COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES and LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, January 28, 1998 11:00 a.m. - - - RES. 970760 - Authorizing the Committee on Public Health and Human Services and the Committee on Licenses and Inspections to hold hearings on the continued sale of drug paraphernalia, the persistence of nuisance bars and stores, and the unceasing use of neighborhood homes as crack houses. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO, Chair, Public Health COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Chair, Licenses and Inspections COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILWOMAN HAPPY FERNANDEZ COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center Plaza, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 I N D E X RESOLUTION 970760 PAGE Sylvester Johnson, Deputy Commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department-------------- Frances Egan, Commissioner, Department of 5 Licenses & Inspections---------------------- 17 George Mosee, Deputy for Narcotics, District 6 Attorney's Office--------------------------- 20 John Campbell, Manager, Legislative Regulatory 7 Affairs, Department of Licenses & Inspections--------------------------------- 41 8 Rudolph Paliaga, Director, Business Enforcement, Department of Licenses & 9 Inspections--------------------------------- 46 Gray Smith, Chair, Zoning and Code Enforcement 10 Committee, South Street Neighborhood Association--------------------------------- 70 11 Georgia Davis, Citizen------------------------- 79 Greg Wicks, President, Wadsworth Concerned Neighbors Against Drugs--------------------- 92 Al Dabney, Representative, Cedarbrook Neighbors Against Drugs------------------------------- 95 Joseph Purnell, Citizen------------------------ 100 LeRoy Williams, Citizen------------------------ 104 Roland Delaney, Citizen------------------------ 105 - - - 3 RESOLUTION 970760 CHAIRWOMAN TASCO: This is a Joint Committee convened by the Committee on Public Health and Human Services and the Committee on Licenses and Inspections. I have been joined at this moment by the Chair of the Committee of Licenses and Inspections, Councilman Kenney; and Councilwoman Happy Fernandez, who is a member of the Public Health and Human Services Committee. We are going to take testimony this morning on Resolution 970760, which requests an update on the policies and procedures that we are following to report and to resolve complaints surrounding drug locations, crack houses, nuisance establishments, and the use of drug paraphernalia. I would like the clerk to read the resolution, please.
Authorizing the Committee on Public Health and Human Services and the Committee on Licenses and Inspections to hold hearings on the continued sale of drug paraphernalia, persistence of nuisance bars and stores, and the unceasing use of neighborhood homes as crack houses. 4 RESOLUTION 970760 Whereas, in 1990, the Council of the City of Philadelphia passed legislation to revoke the Business Privilege License of any person who is involved in the sale, delivery, or manufacture of drug paraphernalia or illegal drugs; And whereas, there has been a resurgence and newer adaptations of different products to serve as drug paraphernalia; And whereas, merchants and homeowners are still acquiescing to, if not permitting, the sale or delivery of drugs or drug paraphernalia in or around their establishments; And whereas, the incidence of drug-related crimes and drug-related arrests are still overcrowding the Criminal Justice System and wreaking havoc on our familial structures; And whereas, campaigns to close nuisance establishments, recently very ineffective, whether business or residential, must be reinitiated and escalated to ensure that the quality of life of Philadelphia neighborhoods does not deteriorate. Now, therefore resolved that the Council of the City of Philadelphia authorize the Committee on Public Health and Human Services and 5 RESOLUTION 970760 the Committee on Licenses and Inspections to hold hearings on the continued sale of drug paraphernalia, the persistence of nuisance bars and stores, and the increasing use of neighborhood homes as crack houses. Further resolved that additional efforts be expended to correct these conditions by both state and local levels of government.
Thank you very much. I would like to recognize, we have been joined by Councilman Nutter, Michael Nutter, Councilwoman Joan Krajewski, Councilman Frank DiCicco, with a new hair cut. I will just make brief comments, and then invite Councilmembers to make comments, and then we will open up the public testimony. We began addressing this question of nuisance establishments in 1990, when I sponsored legislation to revoke the Business Privilege License of those persons who were owners of nuisance locations. Subsequent to that, the Pennsylvania state legislature passed a comprehensive bill that 6 RESOLUTION 970760 brought in all of the state agencies to address the issue. It appears to me that there is a great deal of work going on on many fronts, but a number of problems are not getting the attention that they need for lack of proper communication. This lack of proper channeling of complaints oftentimes prevents us from bringing all of our resources to bear on a situation. We certainly want to get an update of what's going on, what successes we have had, and also what might be problems or impediments to enforcing the legislation, so that we might want to review whether we need to draft new legislation to amend existing legislation in Harrisburg, and/or what we can do as a city to strengthen the ordinances and other legislation that can make the Nuisance Task Force and all the efforts that are going on stronger and help people out in the neighborhood. And we have certainly gotten our share of calls, and I am sure the other Councilmembers here have gotten their calls, about some difficulty in enforcing the local legislation. 7 RESOLUTION 970760 So we have asked you all here today, and many residents have agreed to testify, because we must try to develop policies and procedures that will return the quiet and peaceful enjoyment to our neighborhoods. Our objective with this hearing is to do just that. If we have to develop some standard forms to assure that every department knows of complaints, we must do that. If we need some central clearinghouse that takes in the complaints, then farms them out, then we must do that. I hope that we can bring this about by the completion of this hearing. We also have some addresses and locations that we will pass on to the appropriate authorities, so that we can begin this process. I'd like to thank you all for coming out this morning, thank the agencies that will testify, and thank the Councilpeople for coming in. And we will open the floor to the Councilpeople who have comments, if they so choose. No comments from the Councilpeople as yet. They will probably, as you testify, make comments, certainly will ask questions. 8 RESOLUTION 970760 And I would like to recognize Councilman Frank Rizzo, who has joined us, also, and the other guy, Councilman Mariano. It shows you that these Councilmembers are certainly concerned about this issue and are here to hear your testimony. First, State Representative Ben Ramos, is he in here? State Representative LeAnna Washington could not be here this morning; she is sick. And I will just briefly read her statement. "Thank you for inviting me to provide testimony before your committee. I appreciate this opportunity to share my views and concerns. "In Northwest Philadelphia's 200th Legislative District, which I represent, we are seeing an influx of nuisance establishments, drug paraphernalia, and crack houses, so this issue concerns me greatly. The community needs to step up to this challenge. "Some people have been fighting transitional housing. This is not to be confused with the Section 8 housing that has led to a 9 RESOLUTION 970760 different type of controversy. "Transitional housing is for people who come out of alcohol or drug rehabilitation and need someone to monitor them as they take their first steps towards living a life free from addiction. "I believe it is far better to have that, a house of people who are trying to live a better life, than a crack house.
"As for the true problem, such as the crack houses, I ask people to call the police, call your members of Council, and call my office. Keep us up to date. When there are these kinds of problems, we need to know. "We need for the neighbors in our communities to come out of their houses and come together. The police cannot do their jobs alone, the residents cannot do it alone, and the elected representatives of City Hall and in Harrisburg can not do it alone. "We need the regular folks, community folks, to help if we are going to make a difference and turn back the crack houses and these other related problems. " She also states that, "The 50th Ward has the largest amount of sheriff's foreclosures. In many cases it stems from drug abuse. These houses turn out to be crack houses. Crack houses stand out in the community; whereas, traditional houses blend in and support recovery. "Keep in mind that no family in Philadelphia is immune from drug use or addiction. " We also would like to recognize that we have been joined in Council by Councilwoman Ann Verna, and we have been joined at the table by Councilman Angel Ortiz. We now call Deputy Commissioner Sylvester Jones to testify. I'm sorry; Sylvester Johnson. Good morning. Would you please state your name for the record. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SYLVESTER JOHNSON: Good morning. I am Deputy Commissioner Sylvester Johnson.
Thank you. You may proceed with your testimony. 11 RESOLUTION 970760 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Good morning, Madam Chair, and other members of City Council. I am Sylvester Johnson, Deputy Commissioner for Special Operations with the Philadelphia Police Department. I am here representing Police Commissioner Richard Neal. The quality-of-life issues listed in Resolution No. 970760 affects each of us on a daily basis. Any increase in crime, regardless of the cause, cannot and will not be accepted. As far as the resolution issues are: Drug paraphernalia. During 1997, 651 warrants were served on both residential and commercial properties identified as drug related. Of these, 526 warrants resulted in arrests. 231 of the total warrants executed resulted in drug paraphernalia seized as evidence. The enforcement of drug paraphernalia by itself is complex. There is an area of activity enforced in conjunction with related narcotics violations. A person solely in possession of drug 12 RESOLUTION 970760 paraphernalia does not necessarily give a police officer a valid reason to confiscate it, without the presence of illegal or nonprescribed drugs. As far as nuisance bars and stores. Any nuisance bars and club complaints handled by the police department are forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Police Bureau of Liquor Enforcement for action. The police department works closely with Licenses & Inspections regarding those nuisance locations. Also, the police department and the District Attorney's Office have met with much success dealing with nuisance bars and stores through the Public Nuisance Task Force, with two members of the Philadelphia Police Department as part of that task force. This public/private partnership combats drug houses, houses of prostitution, related crimes through community empowerment. It has forced new intergovernmental alliances and has leveraged unprecedented community involvement, restoring embattled Philadelphia neighborhoods. As far as narcotics-related abandoned houses and crack houses. Drug-related abandoned 13 RESOLUTION 970760 houses that are identified by police are placed on a list and forwarded to Licenses and Inspections on a weekly basis to be closed, sealed, or demolished. Houses legally occupied and identified with two narcotics-related incidents that include arrests may be considered for forfeiture and confiscation. What the Philadelphia Police Department has done and where we are going. The Philadelphia Police Department has made 5,063 narcotics-related arrests from January through June 1997. Figure 1 displays the number of Part 1 and narcotics arrests for this period. These arrests include open-air drug dealings and mid- to long-term investigations that interrupted the operation of some major drug dealers. S. currency. Additionally, 387 firearms were confiscated and 127 vehicles. As Deputy Commissioner, my commitment is long term, to fight to rid our community of these problems. However, this is not just a police 14 RESOLUTION 970760 department problem. We must all get involved and create strong partnership within our community to establish and reinforce those values and traditions that promote the reduction of crime as we clean up our neighborhoods of graffiti, litter, abandoned cars, and dilapidated houses that attract illegal activities. We have evaluated current operations and have intensified our cooperative initiatives between local, state, and federal agencies. Through continuous dialogue and communications, we have enhanced our partnership with law enforcement agencies, community groups, and concerned citizens. Our commitment to take complaints, act on them, and be responsive in our role as a law enforcement agency is repeatedly fulfilled. In all cases where police personnel believe that probable cause exists and assets are seizeable under the drug laws, they are appropriately seized.
The community and stakeholders must take an active role in helping to end these types of 15 RESOLUTION 970760 activities once the corners are clear. This can be done by establishing continuous communications through police, the Town Watch, and other civil groups about what is going on in the neighborhood, without fear of retaliation or harm to them. This month a "partnership initiative" was implemented in the 19th District to stop and prevent public drug activities within a specific area. Our objective is to arrest drug dealers, drug sellers, and drug buyers who possess illegal drugs. Our concentrated effort in this initiative will be replicated throughout the city. This year there have been arrests 18 by the Special Investigation Bureau from 10 19 drug-related abandoned properties. Figure 2 displays the arrests from drug-related abandoned properties between January 22 and January 22, 1998. S. S. Postal Inspectors, and the District Attorney's Office -- and, as you know, recently I have met with members of City Council -- to form stronger alliances for developing strategies to combat the drug issue, nuisance bars and stores, abandoned houses used for drug and other illegal activity, and the increase of violence associated with drugs. S. Custom Agencies, Pennsylvania Bureau of Narcotics Investigation, various university police, and others who seek to decrease violence and rid our neighborhoods of crime. By forming these coalitions, we provide a crucial forum for the sharing of ideas and intelligence needed to initiate a holistic approach to save lives, decrease violence, and end crime. Until we can return the quality of life we each so richly deserve in Philadelphia, the war to end drug-related crimes will remain my top priority. Thank you. 17 RESOLUTION 970760
Thank you very much. Before we open the floor to questions to you, Commissioner, we would like Commissioner Fran Egan and District Attorney George Mosee to come forward. I think having the three of you as a panel will help us kind of focus in on the questions in a total approach. Don't leave the table, Commissioner. Stay right here. Is someone here from the Law Department? We also need the Law Department present, because we are talking about enforcement. Commissioner Egan, would you like to identify yourself and present your testimony. COMMISSIONER FRANCES EGAN: Thank you, Councilwoman, and good morning to all Councilmembers present. My name is Francis Egan. I am the Commissioner of the Department of Licenses & Inspections. I am happy to participate in these discussions about the need to deal with nuisance 18 RESOLUTION 970760 establishments. You know, having come from the elected life myself, and having received complaints of a similar nature, I can really appreciate the way that it does impact neighborhoods and the quality of life in those neighborhoods. We play a subordinate role in the closing of these types of establishments; but, however, a very significant role. We do participate in a variety of programs. One is the District Attorney's Nuisance Task Force, the other is our own Clean and Seal Program within the Department of L & I. On the District Attorney's Nuisance Task Force, this is a program that I feel, while you never are able to close as many as you would like to in the City of Philadelphia, I feel it is a very effective tool. The merging and the cooperation of all the various members of the task force, of which L & I is just one, has been a very effective means of dealing with these types of establishments in Philadelphia. And we are extremely happy to participate in the way that we do. 19 RESOLUTION 970760 And what we do is, in our role on the Nuisance Task Force, we are the department, through our enforcement authority of being able to cease a property, or what we call cease operations, we issue the cease operations to a bar or a business that is engaging in those types of activities. We revoke Business Privilege Licenses. So that is the role of L & I in that type of effort. Then, after places like that are ceased and closed, in many cases either through the D.A.'s Office itself or through our own Clean and Seal Unit, those places will then immediately be sealed and cleaned out. We also just, as I stated a little bit earlier, with the Clean and Seal, we view our Clean and Seal operation as L & I's efforts towards eliminating nuisance, these types of drug places and nuisance establishments in Philadelphia. Every property that we clean and seal is one less property that's being infiltrated for those types of uses in the City of Philadelphia. We clean and seal 2500 abandoned buildings and lots annually. And we view each of these structures, as I said, as a potential drug 20 RESOLUTION 970760 house. So every one that we do is eliminating that much more of that possibility. We get our referrals for clean and seals, as you know, from Council itself. But 60 percent of our referrals are from the police department, and in particular the Narcotics Citywide Unit. So with that, Councilwoman Tasco and the other Councilmembers, I'd like to just close and see if the District Attorney, Assistant District Attorney, would like to add anything to that.
Good morning. Would you state your name for the record.
My name is George Mosee. I am the Deputy for Narcotics in the D.A.'s Office, and I am here on behalf of Lynn Abraham today. Good morning. First off, I need to apologize for my voice. What I would like to do is give you a brief history of the task force effort as it has been engaged in by the District Attorney's Office. We started out as the Nuisance Bar Task Force; that was back in about 1991. And at 21 RESOLUTION 970760 that time the primary emphasis was, as the name implies, we went after the nuisance bars, the stop-and-go's. And we relied heavily on the enforcement power of the Bureau of Liquor Enforcement and the Liquor Control Board. Unfortunately, as is true of most of the problems in our city today, we quickly realized that drugs were an integral part of everything that we had come to recognize as problems with regard to bars. And recognizing that, we decided to expand the purview of the task force effort. And in 1993, the Nuisance Bar Task Force became the Public Nuisance Task Force, because we were no longer going to concentrate on purely the bars and the stop-and-go's. We started to look out for complaints that related to drug activity in our communities, and especially with regard to that new 1980s phenomenon called the crack house. Now, one of the really wonderful things about the task force effort is that it brings to bear against the problem all the agencies that 22 RESOLUTION 970760 have different techniques that can be brought to bear against the problem. Some of those agencies -- and if I can just read from this list, because there are too many for me to remember -- the task force currently includes the Pennsylvania State Police, the Liquor Control Enforcement Division; the Liquor Control Board; the Bureau of Licensing and Inspection; the Philadelphia Department of Licensing and Inspection; the Philadelphia Department of Health; the City Solicitor's Office; the Philadelphia Police Department; our office -- and, in particular, I would emphasize that includes the considerable resources of the entire Narcotics Division -- and the Managing Director's Office. Last, but not least -- and I certainly want to give credit where credit is due -- we include representatives from the Department of Human Services. And one of the things that I wanted to emphasize is that the task force objective is not just to go in and to shut down businesses and to take property; it is to address problems in communities through whatever means is appropriate. 23 RESOLUTION 970760 And sometimes that means that our task force representatives act as mediators, and they go in and they help people resolve their own problems. In addition to civil remedies that are employed extensively, we have a wonderful relationship with the police department. And when the police department decentralized its narcotics efforts, we found that we were able to address different narcotics-related problems regionally in a much more efficient manner. And being consistent with that decentralization in the police department, the task force has also decentralized. A new effort by the task force is now going to locate prosecutors/liaisons in geographical areas throughout the city. Those prosecutor/liaisons will be responsible for that particular area. And we found that what that does is, it increases their efficiency and their ability to be effective because they get to know people in the communities intimately, they get to know the 24 RESOLUTION 970760 problems intimately, and certainly that translates into a better ability to effect change. I think that's all I am going to be able to say right now.
We are going to open the questions right now by Councilpeople. But I would like to ask the Commissioner and Mr. Mosee and Mr. Johnson to stay, because there is some public testimony you need to hear that can help you with your job. And the hearings are not very long, we do not have a long list of people to testify, but they are very substantive testimony. And that is why we are here today, because these people have contacted us to let us know some of the things that are going on in the neighborhood and what they feel ought to happen in order to enhance and make the program better. So, Councilwoman Fernandez.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Johnson, in your testimony, it would be on the bottom of the third page or so, you said that houses legally occupied and identified 25 RESOLUTION 970760 with three narcotic-related incidents, that includes arrests, may be considered for forfeiture confiscation. Could you tell me how many times that's actually happened, and who does that? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: First, I want to clarify one thing, and that is that it is two times. That was a mistake on our part. I talked to the District Attorney's Office yesterday, before we had sent over the reports to you. But it is two. My understanding is, it doesn't necessarily have to be arrests, also. It could be where there are two incidents. In other words, a narcotics person makes a buy one day, goes back the next day and makes another buy. Now, at this point I don't know the exact number, but I will find out for you and give that information for you at the end of the day. I'm not sure how many times that has happened in the past, but I will find out.
But what's the procedure? Like, if those kinds of arrests had RESOLUTION 970760 occurred, where does it go? Does it go to the D.A.'s Office or L & I? What are the steps? And then I do want to know how many actual results there have been. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I believe he can answer those questions better than me. Mr. MOSEE: It is me, again. As the Deputy Commissioner indicated, what we need are two incidents of narcotics-related activity at a given location before we can actually forfeit. In 1993 the law changed, and we had to demonstrate that our forfeiture was proportionate with the activity that was charged. And in Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that a nexus between the drug activity and the location is sufficient, if we can show that it happened more than once. So if the police make more than one seizure of narcotics at a location, then we can file 23 what's called a Forfeiture Petition, that's under Title 42, Section 6-801. When we file the petition, first and 27 RESOLUTION 970760 foremost we have to notify the person who is the owner of the property. And that's just to satisfy the requirements of due process. However, if there is an exigency present -- and by "exigency," I mean circumstances which necessitate immediate action by law enforcement -- then we can get what's called an Ex Parte Order to seize the property. That means we don't have to notify anybody before the seizure occurs. And my way of thinking, whatever, the drug activity is notorious, and a drug location is being used as a retail outlet for drugs, that's an exigency enough for us to act ex parte. We filed a petition, we get an Ordinance from a Judge in the Court of Common Pleas, and we send out detectives from our office, along with either L & I or a private contractor, to actually seal up the property. In terms of numbers, let me give you the numbers for Fiscal Year 1997. In Fiscal Year 1997, we forfeited 63 properties. And that's a dramatic contrast to what we did as recent as Fiscal Year 1994, when we only did 6 properties. 28 RESOLUTION 970760 And certainly that's a reflection of the improved spirit of cooperation between the Philadelphia Police Department and the District Attorney's Office. And it's also a reflection of bringing the task force into the mix. And that certainly includes the cooperation between the task force members and the people in the community, who act as our eyes and our ears, and who bring us the information that we need in many cases to go into action.
And just one other thing. When you said the forfeiture action was taken, where does the ownership then turn to? Does the city or -- like, if they are actually confiscated. DEPUTY MOSEE: And the confiscation in and of itself is certainly not the end of the litigation. The owner has an opportunity to demonstrate that he or she didn't know anything about the activity. If they can do that, then they have to be characterized as an innocent owner. If they can't, and we prevail, then 29 RESOLUTION 970760 title to the property is vested in the District Attorney's Office.
Of those 63 cases you did in '97, could you follow out for us, then, what actually happens to the property? The whole issue of whether citizens feel that something actually will happen, instead of people being able to dodge behind a complicated legal process, is what at least people in the community want. DEPUTY MOSEE: Right. Well, when I characterized those 63 properties as having been forfeited, I mean they were successful prosecutions. So I am not giving you the number of properties that we actually went out and seized. These are the properties that we actually prevailed against.
I had one other brief question for Deputy Commissioner Johnson. On your charts, your Figure No. 1, you refer to Part offenses, of which there was, you know, like 40-some thousand. And then the 30 RESOLUTION 970760 arrests, I understand what an arrest is. But I was puzzled as the difference between the offense and arrest, both for Part 1 offenses and arrests, and then narcotics. Because it shows fewer narcotics offenses, but more arrests. I was puzzled as to, what's the difference between the two? I think I know what an arrest is, but I am puzzled about what you are referring to as an offense. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I believe the offense was any time there is a buyer -- in other words, there may be a buy, where there may have been some sort of drug activity and there was no arrest, either for lack of prosecution from the District Attorney's Office or lack of prosecution that there was not enough evidence. But the offense happened, but it just was not enough to qualify for a particular arrest at that time. So in terms of narcotics offenses, how could you have fewer offenses, but more arrests? Your yellow number shows maybe like 4,000 narcotics offenses, but 5,000 narcotics arrests. I 31 RESOLUTION 970760 am puzzled. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: The offenses are the actual incident. In other words, you may have an incident, and four or five people were arrested in that particular incident.
Okay. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Do you understand that?
Mr. Mosee, in the D.A.'s Office, are you the clearinghouse for the nuisance locations? Do you have a standardized way of reporting locations?
Yes, we do. And I can state publicly that the number that people should call is 686-5858. And if you reach any of the prosecutor/liaisons, and, in fact, anyone in the division, then we will take that information to the task force and make sure that it is given to the appropriate parties.
Mr. Johnson, the police department is part of the task force? 32 RESOLUTION 970760
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Mosee, let's go back to either your testimony or comments that you have made. What were the total number of drug prosecutions last year?
You know, I should have brought that with me. And you will be happy to know that I do have it. And, in fact --
But I would offer to come by your office and to discuss those figures with you intimately.
I don't necessarily know that we need to have an intimate discussion. 33 RESOLUTION 970760
I am actually more interested in you sharing that with us publicly, if it can be shared publicly. Can that information be shared publicly?
Why don't you forward it to the Chairs of the committee by the end of the day, and then they can give it to me. I mean, maybe I would have an intimate conversation with Councilwoman Tasco.
What were the number of nuisance establishments that you have identified in the city?
In the last fiscal year or year to date. What's the current list of total number of nuisance establishments in the City of Philadelphia? 34 RESOLUTION 970760
Please bear with me for just a second. For Fiscal Year 1997, there were 258.
And is that also a list that you can share with the committee?
And what qualifies as a nuisance establishment? Is that a term of art? Is that a Philadelphia Code term? Is that a legal term? How does a property qualify as a nuisance?
And this might be an appropriate time for me to say that if anybody has a better way of characterizing these properties, I would be happy to hear it. Because, in my opinion, the term "nuisance" is too mild a term. When you are talking about drug locations, it goes beyond what we would characterize as a civil nuisance, and I think that's where the term actually came from. But the 258 properties that I am referring to are properties where an investigation was actually commenced and we have been able to 35 RESOLUTION 970760 verify or confirm that what was reported to us is, in fact, happening. So this would include bars where the people are urinating, the patrons are urinating in public, the music is loud, they are staying open too late. And it would also include crack houses. It would include locations where we believe prostitution is being solicited. So just about anything and everything that would constitute a nuisance in the minds of people in the community is a part of that 258 number.
Okay. In response to a previous question by Councilwoman Fernandez, you said that in FY '97, you had forfeited 63 properties, up from, I believe, 6 in FY '94; is that correct?
But you also made reference to that not being the total number that you had actually taken action against.
What's the total 36 RESOLUTION 970760 number that you took action against in FY '97?
Actually, the number was pretty close; it was 69. And I guess what I should clarify is that, remember those properties that were actually forfeited may have been properties seized in prior fiscal years and the litigation wasn't completed until Fiscal '97.
Okay. All right. Now, I mean certainly I commend you for the efforts. And that's certainly an outstanding batting average. But on, I guess, a more global basis, I mean, do you think that 63 properties kind of indicates the sum total of what our efforts could be out in the community? There must be many more properties that would qualify under anybody's definition of problem properties in the city, given the number of, as Councilwoman discussed with Deputy Commissioner Johnson, there are certainly a large number of drug-related or other Part crime offenses that result in arrests. 37 RESOLUTION 970760 I assume that these people are arrested either on the highway or possibly at a premises. And there are a large number of people arrested in the city for Part 1 crimes. What would account for the drastic difference between the number of people arrested, many of whom are going to be in a house or a structure, versus the number that you actually go after?
It is not a question of what we go after; it is a question of the number of cases that were forfeited. And that means that we actually pursued a forfeiture action against the property.
That's what I am saying. You have to make a decision to go to forfeiture at some point.
Let me finish. Because it is important to recognize that we don't always use forfeiture, that we use other avenues. Like if Licenses & Inspections can go in, and they can deem that the property is unsafe, then we can use that avenue. Sometimes we don't pursue forfeiture 38 RESOLUTION 970760 because we recognize early on that there is a viable innocent ownership claim. If we have a situation where there is an absentee landlord, then we will go in and clean out the property, but we won't pursue forfeiture because we know that it is inevitable that the owner would get the property back. At that point we meet with the owner and we develop a plan of action so that the owner won't be faced with the same problem again. And often we will actually impose, as best as possible, a kind of regimen for the owner to follow, as to how he is supposed to screen tenants. So we take all kinds of avenues to address the numerous properties that come to our attention. But we're very careful, we are very circumspect, with regard to the properties that we actually seek forfeiture against.
My last question, Madam Chair, is actually for Commissioner Egan. Commissioner, either yourself or I see Mr. Nuisance behind you, Dominic Verdi, can you share with us from your perspective, based on the 39 RESOLUTION 970760 calls that I am sure you get from all of us -- and you certainly get enough from me -- what are some of the barriers or obstacles that you face in trying to deal with nuisance establishments from an L & I perspective, whether there are complications in the Zoning Code, whether we have difficulty tracking people down? We have got a squatter problem in certain parts of the city. People claim that they have a right to be in the property, they own the property, they have a lease to the property, while at the same time they have no gas, no electric, or can't provide any document that they have any legal right to be in the property. What are some of the things, I guess, that we could do to make things better for L & I? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, first of all, sometimes we consider Mr. Verdi a nuisance at L & I, too. But, no, generally speaking --
We will have Mr. Campbell deal with him. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Generally speaking, he is an exemplary employee, and we all 40 RESOLUTION 970760 know that.
Generally speaking. COMMISSIONER EGAN: A lot of the issues you just cited, that could be considered obstacles to ceasing a location or forfeiture in a location, are more the law enforcement, the police enforcement side of these types of activities. Generally speaking, if there is a business involved, with a Business Privilege License, or an apartment complex where conditions exist, our enforcement authority in those kinds of cases is adequate. So the issues you are talking about, whether it is squatters or people that can't prove proper ownership, they would have to be more directed to the D.A.'s Office and the police department.
Well, I guess my own personal experience has been, when we find those situations -- and I guess, I mean, we should certainly proceed cautiously -- but, I mean, there seems on occasion to be a confusion, if you will, within the government as to either who is going to 41 RESOLUTION 970760 do what, or how do we proceed, or do we have good and clear policy, or are we just taking the chance in some of those circumstances, which results in kind of multiple conference calls to make sure that everybody is kind of covered. But, I mean, do we have a direct written policy, for instance, on how to deal with squatters? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, we do have a squatter policy in our department. You know Mr. Campbell, our Legislative Affairs Director.
John Campbell, Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for Licenses & Inspections. A major problem in dealing with squatters is that we just can't go in and evict a squatter because it is covered, really, under the state Tenant Landlord Act. They are known as or referred to as Tenants at Sufferance. So it is not just a matter of L & I going in --
Tenants at 42 RESOLUTION 970760 Sufferance. They have adverse possession of the property.
And it is covered by a state act. We cannot just go in and evict the individuals from the property. We do have a policy in dealing with the squatters. But, I mean, the basic thing is, we just can't throw people out, and there are legal remedies that have to be taken. So it is not a matter of just walking in and saying, "Leave."
Illegal activity, of course, we refer to the police department, if it is some kind of a --
I would be very interested in seeing what the squatter policy, as well as whatever the state statute, is. And I see Richard Faher over there, I guess is the representative of the Law Department. I really would like a somewhat better and certainly a legal explanation as to what our rights and responsibilities are, what the Tenants in 43 RESOLUTION 970760 Sufferance may be. I mean, I certainly have had people thrown out of houses in a squatter situation. Maybe it was right, maybe it was wrong. They couldn't prove that they had a right to be there, they are out of there. I mean, I hate to be so simplistic about it. But, I mean, in all of these situations, there are multiple things going on. It is either drugs, there is a health hazard, no 12 windows in the winter time. I mean, all kinds of bizarre situations. And, yes, we have figured out a way to get people out of those buildings or structures. But there always seems to be a hesitancy, at least to start, that, are we right, you know, who is going to do this, should we talk to this one, should we talk to that one, well, I'm not sure, let's check over here. And, as I said, at the end of the day, a couple of days, it usually does get worked out. But if we have these various policies, I would certainly like to have them, 44 RESOLUTION 970760 because I have never seen them. I kind of have my own. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, certainly we will provide this committee with our policies on that. And if there are ways they can be improved, we would certainly be happy to entertain them.
We would like to know, what is the task force, and how do we know who to talk to? Do we call you, the D. A.'s Office, the Commissioner's Office? How do the Councilpeople know who is the whole Nuisance Task Force program, and how do we communicate with someone? Who is in charge?
It has been my experience that, as of late, the task force has become so cohesive, that if you contact any individual members of the task force, then that information will be communicated to the appropriate agencies. However, as I indicated earlier, the District Attorney's Office would be happy to act as the clearinghouse.
How do we know if I call you, and you pass it on to L & I, how do you know that it has been resolved? 45 RESOLUTION 970760
It is going to be my responsibility to stay on top of it. It is going to be the responsibility of Ed Giarmello and his people to follow up. And that's one of the things what we definitely try to do, is to follow up, is to be in a position to at least say what happened with the complaint. Now, that doesn't mean that we are going to give away confidential information as far as the police investigation is concerned. But it does mean that we will say that the information was given to a particular agency, and we are confident that something is going to happen or we need additional information. I think we have done a good job of establishing a two-way line of communication.
We don't want confidential information. All Councilpeople want is results, that something is done. Let me just ask you one question, Commissioner. And we have two questions from Councilmen down here. Do you revoke the Business Privilege 46 RESOLUTION 970760 License of a nuisance establishment? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yes.
What is the process for closing down a business and revoking the license? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, I have with me Rudy Paliaga, who is the Director of the Business Regulatory Division in the department, and he can explain our case operation procedure.
Good morning. State your name for the record, please.
Rudolph Paliaga, Director of Business Enforcement, Licenses & Inspections. We actually post a Cease Operations Order on the property and notify the local police district for enforcement purposes. We then simultaneously revoke the Business Privilege License, through our License Issuance Unit. There are occasions, however, when we do that, or attempt to do that, attorneys do get temporary restraining orders or injunctions 47 RESOLUTION 970760 preventing us from doing that. We have also had some instances that businesses will go back into business again, using a new Business Privilege License and a new name and a new corporation. That has been a problem for us over the past couple of years.
I am sorry. Because Councilman DiCicco has a specific instance that falls directly into what we are talking about.
If you could, before the orange sticker goes on the door, what happens before that? How do you get to the point of the orange sticker? How long does it take? What needs to be accounted for? What needs to be reported? What arrests need to be made before you get to the point where your guys go out, or Dominic goes out, and slaps up the orange sticker?
We usually get a 48 RESOLUTION 970760 memorandum from the police department indicating that arrests were made for drugs or prostitution or for a nuisance. And within a day or so, we post a Cease Operations. The orange poster goes up, and a copy of the Cease goes to local police district, and then we follow up with the police. But mainly at that point it is the police's responsibility to follow up.
So the police department, the captain of the district or the inspector of the division, sends to L & I a request to cease a property?
It comes from all the areas, as was testified earlier today.
And you are saying within a day you go down there and lock up, padlock the building and post the orange sticker?
We don't actually padlock the building. The orange poster goes up indicating that there is a cease. And the police get hand delivered the cease operations that day to the police captain, who work extremely well with the 49 RESOLUTION 970760 police captains. I think I want to take the opportunity to say that, since Ed McLaughlin has been our Deputy Commissioner for the past two years, that involvement with the police department has improved tremendously. We know these police captains on a first-name basis now, and he has fostered that relationship over the past two years.
What percentage of business owners, after the cease is made, immediately go into court for a restraining order?
Very small percentage. It is generally the prostitution, the masseuse/masseur parlors, that kind of thing. It is a small, very sophisticated group of people that know they get an attorney and they go right in, and the Law Department could testify. The temporary restraining orders are pretty much given very easily by the judges. I think that we do a pretty good job. And sometimes these orders, these hearings are generated very, very rapidly. We don't even always get a chance to testify. 50 RESOLUTION 970760 That area could be improved.
Let me go to Councilman DiCicco, because he has a specific instance. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning. With us this morning in the audience is Mr. Gray Smith, who is the Chairperson for the Zoning and Code Enforcement Committee for the South Street Neighbors Association. He had some testimony that he would like to read. I don't want to take his testimony entirely, but I do want to point to one of the issues raised in his testimony. And I am sure, Commissioner Egan, you are probably familiar with what I am about to say. Back on August the 20th of 1997, Mr. Smith wrote to you concerning a drug paraphernalia store at 520 South 4th Street. Subsequent letters going to and from, between you and Mr. Smith and myself, led us to believe, according to a letter that you sent to Mr. Smith on September the 18th of 1997, that upon investigation by your department, Business 51 RESOLUTION 970760 Compliance Unit, a Zoning Code violation was issued and a Cease and Desist Order had been enacted. To date, to the best of my knowledge -- and I won't go through all the correspondence that has taken place from August through to today -- that headhouse or head shop or drug paraphernalia store is still open. And my question is, why? COMMISSIONER EGAN: The reason why it is still open is because, when this matter did come to my attention, at the Commissioner's level, what was presented to me were two options by which we could proceed in terms of ultimately confiscating that drug paraphernalia. One of those avenues, legally, was the use of the Zoning Code, which prohibits the sale of that type of stuff. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Right. COMMISSIONER EGAN: And the other is in the Pennsylvania statutes, I think it is Title 7, 14. You see, forgive me, because I am not a lawyer, and I never will be one. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank God. COMMISSIONER EGAN: But there is 52 RESOLUTION 970760 something in the Pennsylvania statutes which prohibits the sale of drug paraphernalia under certain conditions. And my question became, why is L & I going to be the enforcement authority for the drug paraphernalia, if this is an enforceable procedure under the Criminal Code of Pennsylvania? So there are discussions going on between the Law Department and the Chief of Staff's Office and the Department of L & I, and the District Attorney's Office, to determine what is, in fact, the best avenue to proceed to ultimately confiscate that material, that will hold up in court, and then how would that apply to other similar establishments in Philadelphia. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, I appreciate what you are saying. But, again, on September the 18th of 1997, a letter by you to Mr. Smith indicated that the Business Compliance Unit, on September the 5th, resulted in a Zoning Code violation to cease maintaining and operating a tobacco business and the sale of drug paraphernalia without a Zoning and/or Use Registration Permit. 53 RESOLUTION 970760 And it says, In addition, a violation was issued to secure a Business Privilege License. Have any of those things that were required taken place since then? And if they haven't, why is the store still open?
Plus, let me just interject. I believe an Ordinance against the sale of drug paraphernalia. So it is a city Ordinance, and I think the nuisance legislation grew out of that. So it is not just the state. You can enforce it through the state or a city Ordinance. COMMISSIONER EGAN: We do. And all I have done is raise the question of which of those avenues would be the best one to ultimately succeed in court on this issue.
But the letter says that there is no Business Privilege License. So why is he permitted to be opened at all? I mean, my argument is, if you close the place this afternoon and you say, "Look, you are selling illegal stuff and you don't have a BPL," and then he comes in for a BPL and you say, "We're not 54 RESOLUTION 970760 giving you one because you are selling illegal stuff," then what legal leg does he have to stand on? COMMISSIONER EGAN: And then what happens, Councilman? He goes to the Zoning Board.
Costs him money. COMMISSIONER EGAN: He doesn't get his variance.
It costs him money. COMMISSIONER EGAN: It costs him money. And then what happens?
But what happens is, let me tell you what happens, a bus load of constituents and the elected officials go to the courtroom and say, "Your Honor, the guy doesn't have a BPL and he is selling illegal merchandise. Why do you give him a BPL"? Now, if the Judge wants to issue him a BPL, that's the Judge's problem. But it seems like -- and, again, I'm not being directly critical 55 RESOLUTION 970760 of you and the department, because I know you have certain legal analysis that you have to determine to move. But for me, this guy should be shut down this afternoon. Let him go to a Judge and a lawyer, pay the money necessary, have some Judge tell us we have to let this guy open and sell drug paraphernalia. COMMISSIONER EGAN: And, Councilman, all I am saying is that same thing could happen through other legal means, other than that Zoning Code. And I want us to determine which is the better one to use.
But in the meantime, the neighbors and everybody see this guy opened up, selling head shop paraphernalia without a Business Privilege License. If I were a business owner, why would I get a BPL? He doesn't need one. Why should I need one? I mean --
Jim, the one thing that surprised me about your statement is, the length of time these conversations are taking, from September through almost February, and we haven't 56 RESOLUTION 970760 come to a conclusion as to what action we are going to take. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But my point, Councilman --
And that, to me, is troublesome. Because we should be able to have a conversation with the Law Department and L & I and the police department, and by October we should have had a strategy and done it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But my point, Councilman, and with all due respect to Commissioner Egan, it stated in your September letter that a Cease and Desist Order was going to be in place. So, I mean, you obviously felt there is a need to close this place down, you obviously felt that you were on solid legal ground to do it, and we're still discussing it. And while I like Gray Smith, I don't enjoy getting faxes just about every day from him. It is like a calendar of events. He says, "Another day has gone by, and it is still open." And there are about four or five of these shops on the South Street Corridor. And in 57 RESOLUTION 970760 his testimony, he will explain he thinks that these people have probably located from New Hope, Pennsylvania, because in New Hope they don't take this stuff. And I said this at Councilwoman Fernandez' hearing a few weeks ago when we talked about traffic-calming devices. In our counties, in other boroughs, townships, what they do is, they do everything that they think should be done, and let the Law Department and everybody else worry about where we are going to wind up legally. Let us get sued. I mean, we are not doing what we should be doing for the people in our community, and that's what we are all paid to be doing. And if it is wrong, let them fight it out in the courts. But, you know, we keep making excuses for, well, we don't know if we can do this because it might not be legal, and then we are going to wind up in court. So what? Let's go to court. Let's listen to what the people have to say. COMMISSIONER EGAN: I am not worried about the part about going to court. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm not saying 58 RESOLUTION 970760 you personally. COMMISSIONER EGAN: All I have asked is that consideration be given as to which avenue is best to go to court. I am not worried about that.
Don't worry about it. You have two laws that you can just go close these people down. That's what my neighbors are saying. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Then let the Court say you did something wrong then.
You close them down. We have to take aggressive action against these guys, because they know we are bureaucrats. And Philadelphia takes so long, until they just play with us. And, you know, we hear this from the people in the neighborhood. And I am getting ready to call them up right now. I want Gray Smith to come up, I want Gregory Wicks, and I want Georgia Davis to come up. And I want you to hear their testimony, because I want you to hear the 59 RESOLUTION 970760 frustration that we hear from them and working as a community and driving by this stuff every day, and nothing is being done. And over a year and two years, these businesses are still allowed to operate, while we are trying to get our act together. And, again, you know, you want to do the right thing. But, look, we are just going to have to be very aggressive with this stuff.
Can I ask a process question? Commissioner, you indicated that you have been talking to certain people. Could you share with us, for the record, who else is involved in these discussions? And you have apparently gotten some -- when you asked the question and got two options back, where did those options come from? COMMISSIONER EGAN: From the Law Department.
Okay. The Law Department said, you can proceed one way or the other. And these ongoing discussions are 60 RESOLUTION 970760 between you and whom? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Bill Thompson of the Law Department.
Okay. Is the District Attorney's Office involved in these discussions? COMMISSIONER EGAN: I have not personally discussed it with them, but these discussions are going on with them, too.
Okay. And, I mean, you have fared fairly well at the table, and weathered, I think, most of the storm. Who is ultimately going to make the decision about which way to proceed? Are you going to decide? Is the Law Department going to decide? Is the MDO going to decide? Is the Mayor going to decide? How does this ultimately get resolved, in terms of which action to take? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, I really do appreciate yours and everyone else's at the Council table's anxiety about this, including Mr. Smith, who I get a fax from him about every day, too. 61 RESOLUTION 970760 So what I will do is -- you know, I guess it is almost good that it came up today -- I will take the responsibility for calling the necessary parties together, and I will make the decision as to how we will proceed, and then notify you of that decision.
The only other thing I would tell you is that, in Councilwoman Tasco's package -- and I just read it here this morning, and it is obviously, you know, a day-old opinion, or I don't even know what today's date is -- I mean, it goes through on another issue, on Blunt cigars, what are the issues involved in the larger definition of drug paraphernalia? And apparently in this opinion, the mere existence of what we call drug paraphernalia is not illegal; it is what you intend to do with it, which then makes it illegal. So its mere presence on the premises, by the law department's analysis, at this location, wherever it is, does not make it illegal. And there is apparently state law and case law on the topic. The intention of what you want to do with the paraphernalia, apparently, makes it 62 RESOLUTION 970760 illegal, and someone has to make that decision. I assume it comes either subsequent to either seizing the material or a court case.
I understand that. I am not arguing against your point. I am just saying that there is, apparently, a legal opinion that goes through the definition. And that the code itself doesn't make the drug paraphernalia illegal; that the code only mirrors the state act that does. So it sounds like there is slight, I guess, tying of the hands of the Commissioner. And she is in Law Department world, which, with all due respect to Richie and all my great friends over at the Law Department, sometimes that can be a place where you don't want to be. The Commissioner, though, has taken on the record the responsibility for trying to make a decision, with her various options, and I guess we'll go from there. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Just to follow up, Madam Chair. 63 RESOLUTION 970760
Yes. Then we are going to call the community. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The letters that I referred to. To date do we know whether there is a BPL license there, Business Privilege License at that establishment? COMMISSIONER EGAN: We'd have to check; we're not sure. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let's just assume that there is no BPL today. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Okay. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I am not trying to tell you how to do your job. Why don't you just go shut him down today and let's see what happens. Let them go to the courts, let them do what they have to do. We have to take the initiative. I thought that's what government's job was. That's part of our job. Shut them down today. You have us, our support, the support from him. We're ready to go to court; just shut them down. You said in September you were going to do it. It hasn't been done. Let's do it and worry about what the Courts will say. 64 RESOLUTION 970760 I may not be articulating myself properly. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Again, I am not worried about what the Courts are going to say. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm not saying you are. COMMISSIONER EGAN: All I am trying to take into consideration is, what is the best way to present our case in court; that's all. And I will get that answer within a week. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I think we have wasted four months trying to figure out what's the best way to proceed in court. If you shut him down, that will initiate court action, either on their side or our side, and we would have probably been there already. I think what we need to do is go in and just shut them down today.
Lawyers always argue what's the best way. If you wait for them to determine it, you will never get anywhere. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: They get paid by the hour. 65 RESOLUTION 970760 COMMISSIONER EGAN: I can't argue with that.
One question on liquor licenses in bars as it relates to all areas of responsibilities. Is there any reason why the Philadelphia Police Department could not be empowered, or are they empowered today, or deputized, to enforce state Liquor Code? From my perspective, my understanding was, Philadelphia, the local governments, could not enforce or implement laws in a more expansive way than the state allows. So you can't go beyond the state statute. But if the Philadelphia Police Department is dealing with these problems every day in a nuisance bar that's selling drugs, that's selling after hours, that's running disorderly houses, that's selling to minors, and they are the people who are dealing most directly with the problems associated with that bar -- the shootings, the noise, the problems -- why do we have to wait for a small group of state police officers to come in and do an undercover investigation, and then move 66 RESOLUTION 970760 that process through the Liquor Board to revoke the license or to penalize? Why can't the Philadelphia Police Department be doing that? They are on the site, they see what's going on. They can make the arrest; they can do that. I mean, it is almost like these bars are in a little world of their own. It is like we are in Philadelphia, but these bars are like in another county. We are not allowed to go in, we are not allowed to enforce, we are not allowed to do the things we need to do. But the main result of the bad business being operated is that we have police calls going there all the time, and the neighborhood is in turmoil. Is there any reason why our own district uniformed officers could not enforce the state Liquor Code? Why do we need 8 or 10 or 11, 15 special state police officers to take care of 20,000 licenses? You know, they will never get it done. I mean, can anyone from the Law Department or from the state police, if they are 67 RESOLUTION 970760 here, give us some idea why we can't use our own police force to enforce existing state liquor laws, that are no more expansive than what the state enforces themselves?
It is all involved with our inability to respond to neighborhood complaints and neighborhood problems. Because we can't revoke a BPL unless we do this. We can't shut down a nuisance bar because somehow they are an island unto themselves under the state Liquor Code.
Let me say, to the extent that we can, local law enforcement is involved. Part of the problem is in understanding exactly what the Liquor Code violation is. And to that extent there has to be communication between local law enforcement and the Liquor Control Board. But I am happy to report that those measures are stepped up as of late. And that my office, for example, has been sent in to help with the investigations of these nuisance bars. 68 RESOLUTION 970760
Well, let me tell you, one suggestion I would make to precipitate this discussion is, the next time a district commander has a problem nuisance bar, to go in with their uniformed officers, physically remove the Liquor License from behind the bar, and make them lock up and shut down. And then let them go get their liquor attorney and go into court and get that liquor license back. Because we, because of the health and safety of our community, are shutting down this business because it is a detriment to the health and safety of our neighbors. Take the license, lock the door, and let them go back and get their license back. Let some Judge, some state Judge or some other Judge, tell us we are doing wrong by our community. And that's the kinds of things that I want to see done to precipitate these legal arguments that we hide behind, but we are hog-tied by, because we can't move because the Liquor Board tells us we can't. Let them tell us, no, we have to give 69 RESOLUTION 970760 this license back, we don't care if they are selling drugs out of there or not. I think we need to take a more proactive measure and bring these things to a head in court sooner than later.
Madam Chair, one question of the Assistant D.A. What happens to the properties that you forfeited, the 63 properties?
Most of them will be set up for a public auction, some of them are actually donated to viable groups in the community, and some of them ultimately go back to somebody, even after they are forfeited.
All that money, under the statute, goes back to law and enforcement so that they can enforce the drug laws.
Do they go to the District Attorney or to the police department?
It depends on who is involved with the seizure. If state police is involved, then we 70 RESOLUTION 970760 have a sharing arrangement with the state police. If it is the police department, we have sharing arrangements with the police department.
What we would like to do, if this panel would just kind of move to the side, we would like to call Gray Smith, Georgia Davis, and Gregory Wicks to come forward so we can hear the community, and then you can probably come back and give some response. We want to hear how these people -- we have the testimony, I believe. Good afternoon. Would you please state your name for the record. We will start with you, Miss Davis. Do you have to go, Gray?
Madam Chairwoman, I have to be at a really important zoning hearing that has a big impact on Councilman Nutter's district momentarily, so if I could go first. I will try to 71 RESOLUTION 970760 make it brief. CHAIRWOMAN TASCO: You told me that. I forgot. And part of my thunder has already been stolen by my District Councilman, so I don't have to say as much as I would have said. I am Gray Smith, Chairman of the Zoning and Code Enforcement Committee of the South Street Neighborhood Association. And, as you know, the South Street Corridor is an intensely active retail and night-life commercial corridor, extending from Front Street to 11th Street. It is surrounded by heavily populated residential neighborhoods. Fortunately we don't have any crack houses, but we do have some nuisance bars, and now we have a number of drug paraphernalia stores. Our neighborhood attracts large numbers of residents and tourists daily, particularly on weekends, even in the winter time now. On a typical summer weekend night, as many as 30,000 people visit South Street. And as 72 RESOLUTION 970760 you also know, an abnormally high percentage of those visitors are unchaperoned young people below the age of 21, many of whom are in their mid teens. m. and 12:00 midnight. And by recent count, five of those retail stores sell drug paraphernalia as defined by Section 14-1605 of the Philadelphia Zoning Code. And there has been an increase in that lately because, perhaps, the wholesale closing of drug paraphernalia stores in New Hope by the local police has caused these people to begin to locate into more friendly territory. Enforcement of the Philadelphia Zoning Code regarding drug paraphernalia stores on South Street has been nonexistent, in spite of complaints by neighbors and the South Street Neighborhood Association and a number of businesspeople. Specifically, the new head shop at 520 South 4th Street, which Councilman DiCicco talked about the other day, which moved into our neighborhood in August of last year, and which we 73 RESOLUTION 970760 immediately filed complaints with the Commissioner of Licenses & Inspections and with a number of other people, including Deputy McLaughlin and Mr. Paliaga, who we all know is in charge of that division. And I attached to my testimony the correspondence that is involved in that. One of the clearest sections of the Philadelphia Zoning Code is Section 14-1605 regarding regulated uses. Drug paraphernalia stores are a regulated use. And you guys are very familiar with that, because there is where quality-of-life issues hit home. It includes X-rated video stores, X-rated book stores, strip joints, and those types of anti-quality-of-life activities. They are all very well defined. And I am sure this City Council and your legal advisers and the Law Department spent many, many, many hours precisely writing that code so it could be enforced by the Department of Licenses & Inspections. And there are many other ways to enforce the codes of the city, including the 74 RESOLUTION 970760 Business Privilege License. If I didn't have a Business Privilege License in my business, I could be shut down immediately, so I don't know why it keeps happening that way. In spite of the overt violation of Section 14-1605 of the Zoning Code, and in spite of the shop's failure to obtain the legally required zoning variance, which it would require, which would give the neighborhood an opportunity to protest in a Public Hearing about it, and in spite of the September commitment by Commissioner Egan to file a Cease Operations Order, the store continues to sell drug paraphernalia six days and nights a week. Bongs and water pipes, which are defined in that section of the Zoning Code as drug paraphernalia -- and a store which sells it is a drug paraphernalia store -- constitutes 75 percent of the stock of that store at 520 South 4th Street.
Fortunately, the other stores don't sell as high a percentage, but they do sell -- I mean, there is a shoe store now that sells and displays in their front window a whole series of very attractive bongs in the windows. 75 RESOLUTION 970760 That store is less than one half block from St. Peter's School. More than half of the children that go to that school, when they walk there, pass by that store going home, when it is open. There are two churches and two synagogues and a major community center within a half a block. And there, of course, are many, many residences, some fine residences, occupied by homeowners within a thousand square feet -- a thousand feet. Yet, Commissioner Egan has not only ignored our complaints since September, but also has not informed us of this terrible legal dilemma that her department has been dealing with over all these years in an effort to explain to us and to the City Councilmen why this blight in our neighborhood is allowed to exist. I would like to complement Lieutenant McCarthy, who is the head of the South Street Task Force, who urges and advises some of these stores to be more discrete with what they are doing, to quit displaying these things in the windows, to be more careful about selling to children which frequent the 76 RESOLUTION 970760 stores, and that he has a watchful eye in that regard. That's his job, as he exercises probably the best community policing program in the United States. But that's all he can do. He can't close down these people. He can't confiscate anything. There has to be, as the Commissioner said, and as Mr. Paliaga said, there has to be a Cease Operations Order, and that has to be -- that information has to go to Lieutenant McLaughlin, so that he can then go by, pass by every day, as he does normally, and make sure they haven't reopened and haven't continued their business. I should also say that some of the businesspeople have been somewhat diligent. They have asked the owner of the building to ask their tenant to either move out or to change his business. And they have asked the business owner there, for what it is worth, to quit selling that type of apparatus, or at least to go through the legal process of obtaining a variance or 77 RESOLUTION 970760 pursuing a variance. And I can assure Commissioner Egan, if that happens, that three major civic associations will file petitions to intervene on behalf of the city and their effort to close that place down. We are standing willing to do it. We need a legal action in order to do that. We will show up with busloads of people at the hearing, as we did, and we will boycott and picket, if we have to, as we did for every X-rated store that opened. As we did, and thanks to Commissioner Egan and Councilman DiCicco, as we did for the X-rated lingerie and video store that tried to open up on 9th Street a few weeks ago, and which was immediately ceased, immediately ceased, within two or three days of complaints by 3 civic associations, at least 25 homeowners, and 2 business associations. I trust that this hearing is not really intended to result in a zoning ordinance that allows drug paraphernalia to be sold unfettered and unregulated next to schools and churches. I don't want to see the teeth of that 78 RESOLUTION 970760 section of the Zoning Code taken away. Because it says, you can't sell this stuff within a thousand feet of churches, synagogues, schools, community centers, playgrounds. And certainly it shouldn't be done in commercial areas, where large numbers of young people congregate and where school children pass by daily. On the contrary, we look to City Council to demand the preservation of and the immediate enforcement of Section 14-1605 of the Zoning Code by the Department of Licenses & Inspections, and I thank you for asking for that earlier.
Thank you very much for your testimony. No, we are not here to take away anything. We want to see what we might have to add to strengthen the laws for enforcement, and to give the agencies the tools they need to enforce the law and close down these establishments. So that's why we are having these hearings today, because of the concerns that you have raised, concerns that have been raised by other 79 RESOLUTION 970760 people who have come down to testify, just to see what we can do to make sure that we -- I mean, like Councilman Kenney says, we have to stop playing with these people, and they have to know that we are serious about it. So thank you very much for coming and testifying.
Thank you. I would also like to thank the folks at the table for letting me go first. Your patience is appreciated very much. CHAIRWOMAN TASCO: Thank you.
Good morning. My name is Georgia Davis. I am the block captain of the 2100 block of Homer Street. Our nuisance establishments are 2198 Homer Street, as well as 6600 Cornelia Street. Homer Street was Charlie's Variety Store. Cornelia Street was Hong Heng Chinese Restaurant. On 7/16/98, I contacted Captain O'Brien because we had started having problems with the drug dealers when we were doing our 80 RESOLUTION 970760 demonstrations, and he gave us police protection.
You said '98. I want to make sure we go back. This has been a long time.
'96. Which he gave us police protection for 9/19/96 and 9/20/96. , Hong Hing Chinese Restaurant closed at 11:00. Charlie's Variety Store stayed closed until 7/23/96, after negotiating a contract with the community 8/28/96. Confirmed at the District Attorney's Office 9/3/96. All parties was present. 7/20/96, it was expressed to Mr. Carl Anderson that Hong Heng Chinese Restaurant was the revolving door in connection with a drug house located at 2194 Homer Street. A revolving door means, if pressure is applied to you, per se, as the proprietor, then what you would do, you would move another member of 81 RESOLUTION 970760 your family in to function under the same license. That's the revolving door. 7/25/96, Hong Heng Chinese Restaurant reopened with the husband in charge. At first it was opened with the wife. The husband's name was John Kun, K-U-N, so I pronounce it as Kun, and we expressed our concerns to him at that time. He refused to enter into an agreement with the community. 8/9/96, a robbery and assault of a senior citizen occurred at Hong Heng's Chinese Restaurant inside the premises. 8/10, due to the cooking oil that was being placed down the city inlet in front of the store, the rats surfaced, and we have a rat problem. L & I was notified, nothing was done. 8/13/96, the city turned off Hong Heng Chinese Restaurant's water for back bill at 2:25 in the afternoon. Business went on as usual. 8/13/96 it was reported to Corporal Lee at the 35th District Police Office, and he stated that that was not a police matter. The water was turned on illegally by two trucks. They were not city trucks. m. 8/14 I contacted Mr. Manchek, which is supposed to be connected to the Health Department, made that complaint. He informed me an inspector would be out. No show. , Truck No. 9 ZD11483 came back and turned the water off. 8/15/96, at 2:30, water was turned on legally by the city. 8/22, 8/24/96 we demonstrated. 9/20 and 21, 9/28/96, we demonstrated. 8/15/96 to 8/27/96, up until 10/10/96, we constantly reported our inlets. They were -- the reports was taken by the Streets Department, Miss Williams. 9/27/96, 12/9/96, reported again. The same inlets was reported to a Miss Johnson, Streets Department. 9/5/96, Officer Puana cited 2198 Homer Street, as well as 6600 Cornelia Street for not having a dumpster. 6600 Cornelia Street was reported as 83 RESOLUTION 970760 a nuisance establishment at that time. Activities consists of drugs being sold in and outside the restaurant, robberies in and outside the restaurant, shootings in front of the restaurant, at the intersection of Cornelius and Homer Street. Kids held up at gun points for coats and sneakers, senior citizens mugged on the corner. Two, proprietor was selling loose cigarettes, Blunts and other drug paraphernalia, to the minors. They were double parking in the street, sidewalks, loud music, using the rears of our homes for sex, graffiti, and evacuation of body waste. At that point we met with officer -- Sergeant, excuse me, Sergeant Skeet of the 35th District. We were supposed to meet with Captain O'Brien on the 25th. Captain O'Brian gave the assignment to Sergeant Skeet. When asked about this, Sergeant Skeet informed me that the captain does not deal with matters of this nature, he assigns it to an officer. Okay? After that meeting, the conclusion was that patrol would be speed up in that intersection, they would also patrol Homer Street, 84 RESOLUTION 970760 Hollis Street, Homer Street's driveway, and Cornelius Street driveway. That never happened. October the 25th, at o'clock, we 5 had another demonstration at Hong Heng Chinese 6 Restaurant. 7 At that demonstration, Shirell Parker came, representing Marian Tasco, Councilwoman Marian Tasco's office. Lynne Anderson came, as the community attorney and head of Beverly Road Town Watch. Fred was also present. November the 10th, 1996, we called for another appointment.
Let me just say this to you: We have a lot of people to testify. If you will give us that testimony, which is very detailed, what I would like for you to do is kind of sum up what your frustration is about this one facility.
Can I say one thing? Because I want to hear what she has to say, and I know a lot about what she is going to say. But the irony of this is, the first time I ever met Miss Davis was at 34 South 11th Street, while she was appealing her raise in her 85 RESOLUTION 970760 real estate taxes that the city assessed her upwards. She had me go in and appeal. Now, listen to what it is she lives with. And then the city went out and reassessed her property taxes upward for the privilege of living with this mess. And that's the real, true irony of this stuff, that you are paying higher prices for no 10 service.
And one of the things we wanted to show is that Miss Davis has documented, you can see, every incident, every date, every incident, every conversation, and we have not been able to close this establishment down. And that is why we are here. That's what triggered this hearing today. Because I figured, if she is having this problem and some of the other people in my district were having this problem, it is throughout the city. So we want to have the details, and we will put them in the testimony. But we would like for you to kind of sum up your frustration about this place, because we do have other people 86 RESOLUTION 970760 and we have a hearing scheduled at 1 o'clock here on truancy.
Okay. In summing up, I have a letter dated December the 18th, from Richard Neal, Police Department of Philadelphia.
1996. December the 18th, 1996. Where I sent a letter to you, and you, in return, forwarded my complaints to him. And he said -- and you said, "Attached is a detailed description of the neighborhood restaurant at 6600 Cornelius Street, which is causing such a disturbance in the community. "I would like a team on this matter as soon as possible, so we can get some corroboration evidence so that my nuisance establishment legislation can be used to discontinue this business' privileges." On December 30, 1996, a letter came back to The Honorable Councilwoman Tasco, "This is a response in the Complaint received from your office concerning legal sales of drug paraphernalia, loose cigarettes to minors at the subject location. 87 RESOLUTION 970760 Apparent inspection conducted by the Business Compliance Unit on December the 4th, 1996, after a similar complaint was received, results in license violations being issued for a public dumpster and a sign. "However, at this time the inspectors have no evidence of drug paraphernalia or cigarettes sold at this location. This location is zoned as a take-out restaurant, two-family dwelling; provision, no videos or pinball machines, commercial trash pickup." My response to you was, 1/16/96, stating, this came through your office, came to your office from Licenses & Inspections, Mr. Everett McGlower -- excuse me if I messed up his name. My response to that was that it was a lie. Drug paraphernalia, loosies were sold. The cigarette pack was turned around. Inspector did not go in there and lift the cigarette packs up. He asked the proprietor. Easy Rider and Topp paper is in the window. That's what the kids use to make what they call turbos, or marijuana smoke. Put the marijuana in the Topp paper, then they lace it with crack cocaine, and they smoke 88 RESOLUTION 970760 it. That's the turbo. Other than that, yes, that's drug paraphernalia to me. Then I have a letter dated April the 30th, which is a response that came to you from Richard Neal, from Captain O'Brian. "Dear Councilwoman Tasco: In regard to your letter concerning the 6600 block of Cornelius Street, the following is submitted. The commanding officer of the 35th District was instructed to conduct an investigation into these concerns. "As a result, statistics indicate no 15 crime has occurred at 6600 Cornelius Street from January 1995 to December 1996. "The North Narcotics Field Unit was contacted concerning 6600 Cornelius Street, but they were not able to produce one formal complaint on this address. "However, 35th District Police personnel will monitor the area for children selling marijuana and disorderly crowds. Also, the 35th District Sanitation Officer will survey the location for possible violations. 89 RESOLUTION 970760 "The District Community Relations Officer will schedule a meeting with the store owner to ask for her assistance in these matters." Okay? Now, this is the police arrest run sheet dated from 7/3/95 to 6/28/96 on 6600 block of Cornelius Street. I have got that run sheet July the 2nd, 1996, from Captain Joseph O'Brian. He had an officer deliver this one to my house, as well as the run sheet for 2198 Homer Street. So he lied.
Miss Davis, would you please kind of wrap it up. And what I think you have demonstrated and shown, that we have a situation where you have certainly gone far beyond your community responsibility to demonstrate that there is a problem at a certain location, and your frustration level in that the city cannot do anything about it. And it is my frustration. And you have documented it. I mean, you have all the information that proves that this is a nuisance establishment. And the question becomes, why is this location still open? And that's what I wanted the task 90 RESOLUTION 970760 force to hear, Commissioner Johnson to hear, and Commissioner Egan to hear, the frustration of closing down this one location. And if the process, if the city's procedures, are so cumbersome and so disjointed and lacks coordination that nothing can be done, then we need to do something and find a way to do something about it. So could you kind of end your conversation, ma'am, so we can go with the other testimony of people.
This is it. My last conversation with the police department was 3/4/97, when they were supposed to put a surveillance out on Hong Heng Chinese Restaurant. I was told not to talk to or contact anyone other than O'Brien or Lieutenant Patterson. I contacted Lieutenant Patterson on 3/12 because it was scheduled to go into effect on 3/13. He told me that everything was fine, it was a go. On 3/13 I went into Hong Heng Chinese Restaurant, where he informed me that two uniformed 91 RESOLUTION 970760 police officers, black, one male, one female which are lighter than myself, came in and told him that his establishment was under surveillance, and they would be there for two weeks. He wrote it in his own handwriting. I then took this, I called -- I called Brenda Frazier, I called Captain Patterson, Lieutenant Patterson at the time. And when I spoke to Lieutenant Patterson on 3/12/97, he told me that this did not happen. There were only four people in the room 13 when this was set up -- he was not present -- so, therefore, his statement is valid. Then Officer Patterson told me that this was normal procedure, to warn a human being of a surveillance. This was normal procedure. Okay? And then he stated a police officer will not endanger a police officer. I told him that he was right; he endangered a community.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you. Don't forget, we need the documentation for the record. You will work with Brenda to get that to us. 92 RESOLUTION 970760 Certainly if she has license numbers of trucks that are delivering or servicing turning on water at a business, it is not a city truck, then the Water Department ought to investigate it. They can certainly identify who the owners of the trucks are.
I have one thing else to say. On August the 19th, 1997, the proprietor of Hong Heng Restaurant met with me, two representatives from the Nuisance Task Force, and two other organization members in the community, and he verified everything, including the problems that we were having with his establishment. He also verified the letter that he gave me, at the District Attorney's Office.
Good afternoon. My name is Greg Wicks, and I am President of Wadsworth Concerned Neighbors Against Drugs, which is a community-based, anti-drug organization in the northwest corridor of the city. I am going to make 93 RESOLUTION 970760 my comments very brief. I have been sitting here since 11:00. I have been listening to the panel and to Councilmembers. And I think there are a lot of laws that are on the books. And I think the whole key to this session and what's not happening is just enforcement. The bureaucracy that we have to go through, the things that the community have to go through not getting the results, I feel as though the players are here today, and it is just a matter of getting the players together and just enforcing a lot of the things that are on the books. One thing that we have noticed in the last several years, as far as narcotics, is, we don't see as many crack vials as we do tobacco on the ground, which means a lot of the individuals are buying the cigars and putting the marijuana into them. That has become a serious problem, in addition to the nuisance establishments and also nuisance houses. I think that's the largest deterrent in bringing communities down. You are 94 RESOLUTION 970760 better off living next door to a drug dealer than you are to a crack house. So my only comment, really, is to get all the agencies together to work with Council, such that you can help serve the community better. The other problem for community people is, if you don't have the time during the day to lodge your complaints, you can pretty much discount it. I mean, I took off of work a few hours to come over here. But I am quite sure there are hundreds of people that have problems and concerns that just can't be here because of work commitments. So I thank you for your time, and hopefully working together we can make this really work.
Thank you. Next we would like to call Mr. Elijah Coleman, LeRoy Williams, Joseph Purnell, Beulah Robinson, Harold Cottman, Al Dabney. Are those community residents in the house? Good afternoon. Mr. Delaney, would 95 RESOLUTION 970760 you like to join this panel?
I would. CHAIRWOMAN TASCO: Is Mr. Coleman here? Mr. LeRoy Williams? Mr. Purnell, Miss Beulah Robinson? Harold Cottman, he was one, and Mr. Dabney. Okay. Would you like to begin, Mr. Dabney, with your testimony.
My name is Al Dabney. I am Cedarbrook Neighbors Against Drugs, 7700 block of Cedarbrook. We are right at Cheltenham and Ogontz. And our nuisance business is 8014 Ogontz Avenue, Lee's Market. It has two entrances. One entrance on Ogontz, and the other entrance is on Upsal Street. And the Upsal Street side is where the drug dealers all congregate, and also from the stop-and-go which is connected to the store. I don't know if it is owned by the store. They buy the beer. They drink there. They gamble there. The girls come up with the sex acts on the side of the store. In the summertime, I have seen as 96 RESOLUTION 970760 many as 30 or 40 people out there with the drugs, gambling, drinking, and loud noise, cars double-parked, music, blocking the sidewalks, just creating a nuisance. We had an incident of them fighting. And after the police was called to come see about the fight, they didn't come. The fight stopped, then everybody cleared. Then about a half an hour later, guys drove up in cars and just started shooting.
In fact, through Greg Wicks. I met with Lynn Abraham, and was supposed to be part of this new task force that they was forming with community leaders, which I haven't heard anything about. And that's been about two months ago. I haven't heard anything else about it. Also, I am of the 35th District Town Watch organization. I am the Town Watch leader for my area, which is Cedarbrook Neighbors Against Crime 97 RESOLUTION 970760 Town Watch. And we patrol like two nights a week; sometimes with a police escort, sometimes they don't send them. And it is like, the dealers pick up our schedule, what time we are out there. We also, through going talking to Captain O'Brien several times in the last couple of years, we got a two-man patrol that patrols the area, Officers Rodriguez and Redick. But the dealers also know their schedule. They patrol one week from 7:00 to 3:00 a.m., 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and from the next week from, like, 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Yes. So, you know, they come out. And we have eyes and ears Town Watch also, which is reporting these things. I know that you could go to the records of 911 calls and see that we are constantly calling, you know. It is just rough up there, you know. And, also, that Three Two Center, it creates a 98 RESOLUTION 970760 problem. Jerry's Lounge has changed its name, the bar. He has added a restaurant, and the same owner still owns it. He has been pretty cooperative in this last year or so, he has been cooperating with us. He has changed. He has got a dress code now, and I guess because things have happened there. And the D.A.'s Office was investigating them at one time. But it is -- it was a lot of activity in front of the Three Two Center, with the -- they were supposed to be selling different things, the videotapes and all that. But a lot of times it was buying Food Stamps, and exchanging money for Food Stamps. Also, the business at 8014 Ogontz, Lee's Market, he also buys Food Stamps, illegal Food Stamps, and he sells the Blunt cigarettes -- I mean, the Blunt cigars. And he sells single cigarettes, Topp paper, you know. He even at one time was sitting the crates out there so the dealers could sit down and be comfortable, you know. 99 RESOLUTION 970760 And I just don't understand how an organization as strong as that organization, that business organization, why they can't stop those dealers and teenagers from hanging out there. It just, you know -- and I went in there and talked to him and asked him, what could he do about this. Well, he said it doesn't bother him. So, you know, that's my -- and it is a house at 7700 Cedarbrook, right on the corner, side entrance on Upsal Street. That's where they congregate. They seem to get their supplies together, and then come out there and do their deal. All this has all been reported. CHAIRWOMAN TASCO: And nothing has happened.
Over the years, this has been reported. I have been block captain for three years, and this has been reported. This is constantly being reported, and it is nothing being really done. The store is the problem. It needs 100 RESOLUTION 970760 to be -- something needs to be done. Thank you.
Thank you very much for taking the time to come down to testify. Mr. Purnell.
My name is Joseph Purnell, and I represent the 2400 block of 78th Avenue. And I would just like to say, it seems like we are basically all in the same area, Germantown, in our area, West Oak Lane, he is talking about Cedarbrook, Lee's Steak Shop and everything. But the bottom line is this -- and I am going to be very brief -- I am representing three other people that are here with me. One had to leave, her name is Bea Williams, and she lives directly across the street. I am sure you are familiar with her. I also work the polls during elections, and things of this nature. But the bottom line is, like everybody said, nothing is really being done. A lot has been documented as far as of tags, license plates, whatever, you know, you have to go through. 101 RESOLUTION 970760 I have been in that community about 28 years now. We have had our Town Watch. We have operated at the mosque there on Ogontz Avenue and several other places. And the bottom line is, basically, I find as the citizens we are putting ourself on the line. I did come here with a -- we have about 100 homes in our area, and I have three petitions that are signed by neighbors concerning a drug house on our block. And it has been operating, I'd say, about three or four years. Traffic in the front, traffic in the back. And, like this gentleman just stated, you know, the druggies are getting very wise to the police presence. They know when they are there and when they are not there. There are unmarked cars in the area. But a lot of activity comes at nighttime, you know, when people are going to bed, have to go up to go to work the next morning. They are constantly walking -- they were parking at the location, so they stopped parking at the locations at 7-Eleven, which is on 102 RESOLUTION 970760 the corner of Ogontz Avenue, and they walk up to the house. Or they come from Limekiln Pike, and they walk down to the house. There is some evidence of prostitution at the same location. There was a gentleman that died in the location, overdose. His body was taken out by 35th Police District. I think we had spoken to captain -- I'm not sure of his rank now -- Mr. Einhardt, or something. He ran for City Council a couple of -- Erhardt, he was the gentleman that, you know, we were dealing with at the time. But, like I said, basically, again, nothing has really been done. And this is the problem. And as myself and this gentleman, and the other people have spoken, when you bend over backwards -- and I sure can't compete with the lady with what she had, dates and things like that, which was really great -- but the bottom line is, when we go back to the community, when we go back to our neighbors and we tell them what happened, we say we did this, we did that, and a period of time passes, nothing is being done, you go back to these same 103 RESOLUTION 970760 people again for a signature, you ask them to come to the meeting, they look at you like you are crazy. For what? Nothing is being done.
So we lose a lot of contact with the people that we once had as a group. And you say, okay, we did this at the meeting, we discussed that and we did this, Mt. Airy Church of God, here, there, Cedar Park Church, all the churches at the community, and the people in the community. And, like I said, when you go to them again, they give you the cold shoulder, like nothing is being done. We can't do nothing about this. And it gets very frustrating. And the more people you lose, the harder it is to generate those people again. So I guess, basically, what I have to say -- and I just want to make is short; I know it is close to o'clock -- but I did want to come here to represent our block and let you know there is a problem in the blocks and in the neighborhoods. 104 RESOLUTION 970760 Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Would you identify yourself.
Mrs. Tasco, I will be very short and brief. I want to thank you for your previous -- my name is LeRoy Williams. I am from the 2400 block of 78th Avenue. I want to thank you, previously, for your benevolence of coming up to our neighborhood and resolving some of the previous problems that we have had. But this problem that Mr. Purnell is talking about, the drug house, is 2486 78th Avenue. He has covered about every issue, but there is one other thing I would like to say on that issue, is that the neighbor who lived next door to this property was harassed physically by the people who frequented that house. And as a result he has moved away, off the block, and he now rents his house out. On the other side of that, we have petitions that we just have given you that our block, they are taking action on. 105 RESOLUTION 970760 We have over 100 houses, so we have more than 51 percent who favor some sort of constructive action for that property, to be surveillance or whatnot, to find out just what we can do to get rid of that activity. So that's about all that I have to add on to that. And I thank you for allowing us to be here today to air our comments.
Thank you for coming down. Thank you for taking time out to come down. Mr. Delaney. Anyone else here from the community to testify? Because I would like the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, and Mr. Mosee to come back to the table as a summary, after Mr. Delaney finishes his testimony.
Good morning. My name is Roland Delaney. I am a West Philadelphia resident and somewhat of a community activist. I came today. And, fortunately, I heard exactly what I wanted to hear to lead into my particular concerns. As you know, Councillady Tasco, I 106 RESOLUTION 970760 have been after you for a year about a particular concern I had. And I have to say, I don't live in your district, but you were receptive, you gave me consideration, you listened. And as a direct result, we both learned together about the problems that I felt was an ongoing near epidemic problem in my particular community, and I think throughout, from what I have heard here today. Part of the problem that I have heard here don't really apply to, I guess you would call it, the black community, headhouses. That seems to be located primarily in commercial strips such as South Street and areas like that, or Center City, around 13th and Arch, and areas like that. However, in my particular community, and I guess yours and others in the black community, we have a new drug problem that is going unnoticed and that is growing by the day. And it is affecting one of our most important elements in our community. Not the tough guy, the drop-out of school, the kid who don't want to learn. We are 107 RESOLUTION 970760 talking about the ordinary, good kids, or kids who are not problem kids, having access to a new fad, what is called the Blunt. Now, I heard the young lady and I heard the gentlemen and a couple of other people mention finding tobacco laying in the streets and not necessarily seeing crack vials. This is a new dimension that has begun to take over our particular community. Now, what is the Blunt? The Blunt is a Philadelphia, or Philly, cigar. It is called the Blunt. It has the uncanny ability that once you slide or cut open one side, you can pour out the interior aspect of that particular cigar, and then pour in whatever you wish to pour, dope or anything else -- but in this particular case, marijuana or whatever -- and then reroll it with the outer shell of the so-called Blunt cigar. This is what is called the Blunt on the streets. Now, we have young kids who are coming from school every day on the 52nd Street corridor, coming from school, generally high school kids. I mean, all you can smell and see is Blunt. 108 RESOLUTION 970760 I mean, it is brazen, it is public, it is without any apprehension on the part of anyone, and it is going unnoticed. My concern is that because the young kids are not using Topp paper, as mentioned, and other kinds of tobacco or dope paraphernalia, paper, for their new fad, and they are using this Blunt, Philly Blunt, as the new, as far as I am concerned, drug paraphernalia, I would like to see this listed for the purpose of updating drug paraphernalia laws in the City of Philadelphia. Plus, I would like to have that particular -- now, you have this pink -- I guess it is a pink card that I have seen in every store I have gone into, in reference to tobacco sales with teenagers. And it seems to be, whoever circulated it is doing a very good job, because it is all over the place. However, I think being that the stores that are selling the Blunt cigars for 50 cents are not the delis, it is the mom-and-pop stores. And a lot of these businesses are 109 RESOLUTION 970760 Asian or oriental businesses, who just nickel and dime, nickel and dime, they grabbing any penny they can get. And I think that somehow, if we can update not only the drug paraphernalia law, or whatever it may be, to include the Philly Blunt as a drug paraphernalia, I would appreciate that. However, I would even more appreciate if the people who create the Philly Blunt cigar would be called in and ask them can they reconfigurate the cigar so that it cannot be used in such a manner, either/or. And, again, thank you.
Thank you very much. We will tell you that the Blunt is just not a West Philadelphia item; it is all over the City of Philadelphia. You heard people testify about it today. And so we are looking at that, trying to redefine that as part of the drug paraphernalia legislation. It is not as easy, as we have talked about, but we are looking at it. I would like to have Mr. Mosee, 110 RESOLUTION 970760 Commissioner Egan, and Deputy Commissioner Johnson to come back and sort of give us your reaction. Because the people who have testified here today are just small examples of what is happening in the community and why people do get apathetic, people who can move, because ladies such as Mrs. Davis and Gray Smith, they document, they spend a lot of time working on the problem, and the question becomes, letter after letter going back and forth between the police department, the L & I, and nobody does anything about it. And I would just like to know, what do you believe ought to happen not only to her site, but to other sites where you -- if there is a task force, and there is some communication going on, how, when you see the flurry of correspondence and requests on a particular area, can't something be done about it?
With regard to the complaint in your district, I am happy to report that there ultimately was effective intervention. And I know that, because of time constraints, she wasn't able to get to that. Nevertheless, it took too long. And 111 RESOLUTION 970760 that's problematic in my mind, and it should be problematic in your mind. I think what we have brought to the table today is a clear procedure that calls of that nature should be made to the District Attorney's Office. And let me just go into some of the specifics with regard to her situation. A lot of calls were made to the district captain. The district captains really don't have the wherewithal in terms of the expertise of their officers, and in terms of what the officers can do with regard to narcotics-related activity to effectively intervene. And what we do when we get the information is, we contact the correct components in the Philadelphia Police Department.
But if it is given to the captain, and the captain can't take action, does the captain send it to you, or it just stays there and he just says, "I can't do anything about it"?
I would only be speculating if I tried to answer that question. 112 RESOLUTION 970760 But let me say this: That the entity from the police department that is actually a part of the task force is that entity which directly impacts upon drug problems. That's the Narcotics Fields Unit, Captain Arthur Woodie, is actually a part of the task force. And what he would do is, he would take his people, who, as I indicated earlier, are decentralized. And they would actually impact upon the problem through appropriate surveillance techniques. And they would use all of the techniques that are at the disposal of law enforcement to combat this peculiar crime. Because everybody knows it is a different kind of crime. We don't have readily identifiable victims who can come in and testify in court, as you would with a robbery or burglary. And I didn't say that there aren't victims; they are just not the kind of victims whose testimony in and of itself would be sufficient to bring a property down. I empathize with her. Because I will go past a corner, and I will see something going on, 113 RESOLUTION 970760 and I will know it is drug activity. But what I have seen doesn't constitute sufficient evidence to bring the problem down. And I know we all have the same reaction. Everybody in the neighborhood knows that this is a drug location. Everybody knows exactly what they are doing. But if they went into court and described with as much specificity as they possibly could exactly what they saw, there would be an acquittal. Because the only way to win a drug case is to take drugs into the courtroom. And if we are going to be able to do that, we have to use undercover activity, we have to use confidential informants, surveillance. And that's what the Narcotics Field Unit can do. So by contacting us, we contact the right entity. And let me say this, that I am very encouraged after having met with new Deputy Commissioner Sylvester Johnson. And we have discussed these situations, and I believe that there is going to be even better communication between the task force and that entity in the police department that can really 114 RESOLUTION 970760 have an impact on the problem.
It seems to me that the three of you sitting here should be the driving force to make sure that you come together. And you may and should probably have some interaction with the courts, to let them know the magnitude of the problem in the community. So when these cases get before them, they have some sense of understanding what the community is feeling. We did the same thing about that meeting with the judges over the issue of lead paint, and landlords who don't remove lead paints, and the problems associated with that, so that they understand what's happening. The other thing is, if it is a nuisance, and under the nuisance legislation you take away the Business Privilege License, that seems to be a little bit separate from dealing with the drug activity. If the community, and however you go in and say that this is creating a problem in the neighborhood -- because that was the intent of the legislation. 115 RESOLUTION 970760 The community says, this business is a problem. Georgia Davis and her neighbors have said, this place is a problem, it is a nuisance, it is creating a problem for us. The owner is allowing people to loiter in front of his store. They harass people coming in and out of the store. It seems to me that you should be able to take away his right to do business in that area. And that is why we introduced that, because we knew we were having problems prosecuting them for drugs, because you have to go into court and prove that they were -- the drugs were really being dealt. And the owner says, well, they were outside the store; they weren't in the store. But the store itself becomes the vehicle for these people to stay in front of their store, because people are going there. You close the store, they move some place else. Same thing with Peter's on Ogontz Avenue. It is the vehicle whereby these drug dealers use their drugs. The facility is a problem. 116 RESOLUTION 970760 And what we want, as Councilman Kenney said, close them down, worry about what happens later. They have to get a message it can't be business as usual. These people are very frustrated. And we have tried to talk to the business owners. We tried the Three Two Center on Cheltenham Avenue, we tried to talk to them, tell them what the problem was. They don't care. They don't live in the city. They don't live in the neighborhood. All they do is come in and collect money and take it out of the city, and create a problem for us in our community. People do become apathetic, they do want to move, and then they get assessed 15 percent increase in their real estate taxes. And so what I am saying to you and the Councilpeople here are saying, you all have to find a way to make and to do better. It just can't be business as usual. You have to take drastic action. Because we are tired. And there are so many other wonderful things about this city, and this thing here is just 117 RESOLUTION 970760 paralyzing our communities. And so we don't want, I don't want, Mrs. Davis from 1996 -- and that area, that store is still there. They just had a shooting there 30 days ago. 30 days ago. The problem hasn't been solved; it is still a problem. And the whole issue of them changing the owner's name is another problem that we need to figure out how we deal with. Because they will just go and get another family member and put it in their name. So that has to be addressed. You just can't say, well, that's a problem. We have to figure it is a problem, and how do we address it. You all are responsible for that. And tell us what you need. If you can't do it in the city, we tell our state folks what to do. If they can't do it, we tell the congressional reps what to do. But we have to have some action taken so these people can feel that the quality of life is much better for them. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I agree with you.
118 RESOLUTION 970760 And I think one of the things that I found in the short period of time that I have been here is that there has been a lot of cooperation, but not a whole lot of communication. And meeting with Mr. Mosee and a lot of the other people, I think we are in the process of communicating with one another. We work very closely with Licenses & Inspections and with the District Attorney's Office. I just met last week with Mr. Wicks. We were up there at the Wadsworth community program. We are reaching out to the community at this point to find out exactly what their concerns are. And hopefully, in the near future, that we can start working as a unit, I know the District Attorney -- not the District Attorney, but the DEA, with the FBI, with other groups. Because I think drug enforcement in Philadelphia is every law enforcement person's responsibility, not just the Narcotics Unit. And I am working towards that. I say I am looking forward to that. And we will do everything we can throughout the Philadelphia Police Department to 119 RESOLUTION 970760 work in conjunction with L & I and the District Attorney's Office, so we can make a difference in Philadelphia.
Commissioner. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yes. Madam Chairwoman, I share your frustrations and anxiety, as do all the people in the department. And we will work to use the enforcement abilities that we have, to the best that we can, in a more cooperative way than we have been. And we hear what you are saying, and we are going to continue to work towards that end.
Well, if the rules under which you can enforce are not strong enough, then you need to come back to us and tell us what you need. The community has spoken for many, many years. You don't have to go too far to know what their frustrations are. And these people today just mirror what's being said throughout the city. And what's happened, people have stopped coming forth. We don't have many drug meetings 120 RESOLUTION 970760 anymore. Do you know why? Because as the gentleman said over there, because they said, we go and nothing really happens, and they become apathetic about it. And they are right, because nothing happens. Councilman Rizzo, do you have any comments?
What can be done about cars that are putting their license tags in the windows? A lot of these drug cars don't even have tags. But a lot of them are in the windows, where you cannot visibly see the tag number. And I am seeing more and more cars in Philadelphia with the tags stuck up in the window, fender, bumper hanging off, windows out, driving with illegal tags, registrations expired '95, '96. And it just seems like it is being more and more cars. It is basically like the drug 121 RESOLUTION 970760 problem, nothing is being done to get these cars off the streets.
Many people put their license plates, unfortunately, even the good guys have to do it. Because if you park your car in front of your home, in the morning you wake up and somebody with a tin sheer steals the sticker. So after you have gone through that a couple of times. I have written a letter to the Police Commissioner. Have you noticed also that many people are using these tinted license plate covers to obliterate the license plates? So I asked the Commissioner. And, Commissioner Johnson, maybe you can follow up on it, that is a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code. And I believe there is a representative of the Pennsylvania State Police here. And it surprises me to see the lack of enforcement on tinted windows, on obstructions of the license plates. Because if there is a crime 122 RESOLUTION 970760 committed, I want to be able to grab the license plate to provide that information to law enforcement. And without that information, the bad guys might get away. So I would hope that the police department would start enforcing the Motor Vehicle Code. When those vehicles with those tinted license plate covers are observed, that they are ticketed appropriately to the Motor Vehicle Code. And I would hope that the Pennsylvania State Police would subsequently do the same thing, and make sure that inspection agencies know that that is a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code. But you are right, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Is there anyone else to testify on this resolution? There being no further business, this committee is going to recess. We are not going to adjourn; we will recess to the call of the Chair. Thank you very much. (Public Hearing adjourned at 1:15 123 RESOLUTION 970760 p.m.) - - - 124 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, January 28, 1998, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES and LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS _____________________________________ DEBRA A. WHITEHEAD, RPR