And lastly, are you here today with the knowledge and the support of the Streets Department with regard to your testimony about this bill?
Thank you. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Mr. Baylson, I think we really have enough testimony on it and we heard everything that you had to say. I believe the Councilman just wanted to clear the record on some of the statements that were made earlier. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
(Inaudible, off-mic.) 59 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010384
At this point in time, I would not recognize that. Thank you.
Bill No. 010384, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 196 by striking from the City Plan Willard Street from Memphis Street to Agate Street and Agate Street from Willard Street to Westmoreland Street, and reserving and placing on the City Plan two rights-of-way for drainage purposes, water main and gas main purposes, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 010384: This is not an Administration ordinance 19 but an ordinance requested Miss Katherine Levins, the Community and Government Liaison of Temple University East, Inc., 1334 East Montgomery Avenue, Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to legally close the block of Willard and the 3200 block of Agate Street to facilitate improvements in parking and security at the Northeastern Hospital. 60 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010384 This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets Department and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer from the Philadelphia Planning Commission. At its meeting on May 21, 2001, the Planning Commission staff recommended approval of Bill 010384. Thank you. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. If you're testifying, would you please identify yourself for the record and please spell your last name for the purpose of the stenographer.
Good afternoon, Chairman. My name is Katherine Levins, L-E-V-I-N-S. I'm here on behalf of Temple University Health System and its request that the City strike and vacate the referenced streets. I would just like to add that Temple University Health System has been working with the community over the past two and a half years, both 61 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010389 its industrial and residential neighbors, and it has proceeded with this request at the request of the residential neighbors of the community. And in the end, should our request be granted, what we intend to do is to help to improve the community. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Anyone else here to testify on or behalf of this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill. Thank you.
Bill No. 010389, an ordinance repealing an ordinance (Bill No. 000411) signed by the Mayor on August 11, 2000 and authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 271 of an area bounded by Girard Avenue, Hancock Street, Wildey Street, Germantown Avenue, New Market Street, Laurel Street, and Second Street by striking from the City Plan Germantown Avenue from Second Street to Wildey 62 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010389 Street, by striking from the City Plan and abandoning a certain right-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes, and by placing on the City Plan a certain right-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 010389: This is not an Administration ordinance 14 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Bart Blatstein of Tower Investments, One Reed Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The purpose of this ordinance is to legally close a portion of Germantown Avenue to allow for the development of the former Schmidt's Brewery site into new, modern shopping district. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer from the Philadelphia City Planning 63 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010390 Commission. At its meeting on May 21, 2001, the Planning Commission staff had recommend approval of Bill No. 010389. Thank you.
Is there anyone else to testify on behalf of these bills? (No response.)
Seeing none, the clerk will read the title of the of the next bill.
Bill No. 010390, an ordinance authorizing the paving of Latimer Street under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 010390: This is not an Administration ordinance 21 but an ordinance requested by Carl Zucker, 842 Second Street, Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is for the paving of Latimer Street and this ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for 64 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010394 favorable action.
Anyone else who wishes on or against this bill? (No response.)
The clerk will read the title of the next bill thank you.
Bill No. 010394, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill 13 No. 990816) approved December 30, 1999, entitled, "An ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on portion of City Plan No.'s 319 and 347 by striking from the City Plan Stanwood Street from Verree Road to Rising Sun Avenue and by striking from the City Plan and vacating the legally open portion of Rising Sun Avenue from Rhawn Street to Solly Avenue under certain terms and conditions," by extending the period for compliance with the authorization conditions therein.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of 65 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010394 Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 010394: This is not an Administration ordinance 5 but an ordinance requested by Mr. John Conroy, President of Conroy Catering, 721 Wicker Avenue, Bensalem. The purpose of this ordinance is to extend the compliance time of an ordinance approved December 30, 1999. The purpose of that ordinance 10 was to strike and vacate the legally open portions of these streets, to remove title and zoning issues within an old estate. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that rules of Council be suspended on all bills heard from the Streets Department so as to allow for first reading at the next session of Council.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? 66 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010230 (No response.)
Again, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to request a waiver of the rules for all of these bills.
We have nothing to do Thursday, we'll be here. Okay, thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
Bill No. 010230, an ordinance granting permission to Kent R. Miller and to his successors and assigns to construct, use, own, and maintain a private combination sanitary/storm sewer main within the right-of-way of the unit block of East Sunset Avenue to provide service to 4 East Sunset Avenue; all under certain terms and conditions. (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Kent Miller. I 67 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010342 live at East Sunset Avenue in Chestnut Hill. Asked Councilwoman Miller to introduce this ordinance, but I'm now asking that it be withdrawn. There is a subsequent revised ordinance, which you'll get to later, which is 010332, and I guess Nancy Sen will talk about that later.
Bill No. 010342, an ordinance granting permission to Kent R. Miller, and to his successors an assigns, to construct, use, own, and maintain a private sanitary sewer main within the right-of-way of the unit block of East Sunset Avenue to provide service to 4 East Sunset Avenue, all under certain terms and conditions.
I'd just like to say a word about that. Again, it's Kent Miller. I live at 4 East Sunset Avenue. There are a number of homes in my area that have had cesspools for many years. Mine has been in existence for over 50 years and it's 68 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010342 beginning to fail. And looking at the options, the best choice was to connect to the public sewer which is about 1250 feet away along the public right-of-way on East Sunset Avenue. So I'm asking for an ordinance to be able to construct the sanitary sewer line.
Good afternoon, Nancy, would you please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm here to -- my name is Nancy Sen, and I'm here to testify for the Streets Department on Bill No. 010342. This bill allows Mr. Kent Miller to construct and maintain a private five-inch diameter sanitary sewer main in the unit block of East Sunset Avenue for servicing the needs of his property at 4 East Sunset Avenue. The Streets Department has reviewed the construction plans and has no objection to the passage of the bill. Thank you.
Thank you. 69 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010342 Any questions? Councilman Rizzo.
Thanks. To the Streets Department, could you explain what the policy is when a person has a septic system, abandons that system or comes off of that system, and hooks up to the City system? What's the requirement? Does that have to be removed? What exactly occurs?
I believe that would be a Water Department issue. We don't at the Streets Department get involved. And it's probably the responsibility of the property owner because it's on their property. I can't speak as an expert on that.
Then I'll ask the property owner. I'm just curious 'cause I'm one of those folks. What are you required to do when you abandon your system?
We're required to pump out the system and backfill it so there's no danger in the future of it falling in. And in my case, it's about 12 feet deep, so it's very important that it be properly eliminated.
Thank you. Good 70 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010346 luck.
Thank you. Any other questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010346, an ordinance authorizing the United States of America, acting through the United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, to construct and maintain various precast concrete planters in the south footway of Arch Street and the west footway of Seventh Street adjacent to the Federal Detention Center, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members the committee. Again, my name is Nancy Sen. I am here to testify on Bill No. 010346 on behalf of the Streets Department. This bill authorizes the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, to install 71 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010346 and maintain a total of precast concrete planter containers encroaching on the south footway of Arch Street and the west footway of Seventh Street. The planters are a maximum size of 4 feet wide by feet 6 long and 3 feet high. They're set back a minimum of 1-foot-11-inches clear from the curb and leave a minimum of 7-feet-4-inches of clear sidewalk passage between the rear face of the planters and the face of the building. All the planters leave adequate width and clearance of obstructed footway. Therefore, the Streets Department has no 13 objection to the passage of the bill. 14 Thank you.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against it? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010370, an ordinance amending Section 4 of an ordinance (Bill 25 No. 000161), entitled "An ordinance authorizing 72 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010370 Anthony Lucidoni, owner of the property 39 Oregon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19148, to construct and maintain a sidewalk cafe, awning, electric sign, and seasonal enclosure onto and over the north footway of Oregon Avenue adjacent to the property 39 Oregon Avenue, all under certain terms and conditions," by extending the period for compliance with the authorization conditions therein.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Again, my name is Nancy Sen, Engineering Supervisor for the Streets Department, and I'm here to testify on Bill 010370 on behalf of the Streets Department. The Streets Department had previously reviewed the plans for this project, and we have no 17 objection to the extensions authorized by the bill. Thank you.
Not specific to this bill but, I guess, in harmony with the bill. Does the Art Commission have any role in this -- did they have any role in this? 73 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010370
So if the awning, canvas awning had signage on it, then they would be involved?
Right. And actually, it's -- usually the Law Department puts terms in there that there should be -- all approvals should be made, you know, that need to be made, you know, over and above Council's approval.
You're familiar with the problem we're having with the new restaurant Maggiano's.
Well, the Art Commission has been -- has literally brought them to the point where they are no longer looking to do any more development in the City of Philadelphia because the Art Commission has been literally driving them so crazy with some of the requirements on a canopy and an awning, which aren't much different than this except for the fact that I think the word "Maggiano" is on the canopy.
To tell you the truth, I 74 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010370 personally know about it. I used to work in the bridge section and they used to give us a hard time about our proposals. They too also had to go before the Art Commission. So I can empathize with what the folks are going through, and it's a rough battle and they have to work it out.
Welcome to Philadelphia. We love for you to have to do business with us, okay. Thank you.
No. 14 Councilman Ortiz is saying, would I like to eliminate the Art Commission? No, I guess not. I like commissions and boards who make life so miserable for people to do business here that they don't come to do business. I fully support that, and that is in the interest of the City of Philadelphia that we do those things.
The best we can do is when they come in the door to warn them, you know, what they have to do to get things done.
Actually, I just had an idea, thanks to Councilman Ortiz. What we 75 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010375 should do is have Maggiano make a $500,000 contribution to SCRUB since they are in the advertising business, and I'm certain that we can convince the Art Commission to do the approvals. Just joking, but have a nice day anyway. Thank you. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010375, an ordinance granting permission to Starbuck's Coffee Company, tenant of the property 3401 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, to operate and maintain an open-air sidewalk cafe on the west footway of 34th Street adjacent to 3401 Walnut Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Nancy Sen, engineering supervisor for the Streets Department, and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 010375 on behalf of the Department. This bill authorizes an open-air sidewalk cafe with additional furniture at the Starbuck's Coffee location on the northwest corner of 34th and Walnut Street. Six tables and four 76 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010375 freestanding canvas umbrellas with bases are proposed on the 34th Street west footway. No rails will be used and a minimum of eight feet clear width will be maintained for pedestrians. All encroachments leave adequate width and clearance of unobstructed footway. Therefore, the Streets Department has no 9 objection to the passage of the bill.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010381, an ordinance authorizing Edward Flippen, owner of the property located at 5651 Lansdowne Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19131, to construct, use, and maintain a one-story building addition on and over the east footway of 57th Street adjacent to the property 5651 Lansdowne Avenue, all under certain terms and conditions. 77 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010381
Again, my name is Nancy Sen, representing the Streets Department to testify on Bill No. 010381. This bill allows Mr. Edward Flippen, owner of the property 5651 Lansdowne Avenue, to construct and maintain a one-story building addition serving as a basement entrance on the 57th Seventh Street face of his two-story rowhouse property. The encroachment leaves adequate width and clearance of unobstructed footway. Therefore, the Streets Department has no 13 objection to the passage of this bill. Thank you.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010395, an ordinance authorizing One Meridian Partners LP, 121 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 78 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010395 19107, owner of the property 1414 through 1438 South Penn Square, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102, to construct and maintain a building encroachment under the south footway of South Penn Square, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Nancy Sen. I'm an engineering supervisor for the Streets Department, and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 11 0100395 on behalf of the Department. This bill authorizes One Meridian Partners Limited Partnership, owner of the property at 1414 through 1438 South Penn Square, to legalize the existing below-grade building encroachment in and under the public footway of South Penn Square for the South Penn Square Plaza building now operating as a parking garage. The building encroachment is under the right-of-way of South Penn Square projecting a maximum of 15 feet into the south footway. The encroachment extends vertically from the footway grade of South Penn Square, which serves as the roof slab of the upper concourse level of the building, down to the lower concourse level at approximately feet below grade. All 79 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010396 encroachments are below grade and so leave adequate width of unobstructed footway. Therefore, the Streets Department has no 5 objection to the passage of the bill. Thank you.
Anyone else who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill 010396, an ordinance 16 authorizing the Parkway Corporation, owner of the properties 1501 to 1509 Spruce Street and 1506 to 1508 Latimer Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102, to construct and maintain two electrified marquees with illuminated hanging signs attached to the properties and projecting over the north footway of Spruce Street and the west footway of 15th Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Again, my name is Nancy Sen. I'm an engineering supervisor for the Streets 80 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010396 Department, and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 3 010396 on behalf of the Department. This bill authorizes the Parkway Corporation to construct and maintain the following encroachments above the public footways for the parking garage structure being developed in the area bounded by Spruce Street, 15th Street, and Latimer Street: Two electrified marquees with illuminated signs hanging below. Each marquee leaves a minimum of 10 feet vertical clearance below the sign and the combination has a total height of 12 feet. Both marquees project a maximum of 8 feet into the footway. The first marquee and sign are approximately 16 feet in length and are located over the garbage entrance on the north side of Spruce Street, and the second marquee and sign are approximately 30 feet in length and are located over the garage entrance on the west side of 15th Street. All encroachments leave adequate width of unobstructed footway. Therefore, the Streets Department has no 24 objection to the passage of the bill. Thank you. 81 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010398, 399, 400
Anyone here who wishes to testify on or against this bill? (No response.)
I will read the title of the next three bills since they are companion bills, starting with: Next Bill No. 010398, an ordinance 12 authorizing SAS-1600 Arch Street LP, owner of the property 1600 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 to construct, own, and maintain underground conduit, various pedestrian light bulbs with attached floodlight fixtures, and various ground light fixtures in and on the south footway of Arch Street, the west footway of 16th Street, and the north footway of Cuthbert Street adjacent to the building 1600 Arch Street, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 010399, an ordinance 23 authorizing SAS-1600 Arch Street LP, owner of the property 1600 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, to construct and maintain an electrified metal frame 82 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010398, 399, 400 and glass skylight marquee with support posts attached to the building and projecting on and over the south footway of Arch Street, all under certain terms and conditions. And Bill No. 010400, an ordinance 7 authorizing SAS-1600 Arch Street LP, owner of the property 1600 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, to construct and maintain various fabric awnings on a rigid metal frame attached to the building and projecting over the south footway of Arch Street and the north footway of Cuthbert Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the committee. Again, my name is Nancy Sen and I'm here to testify on these three companion bills, 010398, 399, and 400 on behalf of the Department. Bill No. 010398 will authorize SAS-1600 Arch Street LP to construct and maintain the following encroachments and private utilities on, above, and below the public footways around their building being renovated at the corner of 16th and Arch: A total of 16 pedestrian lighting poles with attached flood lights, a total of 7 in-ground flood 83 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010398, 399, 400 light fixtures and a private underground conduit feed for lighting the poles described above. All of the encroachments leave adequate width and clearance of unobstructed footway. The Streets Department has no objection to the passage of this bill. For Bill No. 010399, it authorizes the same owners to construct an electrified metal frame and glass skylight marquee with support posts. Again, these encroachments will leave adequate width and clearance of unobstructed footway. Therefore, the Streets Department has no objection to the passage of the Bill 010399. And finally, for Bill 010400, this bill 15 authorizes the same owners of the building to construct and maintain a total of ten fabric awnings on ridged metal frames. And, again, these encroachments will leave adequate width and clearance of unobstructed footway. Therefore, the Streets Department has no objection to the passage of this bill also. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions for this witness from the committee? 84 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 (No questions.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000658, an ordinance amending Chapter 9-200 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Commercial Activities on Streets," by requiring persons licensed under that chapter 12 (including under section 89-201, "Curb markets"); Section 9-203 ("Street Vendors"); Section 9-204 ("Sidewalk vendors in Center City"); Section 9-205 ("Sidewalk Sales"); Section 9-206 ("Sidewalk Vendors in Neighborhood Business Districts"); Section 9-208 ("Sidewalk cafes"); Section 9-210 ("Telephone Booths"); Section 9-211 ("Boxes for the Distribution of News and Printed Material"); and Section 9-212 ("Newsstands") to obtain the consent of the property owner abutting the location at which the licensed commercial activities are conducted, under certain terms and conditions. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. 85 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good day, Councilman DiCicco and members of the Committee on Streets and Services. My name is Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. I would just stipulate to the testimony that we've given on Bill 000358 on May 16th, and the position of the Department is basically the same on the bill.
Let me ask you, Councilwoman Blackwell's clerk was just here saying that there may be some other concerns that she may have with the bill in addition to the amendments that she asked me to consider last week, which I'm prepared to introduce today. He also mentioned something that you had suggested. There may be an administrative problem as it relates to this bill 21 within the Department?
Well, as I read the amendments, the amendments basically are confusing to a certain extent. The amendments that I have, if I can get a copy of it -- the amendment that I have 86 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 states to a certain effect that if we were to obtain permission from the property owner, then that's all well and good and we can proceed with issuing the license. If we don't obtain permission from the property owner, that's well and good and we could still proceed with giving the license. It's only where the property owner fails to respond one way or the other, where there is no position given by the property owner where we can't issue the license. So it's kind of puts us in a --
I believe what the Councilwoman was asking for us to consider by way of her amendments was that every reasonable attempt should be made to contact the owner, and if that failed, then the Streets Department would have the right to grant permission to the vendor, but every attempt needed to be made, and if they failed to identify or locate the owner, then the Streets Department would be able to issue the location to vend without having the, quote/unquote, permission of the owner.
I understand, but just the wording of it here, just the last part of it says, "but with evidence of the property owner's position 87 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 is necessary for issuance," that's the last part of it. So we need to know specifically what their position is one way or the other.
Not at this time. It will take some thought and I would have to sit down with our Law Department to go over this.
And so I'm clear, and I apologize if I'm asking the same question over again, but I'm just still not clear on it and maybe you can clear it up. What is the problem that you see if this amendment were offered and the bill were to be voted on favorably?
There is no real clear direction as to when should we issue the license, we really don't know. And there's so many categories of licenses to deal with, not just vending, but we have categories related to curb markets, categories related to street vending, categories related to honor boxes, newsstands, etc., so we need some clear direction, especially for the clerks that we have that issue the licenses.
As to what type of 88 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 activity could take place there?
As to where it basically states that the owner has to give permission.
I mean, maybe I'm oversimplifying it, but the intention -- my intention when I introduced this bill was that an individual property owner should have the right to decide what, if anything, gets placed on his or her sidewalk, her property, his or her property.
No, it does not. It belongs to the owner of the property. We got a legal opinion on that in the May 16th hearing. The sidewalk is owned by the owner of the property with the exception of Center --
With the exception of Center City, I believe, we were informed at the last meeting.
I believe the sidewalk is -- 89 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658
I think the only time that the municipality would have jurisdiction over that sidewalk or a portion of it is if were in the public interest to provide utilities and public services for the benefit of the community at large, but I believe it's everything from the curb in towards the property line are owned by the property.
Could I -- Councilman, with all due respect, could I finish what I'm saying and then I will certainly acknowledge you. Now, I'm not an attorney and you guys are, but obviously your opinions are much different than mine in most cases, even though I'm not a lawyer and you are, and neither side is right or wrong, I guess, until the Law Department makes that determination, but I believe on the May 16th hearing on this very bill, it was determined and testified to that the property is owned -- the sidewalk is owned by the individual property owner.
The gentleman that testified, I believe he wasn't with the Law Department and I think he had brought up some issue 90 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 related to William Penn and -- I don't remember all of the background of that hearing.
I think that the attorney who represents the vendors association who, I guess -- have a seat, sir -- for all intents and purposes, I would assume, is an opponent of this bill, could testify to the legality of who owns what. Councilman Ortiz, this is, I think, his opinion, and you can ask the question. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name's Jerome Balka and I'm associated with United States Vendors of Philadelphia, an organization acting on behalf of its membership of 250 or more sidewalk sale vendors in the City of Philadelphia. I testified at the last hearing, Councilman, and one of the questions that was raised was about who owns the sidewalks, and since I've been doing this work for 30 years, I have a pretty good handle on it. In Center City, the sidewalks are not owned by the building owner; they are owned by the citizens of Philadelphia on the grant from William 91 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 Penn of the --
Excuse me, sir. What I said, if you were listening but you were interrupting me, was, with the exception of Center City, and that's what the gentleman is going to explain now. Thank you.
Outside of Center City, the deed, the property owner's deed runs to the curb so that the sidewalk outside of Center City is owned by the property owner whose building is there. However, the sidewalk, even though it's owned by the property owner, is dedicated to the public use. That's what permits pedestrians, bicyclists, honor boxes, and all of these other things. So that while ownership is not the real issue here. What is the real issue is, are we going to give abutting property owners the right to say who will work on their sidewalk or not work on their sidewalk. This bill is defective, I believe, in another respect. Take Center City, for example. 92 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 The current Center City vending law licenses a vendor to work on a block face. A block face can be 15th Street from Market Street to Chestnut Street. Work anywhere on that block face. And by the way, the current law regulates the number of vendors on a particular block face. It may be three, it may be four, it may be two, depending upon the size of the block face. Now, which abutting property owner is the vendor to go to? The one that has feet or 12 does he move down and go to the one that has 13 30 feat? There's no way we can deal with this. 14 Councilman, and members of the 15 committee, what will happen here, even if we could 16 deal with it, is that a property owner, an abutting 17 property owner will either say I don't want any 18 vendor on my sidewalk. 19
See, I just don't want to talk about vendors, because that's the real sensitive thing which gets people's emotion that I'm 93 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 kind of, sort chasing people who are trying to earn a living off the street, which is not my intention.
And I'm not saying you're doing it, but that's how this all gets interpreted around here, to suit everyone else's 'cause, except my cause.
Let me talk about all three of them for a minute because I think newsstands and honor boxes even occupy a greater and more honorable right to the use of the sidewalks, and that is to provide the public with information.
But there are sales of information, there's someone who is making a profit, even an honor box. Honor boxes provide material in most cases free of charge, that people who print the paraphernalia that goes into those honor boxes are in business. They sell advertising within their brochure. So I own 1207 Federal Street, I don't want an honor box on my sidewalk, I don't want somebody to put their business on my sidewalk without my permission.
No one has ever wanted to because it's economics that controls the whole 94 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 situation. The honor boxes are going to be where the people are so that people can get the news --
Honor boxes -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Sir, let me tell you something. I said this earlier today. If you stand still long enough on any street corner in the City of Philadelphia, you will either have an honor box attached to your leg or someone will nail a political poster to your back. (Laughter.)
Everything that stands still in this town has something attached to it.
There are gray boxes, orange boxes, purple boxes that spring up overnight.
If you are saying that we should regulate the number of honor boxes at a particular location, I couldn't agree with you more, Councilman. 95 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658
No, no, I'm not saying that. I am saying that with the exception of Center City, because you very accurately described and you enlightened me a couple of weeks ago as to who owns what in Center City, outside of Center City, I want people to have their property rights. Individual property owners should have their individual property rights as to what occurs on their sidewalk, outside of the interest of the public good where it pertains to infrastructure, electrical power and things of that -- and light fixtures. Outside of that, I don't want something on my sidewalk unless I want it there.
And does the fact that news is provided to the people via an honor box or via a newsstand in the public interest --
And you can get it on the Web today, you can buy the newspaper at a corner store, you can even buy two newspapers for the price of one if you set up a stand in the middle 96 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 of Broad Street, which is totally illegal, and knock the guy who has a newsstands out of business.
I agree it's illegal. Here's the department, let them enforce it.
They need 4,000 more people to enforce everything that we want them to enforce.
And I'm not being argumentative with you. You and I understand each other, I think, quite well. Thank you. Councilman Rizzo. Would that include the US Postal Service wanting an honor box?
I guess -- yeah, Councilman Cohen said you could talk to the President and maybe if somebody -- you probably could 'cause you're a Republican. We can't, we're Democrats.
Unless we get a ruling from the United States Senate on Friday, then 97 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 we'll be in control and we could talk to them.
I'm glad to hear you publicly acknowledge that, Mr. DiCicco.
But I think that may fall under some federal -- I think the federal government probably has total jurisdiction over those things, I would assume.
How would you deal with a tenant -- who would the negotiation be with, the landlord or is the tenant?
But the landlord would have to give permission to the tenant to display his or her products on the sidewalks, assuming it met with the other standards that --
You mean like the 98 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 eyeglass company at 11th and Market who has to deal with a guy who sets up a card table and sells the same product for a third of what they sell inside the store? They don't want that eyeglass vendor on their sidewalk.
If the tenant didn't want the person, would they have any standing?
No. It would have to go the owner, the owner. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
The tenant could make the complaint to the owner, and if the owner decided that they didn't want that person there, then I think they would have standing.
Councilman, my office is at 1500 JFK, Two Penn Center. The owner is in New York, they don't know what's going on down here, and you want a fellow who's running a newsstand or an honor box to find out somebody in New York to talk to? 99 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658
I think the question Councilman Rizzo was asking is, if you had a newsstand business, if you were selling newspapers and magazines and you occupy a little 200 square foot piece of the property, a retail space which is connected to the building, it's a part of the ground floor retail space, and someone wanted to set up a newsstand outside on that same pavement, would that tenant be able to block that?
And I would suggest that the tenant complain to the landlord, if you want me to still be a tenant and pay you rent, I can't compete with what's going on outside, I would probably ask the landlord to have that person removed.
I think that it can be. I also think it's a public safety issue and I really think it's an issue of protecting individual 100 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 private property owner rights. That's my opinion.
The bill as presented, even with the amendment, deals only with the owner; it doesn't deal with the tenant at all.
But if a tenant wants to complain to the owner about the competition, that's up to the owner ultimately to make that decision if they want to make the complaint to L&I about having that person removed.
And then the owner says to the tenant, Listen, I want to let that guy stay there 'cause I worked out a deal out with him. Nobody knows about it, he's got to pay me $200 a month to stay there.
Well, I would say he probably is dealing with SCRUB, but that's beside the point, 'cause they make those kinds of deals.
Oh, don't they? I could tell you some of them, Councilman DiCicco, because I know of them.
And I'd like to remind the chairman that if you would have stayed 101 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 Republican, you might have been able to speak to the President. (Laughter.)
If they make that type of deal, then he fits right into the Council.
Yeah, I guess he does. Anyway, I believe the two gentlemen in the back wanted to testify on this bill? Any other questions for these witnesses? They'll be here for a while, I'm sure. Thanks, Otis. (Witnesses come forward.)
It's called having it both ways, having it both ways, protect certain rights and. . .
Yes, sir. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
All righty, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Al Taubenberger, and I'm President of the Northeast Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. My name is 102 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 spelled T-A-U-B-E-N-B-E-R-G-E-R. The Northeast Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce has been around since 1922 representing nearly a thousand members in Northeast Philadelphia.