conducted an independent survey, I guess, in late eighties, early nineties at the request of Council. Back in those days, the Commission staff conducted an annual billboard 82 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 survey growing out of the 1970s legislation where we reported to Council every year what the status in terms of billboards were, how many new ones had been added, that type of thing. As part of that survey, we conducted a survey of billboards around schools and playgrounds, and found, even to our surprise, that over 90 percent of the signs that were visible from schools and playgrounds crossed every part of the City; albeit there were more signs closer to schools in the inner city. But where there was a sign visible from a school or a playground citywide -- I just want to put it on the record to concur with what (unintelligible). There was either a cigarette or a liquor advertising sign at over 90 percent of the signs.
So your testimony is supportive of earlier testimony and certainly some of the more detailed testimony of Reverend Brown.
Yes. Just to reiterate, that was sort of the rationale -- I just want to lay out the rationale for what got the legislation to where it was. 83 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716
Right. Are you in a position to comment at all on enforcement provisions of the bill? Again, talking about the '91 bill. And if there were any discussions at that time about anticipated difficulties in enforcement in paying of license fees and the like?
I cannot testify to what the experience has been. You'd really have to ask L&I. I don't know what advice they've received from their counsel, what logistical problems they've had in enforcing or not enforcing. The only thing I can say is that the issue that was raised -- not the only, but one of the issues was, How can we tell which signs would be legal or would not be legal? And it led to the whole debate about putting stickers on the signs that would be legible to anybody who walked by as a way of identifying that that sign was currently up to date in its license.
That was the only recollection I have of problems in enforcing the bill, was how you would physically know which 84 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 signs were legal and which ones weren't.
Let me ask you this question. Do you have any knowledge or experience with regard to the process whereby a potential sign is located at a site? A person gets an application for a zoning variance, and in my experiences on just about every case in front of the Zoning Board, the Planning Commission articulates a particular view or a position on the application, whether it's a deck, a building -- and in this particular case, we're talking about billboards. Do you have any knowledge or information with regard to the general position of the Planning Commission as it has related to past applications, whether on public land on private land regarding billboards?
Yeah. Generally, if the billboard is there as a particularly -- I could tell you as a matter of policy that if it's a prescribed billboard, like it's a billboard that's too close to a school or playground, we would recommend against it. That would be our policy. If there was, you know, no quid pro quo 85 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 of abiding by the removal clause that says that in order to get this billboard, we're taking down one over here, if it's just purely trying to get a variance from the obligation to remove a sign to put up a new sign, we would recommend against it.
And, again, the position of the Planning Commission with regard to the '91 bill was that there were serious problems with billboards throughout the City and there was some need for regulation at that time?
And is the Planning Commission's position the same with regard to the '91 bill in terms of maintaining the integrity of the Zoning Board and ensuring enforcement?
There has been no 22 change. No, as a matter of fact, you know, I guess our feeling is that the 1991 bill, if enforced and followed the way it was enacted, is a good, fair bill. It was a bill that ultimately 86 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 was supported by all -- including -- there were witnesses -- again, look at your records, you'll see there were witnesses from the sign companies who testified after they hammered out amendments and agreements, that they could live with the '91 bill.
Okay. Any other questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Thank you very much. Dominick Cipollini, Joseph Felici and -- I guess as they say in the law -- "et al." Can you come forward. (Messrs. Cipollini and Felici and Carl Primavera come forward.)
Yes, good afternoon, Councilman Nutter. Carl Primavera, P-R-I-M-A-V-E-R-A.
With me is Dominick Cipollini and Joseph Felici, both from Keystone. I'm the attorney for Keystone. And they are interested because they are in the outdoor 87 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 industry. But perhaps more importantly for today's hearing, they were the licensed company with regard to the property down by the water treatment plant that was approved by the Zoning Board and, I guess, gave rise to this particular legislation.
Well, let me put one thing on the record and make sure that there's agreement between -- and an understanding for everyone in the room. Mr. Primavera and Mr. Cipollini and Mr. Felici, you understand that this bill, even if enacted, has no direct impact on your proposal, if not your lease agreement, or whatever other arrangement you have made with the City of Philadelphia on that particular location, is that your understanding?
We're glad to hear that from you. From hearing from Councilman Cohen, I wasn't really sure where he was going or where the committee was going. He seemed to be looking at some type of collateral litigation or the impairment of our contract rights, but I'm glad 88 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 that you as the Chair have no interest vis-a-vis this ordinance to try to impair those contract rights, which have been finalized in the form of a license.
Well, don't let me give you the impression that I'm giving you anything more than already exists. Everyone knows that any bill that's enacted has no ability to retroactively go back and terminate somebody's contract. With regard to the Councilman's actions, the Councilman is quite of age to take care of himself and be responsible for his own actions, and whatever he might try to do to you will be his own business.
Okay. Well, that's comforting at least with regard to those --
I expect that he will not try to involve me in it. So I just wanted to make sure that we're clear. I mean, with your opening statement that the southwest treatment facility, it is certainly true, brought this issue to my attention and to other people's attentions, but I don't want 89 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 anyone to be misled to think that this particular bill deals directly with that situation. You went through the process, the process is what it is. But I will say that I have a great amount of concern, some other members have a great amount of concern. And, apparently, you have some concern where we get into areas of the unknown. I have no idea what either your client or other people who are in this business plan to do going forward. And your concern, I guess, is Where are we going with this? I am particularly concerned about billboards on public property. And there are others who have more of an advocate regarding billboards in other places, but I'm primarily focused in on -- at least today -- on public property. Let me also say before we get into questions, or maybe you have a statement that you want to make, we appreciate your presence. All members may not necessarily agree with how all of the business is conducted, whether it's directed at Keystone and Mr. Cipollini or not, but we appreciate the fact that you took the time to come 90 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 in, make your presentation. You will be treated with respect and dignity, as I try to treat all witnesses who come, regardless of how I feel about what it is that they have to say or what their viewpoint is. But you at least did come. I don't know the other companies. They're certainly aware of this public hearing. It was advertised like any other public hearing is advertised. And they, for whatever reason, chose not to be in contact and chose not to come. And so I want to make the record clear on that. Why don't you proceed.
Fine. And we appreciate those opening comments. We're here today really twofold. One, because Keystone was, in fact, involved in the licensing agreement, we wanted to be here to confirm, as you already have, Councilman Nutter, that we did exercise a lawful an legitimate process, and that we have nothing to be apologistic about. And then second of all, because there have been so many comments made with regard to the 91 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 industry, we can't be the apologists for the entire industry, but I think we can set the record straight. I do have testimony which I'm going to pass up that I won't read. Rather than reading testimony reflecting my client's position, I'd rather just correct the record so that you and the other members of the committee will have, perhaps, a more balanced and more keen insight into some of these issues, rather than perhaps the well- intended but unfounded comments by people who really are here in the nature of a crusade. And I think this will help the fact-finding mission that I know is so critical to any legislative process really. So I'll do that really in accordance with the testimony provided and fill in the blanks. We were familiar with the '91 legislation because it did involve extensive hearings. And I would have to say let's give credit where credit's due. For a group that has been whining all afternoon about the lack of success of those legislative actions and complaining about the proliferation of signs, the 92 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 fact that there were only approved since 1991 in a city that's the fourth largest in the United States, suggests to me that perhaps these on-the-record legislative initiatives have been overwhelmingly constructive from their viewpoint because I think that if you notice the Zoning Board hears thousands of cases a year, and I think their approval rate for variances is in the 90 percent, the suggestion that two signs per year in industrial areas where there already are signs far removed from Fairmount Park and the other areas of concern, to me suggests, quite frankly, that these ordinances on the record have their intended effect implemented. And I think that they should be congratulating themselves rather than being concerned about the fact that maybe one or two were approved on a yearly basis.
Let me interrupt you there, Mr. Primavera, and I appreciate your optimistic view of the world. On the other hand, 13 over whatever number of years -- 6 or 7 -- you may view as not that many. The other side of this coin may be, How 93 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 many are there already, how many are legal, how many should have been removed, how many are actually licensed, how many are actually being paid for? And so if you're already pretty much at the top of the hill or at the saturation point, no, I guess you can't complain if there have only been a few that have been approved in the past few years. Unfortunately, I think -- I mean, we don't necessarily need to, by adjective, characterize anybody's legitimate complaint or testimony, but I think that there are some legitimate issues out there that possibly have not been dealt with.
So I don't think you can deal with in the isolation of, Well, it's only been 13. I mean, what I need you to tell me now, since you opened that door, is how many are out there?
But it just seems to me 94 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 that we have thousands of unlicensed vehicles, but you wouldn't have a moratorium on selling cars to people who have licenses and people who have insurance. The people who go to the Zoning Board, the Keystones of the world submit engineered plans and --
Well, you don't want to start mixing apples and orange now, do you?
Well, I'm just saying to you that the people who, of the 13 that were approved --
And you'll hear me out 'cause you said you were going to be you deferential and allow me to present my case.
Actually, I don't think I ever said "deferential." I think I said I'd be nice.
All right. Well, let me just say this. The people who go to the Zoning Board are the people who should be congratulated 95 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 and applauded because they are following the law. And I think that to say that because there may be people out there not represented today who may have signs that are aren't licensed or aren't legal is really a non sequitur. The people who go to the Zoning Board, present the case in a public hearing, have the bonds in place, the licenses in place, and all of the scrutiny that they go through, I think that, quite frankly, that's a system that works.
Okay. Now, we'll talk about the other things that were mentioned early on by Miss Tracy, who is an advocate for the elimination of all signs, she never saw a sign or a location that she would ever support. And she talks about --
I understand that. Even if I were being deferential, I will not allow you to get into "he said/she said" --
Or characterizing 96 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 other individuals' testimony by name.
If you want to refer to general testimony, I don't have any problem with that.
Well, it's important for you to understand the nature of their -- well, as a lawyer, you know that there's such a thing as bias and prejudice. And they're not coming in with a --
I understand all of that. We don't have to argue all that, I know about all that.
But nobody told you 97 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 about the Township of Moon case in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that said that the signs on Vine Street are as legal as a restaurant on Broad Street, and you couldn't come in with your legislative power and close a restaurant on Broad Street and put that man out of business. Similarly, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that signs which are legal cannot be amortized without the payment of just compensation. So it's not that nobody cares about removing signs; it's the law of the land that says that City Council, and the 1991 ordinances insofar as they attempted to take signs, which are private property, without compensation, made that illegal. So L&I didn't forget about the law. Their solicitor and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania said, You can't have private property unless you pay for it. And that's something that was not cited. And I know you want to know what the law is. So L&I may not have been here to speak for itself, but a lot of what L&I has been constrained by is the law of the Supreme Court and the law of 98 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 the land. On the licensing issues, everyone's complaining about the licensing fees which they think they should be getting.
Hold on for one second. Councilwoman Blackwell has a comment.
Excuse me, Mr. Primavera. You may not be aware of it, but we're not in court. You know, we want to have a little hearing. You can make your point, but this -- the tone of it is not positive, and I don't even think it helps your case.
And, you know, we've been waiting and listening and it's hard not to have your say when it's timely so it builds up, and I will temper my remarks accordingly.
We have a time-out room over in the other place there if you want just to take a time-out, it's fine. Then you can 99 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 come back.
The licensing scheme. There was a lawsuit where the City was enjoined from imposing licensing fees on billboards but not on signs that say "Joe's Restaurant" or "Bob's Retail" because the law doesn't allow the treatment or penalty of billboards. Remember, billboards are a legal use. So, again, you should check with the Solicitor and L&I. There are many reasons why a lot of what hasn't been done hasn't been done. And it's not mere not neglect, but it's very difficult legal issues which, perhaps, have been overlooked here today.
Again, looking at where the signs have been approved, and in my opinion, I think it's only a handful. But they've been in industrial areas. The one involving Keystone is in an area where there are no residential populations. And, in fact, the umbrella group of 100 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 civic associations represented by Mr. Greco came in and testified and said, We want this because we realize that the funds that Keystone will pay the City will help eliminate the need for more taxes. So, quite frankly, there are many people represented by organizations who have appeared on behalf of outdoor companies. And even though they're --
Is there any direct arrangement between Keystone and the --
They do it for the same good reasons that the people who oppose it. They have different views, different strokes for different folks.
And they say, Why should property that's owned in private hands get the income when the City, through its various operating units, owns property that could make money for the taxpayers? And they look at it as a taxpayer-saving initiative, and I think there's a lot of regard for that. With regard to the alcohol and tobacco restrictions, I believe there currently is an 101 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 ordinance approved by City Council that does prohibit alcohol and tobacco advertising on City property.
I think the ordinance was introduced; I don't think it's been passed.
All right. Well, we know that it's there, and we quite frankly think that that has gone a long way to addressing some of the concerns. And maybe that ordinance needs to be looked at.
I think, Mr. Primavera, that it actually may be a resolution 15 calling on the City to not allow tobacco and alcohol advertising in any of our contracts, as opposed to a bill.
Okay. I know there's some that Mr. Grimes has a pink copy of. I don't that. That -- it could be a resolution.
It's mentioned in his testimony, but I believe it's a resolution.
All right. And then the other thing is that the license agreement, which the City has with Mr. Cipollini and Keystone 102 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 does prohibit alcohol and tobacco advertising, so that was already covered in the license agreement.
So I think you can see already that there's some real attempt to address some of the concerns. With regard to a lot of what has been said about the state of licenses and permits, if you check Keystone's record, you'll see that he's paying his license fees. As a matter of fact, he's affirmatively going to the City without them billing him and saying, I want to pay. And even though there's collateral litigation, he's saying, I'm paying whether or not I'm legally obligated to because --
Now, how does that work? Does Keystone pay a fee for each location?
Are you saying he's paying them annually and they're up to date?
Right. And, quite frankly, he's in a litigation position to say, I don't want to pay in public venue so he's going 103 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 beyond the call of duty, which is an important issue. With regard to some of the other final issues that where you're looking to fill in some of the gaps, when a convention -- as a matter of fact, before it was announced publicly, Philadelphia was contacted by the committee to bring in the Republican Convention. The convention committee was anxious to know if outdoor advertising signs were available here because conventions won't come to a city unless it has some kind of vital and exciting signs available. So I think a lot of testimony is that the signs are anti-business, which really is, perhaps, not scientific or experienced. And I think those people are familiar with some of the entertainment facilities that the Zoning Board has been approving variances for those facilities, and they would not come to the city unless they felt there was appropriate signage.
Well, it's really more a matter of art and taste. And, I mean, reasonable people can just disagree about whether 104 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 they like billboards or not. I mean, it's like art or, you know, some other things out there. I mean, it's not pure, right? I mean, they make 31 flavors of ice cream at least.
And I would agree with that. I'm just trying to add the perspective -- and I'm glad you're already confirming it -- that if one sign is too many --
If this is a point we're going to agree on, then I'm going to change my position.
Okay. But I think you're right, I think that it's like many issues that don't allow for people to look at the gray area. I think you have one side or the other.
Well, talk about this 'cause, I mean, you have in an overwhelming fashion at least made a case that this particular company -- and we're not talking about any other company, but that this particular company is paying its license fees, is a good citizen, works with people, made an agreement at least with the city -- I just -- I want to go back for one second. 105 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 On the agreement out in the southwest, you indicated that -- is it that all the revenues from this only go back into the City coffers? Are there any other agreements or arrangements or side discussions that might enable a community group, an organization, a rec center or anybody else to, I guess, benefit from the revenues derived out of that?
No. As a matter of fact, the interesting thing is that originally the Water Department was very excited about the prospect of having its property used for this purpose because they see the signs that the adjoining properties have and they say, Why can't we generate some income? I think the Water Department wanted to dedicate the income to its particular site, and I think the way the City works is it goes into the General Fund, so the City dictates where it goes. With regard to community groups, at least with regard to this site, there was no 23 request and really no participation or compensation. The city, I'm sure if it wanted to, if it felt it could dedicate some of that income 106 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 stream to them, but it just never came up. And maybe that's something -- kind of a quid pro quo that would be beneficial to groups going forward. But we didn't address that.
Okay. Let's talk about the bill. You've made your case for Keystone as a good corporate citizen. And maybe you felt you had to come here today to defend your reputation or get into issues from '91. What's your concern about this particular bill?
Well, I think that part of it has to do with the record that's been made, and I agree with you that's it's gone far afield, and we needed to address it, but --
And with regard to the bill, the concern is really this? That there are always things that have to be done to make the City work. And there seems to be so much -- 107 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716
Well, so many different approvals and licenses and permits and hearings. And, as set forth in the testimony, I won't repeat it here, the bill, we believe, would just add another bureaucratic level to an already fairly bureaucratic process that has a lot of checks and balances, you have zoning hearings, you have PIDC, you have the operating departments of this city. So we think that there already is a tremendous amount of layers of review. So this isn't something that comes --
I appreciate you confirming my title as "a bureaucrat."
I'm talking about if you go back to the Water Department, the City Solicitor, PIDC. 108 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716
I mean, there's the Zoning Board, the Planning Commission.
I mean, this one location involved tremendous amount of time and energy. And anything that adds to that would be, I think, counterproductive.
You don't think that there is any particular special care or oversight that should go into the citing of whether it's billboard or other advertising or some other private interest on public property?
I mean, it doesn't require any -- just any heightened level of oversight?
I guess what we say is that the steps that were involved in our experience with a telephone size agreement with the Law Department, review through all the City agencies, we had full-blown engineering plans to make sure that the sign would not compromise the 109 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 Water Department's operations. And they precluded the --
Well, you can understand why we would want something like that.
If your sign maybe falls on somebody, we might be liable.
And $5 million of insurance. I mean, if you would see what your city solicitor did, they should be complimented. There's probably not a tougher agreement on the books. And the reason is -- you're right -- that they do know that City property does require for the taxpayers' benefit a lot of protections. My only response is that based on our experience, this thing was looked at as closely as any deal involving city property.
Also, I know your concern would be, it's one thing if you're down in a sludge facility; it's another if you're near residential property. Well, we only want to be in industrial properties; we don't to be anywhere 110 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 near residential properties. So we think the same locations that apply to private property are relevant to City property. City property should not be easier to get a billboard on.
And we're not proposing that. We're saying apply the law in an even capacity. If someone has a private piece of property by the airport, in a swamp, and there's nothing that can be developed, then it should be considered for a billboard. If the City owns that same property with the same limitations and it otherwise conforms with the zoning law, then it should be available. So --
Well, I understand that by I have to go back to the initial question, and it really is a yes or no or question. Do you believe that there should be any higher level of scrutiny or oversight on the placement of a billboard on public property versus private property. Now, it's a yes or a no 25 question. 111 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716
Yeah. I would say no, we already have criteria that addresses content of the advertising, location of the advertising, and all of the other administrative controls. So to me, it would be redundant. I mean, not that redundancy --
So you think it should be the same test as -- I mean, the test should be equal whether it's on a piece of privately-owned property as to the roof of Memorial Hall, same test.
Well, you just put the rabbit in the hat. We wouldn't put it on the roof of Memorial Hall.
You're not the only billboard -- as much as you may want to be, you're not the only billboard company in the City of Philadelphia. I don't know what you want to do, I don't know sites you want to be on.
I don't know that 112 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 you only want to be in commercial or industrial areas, and I don't know how many of them there are. What I do know is that there are a large number of publicly-owned buildings around the City of Philadelphia. And if the idea is to put billboards on public property, there are a whole lot of them.
Well, no, I would agree with you there. As a matter of fact, maybe we are agreeing at a point. If somebody wanted to add a billboard to a historic structure like City Hall or Memorial Hall --
I'm just saying that what we're, on behalf of Keystone, looking at are areas that are basically far-removed from either residential or commercial properties, they're in industrial districts, and they're, quite frankly, where you would expect to see billboards.
We would not look -- we 113 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 think that it would be disrespectful to the City and to the taxpayers to try to put them in an area where they would stick out and be a negative influence.
So you think the process is either further delayed or that much more painful if you, as you say, you are already working with either community groups and organizations, you're already working with, at a minimum, the District Councilperson, and you're talking to the people who own the site or are responsible for the site on the public side, that it would be that more of a burden to have a member of this Council introduce a bill, which doesn't cost you anything, have a public hearing, which doesn't cost you anything, get a bill out committee, voted on by the body -- still at no 19 cost to you -- which literally can be done in two weeks, three Thursdays, and that that somehow creates a larger burden for you than filing an application with the Zoning Board, waiting till you get a hearing, paying $500 to get an expedited hearing on top of the 280 that you have to pay anyway to have a hearing, and then waiting for a 114 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 decision. The first process is more burdensome than the second process; is that your testimony?
Yeah. What would be the standards? If I go to the Zoning Board, I know what the legal standards are for success. If I become involved in a Councilmatic process, what would be the standards that Council would use to evaluate? We would all agree that if it's on Memorial Hall, you wouldn't approve it. I would be first to agree with that.
Well, my suggested standard. But I'm just saying, what would be the standards in your ordinance? Would it be simply based upon -- are you looking for a hundred percent consensus? If the SCRUB people came in said, We don't want it, would that be enough to veto it? We don't really know the parameters. And it may be that the exception will eat the rule so that -- 115 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716
Mr. Primavera, let me ask you this question: How many times have you ever testified on a bill in City Council?
What were the criteria under which that bill was approved or denied?
In some cases, they are, like in street ordinances, you know, in right-of-way ordinances.
And you probably have about a 98, 99 percent approval rate out of this body, don't you?
Usually. I would say this, that where there's the track record and where everyone knows kind of what the parameters are -- 116 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716
So your testimony is that -- and I don't -- and I've certainly come to respect the work and the view and the judgment of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, but, I mean, are you making testimony now that by way of the Zoning Code, which you can read and figure out, that the members of City Council would not be able to figure out for themselves, based on whatever criteria we use to approve the million ordinances that come through here on a regular basis, that members of City Council would not be able to figure out, based on the recommendation of the District Council who member introduced the bill in the first place, that we wouldn't be able to figure out whether the bill should go forward or not? Is that your testimony?
No, no. You asked me what my client's position would be, and my client's position would be, You may know what you have in your mind, but we don't know unless you tell us. And if there were some standards that would allow us to know the, quote, rules of the road, then maybe we could agree. So that's when I said no Memorial Hall, no playgrounds. 117 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 But if your mind that I can't read says, Whenever SCRUB says no, that means no, then I'm out of business.
I mean, as a normal course of your policy and procedure, you go and talk to the District Council person, right?
And what do you do if the District Council says, I can't support a billboard at XYZ location? What do you do?
I would probably find another location which they could support.
And would you ask them what their criteria was, or would you just 118 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 accept their judgment?
No, I would say, What would be something that you could get behind? And in past, they would say --
Suppose they said nothing? Or I don't like it at that location. What would you say?
I'd say that that was a very narrow view of the world and maybe being the advocate that I am, I could convince them that it's in the best interests of their community and the city and the business to have a more open mind.
And after all of that eloquence, suppose they said no at that location, what would you do?
Okay. So what's the difference? What was the criteria that was used?
It was the judgment 119 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 of the Councilperson at that time based on all the factors involved, wasn't that the criteria?
You think we wouldn't tell you under the circumstances of this bill.
I don't know. I'm asking. You said, What would be helpful in making your ordinance acceptable? And I said some objective standards that would give us the rules of the road so that we know what Council is thinking about other than sheer prerogative. Because at this point, the zoning process tells us what we need to establish, and the ordinance that you're prescribing basically says, Come into City Council and avail yourself of a process that's going to be perhaps creating a new regulatory hurdle for us. I don't know. If you're saying that the Councilpeople will defer to the Councilperson in whose district the property is located, and there won't be Councilman Cohen and others putting pressure on Councilpeople because they feel that 120 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 they don't want the sign even if it's not in their district, I don't know. I mean, that's --
That Councilman Cohen can't pressure anybody? I mean, come on.
Well, I'm saying that's part of the danger. The danger is that --
Members take the prerogative to talk to other members about whatever it is that they want to talk about, but you've been around long enough to know that in most instances, if there is something that is pertinent to a particular location, involves a District Councilperson who, under this legislative arrangement, would be the introducing member, then certainly that member is going to be an advocate because they're worked out all that needs to be worked out with their community and in their district to have this go forward.
Well, maybe I can suggest this. Maybe the people who are supportive 121 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 of your proposed bill and you as the sponsor --
Maybe you, as the sponsor of the proposed bill, and those who are in support of it, maybe there's some overriding standards that we all would agree to and maybe we can agree to. I mean, it may well be that we're talking about things in general that lay themselves open for some type of, you know, compromise. Now, from what I've heard today, one sign is too many, so why would I want to ever add any more regulatory hurdles? On the other hand, if you're saying you don't want them on Memorial Hall, neither do we. So I guess I have to know, where is the field that we're playing on? Is it in the extreme ideology?
The field that you're playing on is the field of public property, and if you want to be on a particular location, if you have no interest in Memorial Hall, then you'll never ask anyone to put one on Memorial Hall. But if you want to be on a rec center, 122 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 a library, a ball field or somewhere else, you'll identify that property, you'll make your case, you'll talk to the same District Councilperson that you would have talked to at the nearby privately-located site, and you'll try to work it out. And then the person would introduce a bill and can go through the same process.
And you say the process doesn't cost anything. Mr. Cipollini has a couple of lawyers here plus his own time. This is a very expensive and extensive -- the lobbying that goes into it.
With all due respect to the three lawyers that Mr. Cipollini has, I've had a conversation with him, and I firmly believe, although you're an aggressive advocate on his behalf, that Mr. Cipollini could have represented himself today and done a very good job. I mean, you know, if I were going to battle, I guess if I had the opportunity to get Carl Primavera, Josh Grimes, and Steve Pollack, you know, I'd probably do it too. But, I mean, 123 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 that was -- at some level, that was also his choice.
Yeah, but you just said it didn't cost him anything and I think --
Excuse me. I really think that you do your position a disservice. I've been at hearings in this chamber since 10 a.m. I have evening meetings, I've missed my whole schedule. I would like not to have a legal debate in our legislative body. It's 10 of 5 now.
That's fine. I don't have any further remarks, and I'm sorry if I prolonged this.
Sure. I know you were. A couple last questions. Now, can you tell me what -- I mean, this is the first of probably many deals to come. What are the dollars 124 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 involved in the Southwest Treatment Center proposal? What does the City get?
It's my understanding that it's a 1.2 million over 30 years. That's net to the City.
And, you know, the suspicion would be that that's just pure additional dollars since it doesn't cost the City any money to generate that income. And all the expenses would be paid by Keystone.
Okay. And in this particular project, did the Water Department seek out Keystone, or was Keystone kind of going around and being aggressive and hustling to find a potential site and then came to an agreement with the Water Department and then the Law Department?
In fact, that's exactly what happened. They thought there was an opportunity, they spoke to the Water Department. The Water Department had thought about it 125 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 independently but lacked the experience to know whether or not they had an opportunity.
And was this handled as a concession or as a private negotiated agreement?
Okay. And how do you do that without going to the highest responsible bidder?
Well, I think the policy was that since this opportunity was brought to the City's attention by the private company, that the private company -- you know, it would be, in effect, given the opportunity to negotiate. Otherwise, people wouldn't come to the City with opportunities if they felt that they weren't going to ultimately be given a first shot at it. And I think they did an appraisal process so that they knew that they would get, you know, top value.
But I think that was just a business decision that the City undertook. 126 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716
I understand that. But how do you avoid -- I mean, there must have been some other process that allowed for this kind of direct negotiation versus a concession agreement going to the highest responsible bidder.
I think when you go through PIDC, they're allowed to handle that.
It was a licensed agreement, right. So I think PIDC actually took over the negotiation on behalf of the City.
Okay. So in that particular case, any other company would be precluded from trying to engage in a negotiation at that site on the theory that Keystone found the site, Keystone did an appraisal or had one done and was aggressive about pursuing that location, so they got the exclusive on that one.
Going forward, do you anticipate pursing that process or just engaging in concession agreements and going with the highest responsible and trying to outbid other 127 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 people? What's the program?
It's up to the City. I mean, if the City has identified some locations on its own, then we expect that they would market them as they deem best. If we're able to locate, through a lot of research and time and energy, possible locations, we would have hoped that they would follow through on the same process to reward those who bring business opportunities to the City. So it's really up to the City is the answer, we don't control that. Obviously, we would like as many opportunities as we can get because that's our business.
Okay. And you expect other companies to pursue the same strategy?
Their not being here suggests that they haven't made it a priority.
And, I'm sorry, just to the extent that I may have been, perhaps, overly excited in my remarks, one, I had surgery on Friday and I'm not feeling well. And, second of 128 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 all, it's been a long day. But I didn't want to be rude to you or to the committee, and I think, quite frankly, that I wasn't. But if it was perceived that way, accept my apologies and take it in the face of the advocacy which, hopefully, we can bring to bear on any project that we're asked to involve ourselves with.
I appreciate that. I look forward to the next time we're able to clash swords.
Thank you. Anything else? Mr. Cipollini, would you like to? You've had zealous representation here.
It does. Thank you. The City Solicitor herself and Mr. Feder. (Ms. Franklin-Suber and Mr. Feder come forward.) 129 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716
Let me make mention just for the record that the City Solicitor's appearance, it's my understanding at least, comes at the request of the City administration. And I had inquired on no latter than Friday of last week of the Mayor's Chief of Staff to try to get an indication of who would be making any presentation by the City, and the response was that the City Solicitor would be the representative by the City. It was not my intention, certainly, to leave either L&I or any other department out of today's hearings, but the City administration reserves the right to send who they wish to send. Madame Solicitor, please identify yourself for the record. As I mentioned earlier, we have copies of the statement that was sent over as well as the memorandum from Mr. Feder to yourself. You can certainly feel free to either read your testimony into the record or make remarks.
Thank you, Councilman Nutter. For the record, my name is Stephanie Franklin-Suber. I'm the City Solicitor. 130 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 And I'm joined at the table here with Divisional Deputy City Solicitor Richie Feder. If Councilman Nutter would permit, I'd like to simply summarize the testimony that's been circulated to members of the committee.
Generally speaking, with certain specified exceptions, Bill 10 No. 980716 requires City Council's specific approval by ordinance prior to the placement of any billboard or other advertising sign on City property. In my opinion -- and this is the opinion that I would render to the administration, which is why I am here on behalf of not only the Law Department but the administration -- this bill 18 exceeds City Council's powers of legislation under the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. And, therefore, in my opinion, it is unlawful. It violates the Charter by improperly interfering with the power of the executive and administrative branch of government. Section 1-102 of the Charter states very specifically that the City's executive and 131 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 administrative power is exclusively vested in and exercised by the Mayor and such other officers, departments, boards, and commissions as are designated and authorized in the Charter. Generally speaking, the grant of permission to a third party to place a billboard or other advertising sign on City property may be structured or characterized as either a concession under Section 8-201 of the Charter, or a lease of surplus real property under Section 5-900(a)(4) of the Charter. Under either characterization, the Charter expressly authorizes the administration to enter into such arrangements without City Council approval. So, in other words, the determination as to the placement of billboards and advertising signs on City property is an administrative function committed by the scheme of the Charter to the executive branch of City government. So to the extent that this particular bill purports to reassign that power to City Council, this is an improper interference with the power of the executive and administrative branch of government. 132 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716
Oh, okay. Just a couple quick questions. Now, Solicitor, there was a -- there was one section of your opinion or another document that I have which indicates that one of the departments can rent City facilities when they are not being used -- I'm sorry. Section 5-900(a)(4): Whenever City real estate is not being used by a City agency, public property, quote, may rent or when authorized by the Council sell the same upon the best terms obtainable after appropriate public advertising and a receipt of competitive bids.
Can you shed any light on the phraseology "whenever City real estate is not being used by a City agency"? Does that mean that the site has been abandoned? Does it mean that we no longer use it for anything? Does it mean that the ground adjacent to a building where activities go on, that the ground itself is not being used anymore, even though 133 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 we're on the site in the building? Or does it complete abandonment of the location?
Generally speaking, without the benefit of any City Solicitor opinions to construe the language, the Charter makes it clear --
Would you mind making an opinion right here at the table?
No. The Charter does draw a distinction between City facilities that are currently being used for City work by City agencies. That, generally speaking, is the concept. So the idea is simply that where real estate is not being used by a City agency for City business, in other words, it may be considered surplus. Then the Department of Public Property is expressly authorized to lease any such surplus property without City Council approval. The --
I'm sorry, does that still go to the ground around -- you have a building, it's surrounded by a couple acres of land, the land is adjacent to the building that is 134 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 actively under use. Does that particular provision apply to the land, even though we don't necessarily do anything on that land, but the land is a part of the site?
The Charter specifically says "City real estate," so I would interpret that to include building, land. It says "City real estate."
So your interpretation is that the building and the land would to have to be deemed surplus or not being used by a City agency?
Any a portion of it. It says whenever any City real estate is not being used in connection with the work of any department, board or commission of the City or any other governmental agency, the Department may rent.
So in the affirmative, does that mean that the only time they can rent such a location is when the site has been deemed surplus or abandoned?
When it is not being used in connection with City work by a City 135 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 agency; or, actually, any other governmental agency.
The Charter does make a distinction, though. The line is drawn between the power of City Council and the power of the executive and administrative branch of government with regard to real estate very simply. City Council has the authority to approve the acquisition of City facilities, City real estate and the ultimate disposition of City facilities and city real estate. And as that has been interpreted by various City Solicitor opinions, the acquisition process and the disposition process are considered as an integral part of City Council's role in the budget process. You have to establish a capital program, you have to establish a capital budget. But the management and the operation of City facilities between the time of initial acquisition and ultimate disposition is left, under the Charter, to the executive branch of government.
Gotcha. The other 136 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 part of your opinion or statement does go to the separation-of-powers issue. We've had numerous discussions in the past about that provision, and your position here today is that the Council does not have the authority to enact such an ordinance, that's your position.
The requirement in the bill that the ultimate decision with regard to the placement of billboards and other advertising signs on City property, by reassigning the ultimate decision-making authority to City Council, my opinion is that that violates the Charter because the Charter clearly vests, under the provisions I've identified, that decision-making authority and power in the executive branch. So I consider that language in the bill 19 to be contrary to the provisions of the Charter.
And the Law Department has taken the same position with regard to -- on separation of powers with regard to the establishment of various boards and commissions, is that correct?
That is correct. 137 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716
Madame Solicitor, and I'm sure, Mr. Feder, you're aware of the creation by ordinance of the Air Pollution Control Board under Section 3-302, the Animal Advisory Committee in 10-1023, the Board of Safety and Fire Prevention in 5-4105, the Fair Housing Commission in 9-802, the Historical Commission in 14-2007, the Joint Airport Zoning Board in 18-202, the Minority Business Enterprise Council in 17-505, the Philadelphia Corporation on Services to Aging in 21-901, and the Vacant Property Review Committee in 16-404, all of which were created by ordinance of City Council. Are you aware of those?
Mr. Chairman, we're certainly aware of those general provisions in the Philadelphia Code. I believe they raise different issues than the issue that's presented here. And I don't believe there have ever been any Solicitor opinions issued on those particular provisions of the Code.
But you are aware that the Council, in contrary fashion to, apparently, past testimony from the Law Department 138 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 about the Council's ability to create various boards and commissions, under the City Charter, has taken an opposing view on that?
I think the answer to the question, as I understood Mr. Feder, was that we have not issued an opinion with regard to the legality of those commissions. What I am saying here is that based on prior City Solicitor opinions that go back as far as 1954, we are relying on -- and I am prepared to issue -- an opinion which does take the position that this bill is unlawful, based on separation of power and based on prior City Solicitor opinions that have construed, certainly in terms of the capital programs and capital facilities and the construction of the real estate provisions of the Charter, that those are improper interferences with the executive branch. We have declined to issue opinions, frankly, with regard to those other sections of the Code and legislation dealing with the formation of commissions, boards, and agencies by Council.
More than likely in 139 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 most of those cases, the reason for declining to engage in the opinion-making process on those is because the executive branch either affirmatively, or with strong encouragement of the City Council, chose to cooperate in those particular cases?
I can't answer that question. I don't have any personal knowledge with regard to whatever the administration's position may have been with regard to any particular ordinance that's on the books currently.
Okay, last question for the day. Both Solicitor opinions and the law change, expand and contract from time to time. Is that a fair analysis of the law, as you know it? What may have been illegal at one point in time could possibly become legal? What was legal becomes illegal? Doesn't that happen from time to time in the law?
Okay. Any questions? 140 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - BILL NO. 980716 (No further questions at this time.)
Okay. Madame Solicitor, thank you very much for coming in. We know that at least yourself, and possibly Mr. Feder, have been operating slightly under the weather. We appreciate your indulgence in this process. Thank you.
Is there any other member of the public here to testify with regard to this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the public hearing on Bill No. 980716 will conclude, and we will go into a public meeting. - - - 141 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - Public Meeting
I call on Councilwoman Blackwell for a motion regarding the amendments that were read into the record during the course of the public hearing.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendments, as previously read into the record, be approved. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. And that includes Councilman Cohen, who left his vote earlier. The ayes have it. Councilwoman Blackwell, I ask for a motion on Bill No. 980716, as amended.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980716 be reported out of committee as amended with a favorable recommendation, and also a recommendation for a suspension of the rules so as to be considered at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Including Councilman Cohen, who left 142 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - Public Meeting his vote as aye, the ayes have it. There are none opposed. The public hearing is concluded. The report will made to the Council at our next Council session. Thank you very much. (Adjourned at 5:04 p.m.) - - - 143 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, November 10, 1998, were reported and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BILL NO. 980716 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter