I suppose it is something we could look into. I don't know what the legal implications of that are.
Now let's go to the parking garage. Will Philadelphia Police be able to go into a private garage, Parking Authority, private sector, and issue that $300 ticket?
We did that, I think, as a result of the last hearing, we did an amendment to that effect.
Is the Police Department aware that they would be doing that in private property? And does the state allow that to occur? 139 BILL NOS. 358 and 359
Does the Police Department know that they would have to enter private property to issue --
I have not had conversations with the Police Department. I don't know if the Councilman DiCicco has.
It is in the bill. If I can read Point G, "City of Philadelphia police officers and Philadelphia Parking Authority officials shall be authorized to enter public garages for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the subsection," so on and so forth.
How would that work? Would the pecking order be your enforcement people before the police?
Generally, where there is a parking facility on a current enforcement beat, that would be added to their patrol.
And one of your tow trucks would enter the private parking lot?
There aren't provisions to tow from private facilities; it is just to 140 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 ticket.
Mr. Chairman, are you aware of that? I am sure you are aware of that. No provision to tow in private parking lots.
I don't believe that that is a provision of the bill; just ticket.
Not in the bill. I don't know if there are some liability issues about towing cars off of private properties. I think that may be an issue.
But the police currently tow, with permission from the owner, off of private property. So why would this be any different?
I am just saying that it is not currently a provision of the bill, as I understand it.
If you illegally block a dumpster in an apartment complex, the owner has pre-authorized the towing contractor in his community, because the signs are posted --
But in those cases -- I am not being argumentative -- but in those cases they are properly posted, so-and-so towing service, 141 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 illegal parking by authorization of the condo association, towing will be by such and such towing. I don't know -- again, I am not an attorney -- so I don't know if we could physically go on there, and if we would want to go on there.
I am not suggesting that the City of Philadelphia. I am suggesting, like Councilwoman Miller just said, she can't imagine why there would have to be a difference. Why couldn't we post those handicapped spots as being eligible, if the owner of the parking, the management of the parking facility, called and said, "We have a person that is parked illegally in a handicapped spot," have that vehicle removed?
I think that's a different question, Councilman DiCicco. The question initially was, I think, could the police or the Parking Authority tow from private property. Private property owners currently have the ability to contract with a private tow 142 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 operator to tow vehicles from their property. I'm not aware of any situation in which the police, and I know the Parking Authority, has not towed from private property.
But the police and Parking Authority do have the authority, will have the authority, to go write a $300 ticket.
And if it is properly posted that way, that spot or those spaces are properly posted, I think there is a disincentive, as you suggested earlier, for someone to park in that space.
But if the signage indicated that you are subject to, if you violate, fine and towing, I think that would put some additional teeth into the legislation.
That's currently an option that's available to the garage owner. If they want to post it to say, You will be towed by XYZ Towing Company, they have the prerogative to do that now under the building code.
But they would still have the prerogative if in fact they were 143 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 violating that handicapped spot?
Again, I don't want to belabor this. But I think what happens here is similar to what happens at a shopping center, Acme Market. You have areas that are dedicated to accessible handicapped parking. And if you park on there currently, you get a 75 or 100 dollar ticket I think now.
Hundred dollars is it? I wouldn't have any problem with somebody could tow someone's car. I just don't know if the city wants to enforce that, because I think we may have some serious problems on liability. But, again, not being an attorney, I just hesitate about that.
I am looking down the road on the community that has those spots reserved, when we get the phone call saying that someone has parked, even though they have gotten the ticket -- 144 BILL NOS. 358 and 359
-- in a garage, that the law is different than the law that exists out on the street.
But it is a public street versus a private garage. And I think that's --
I don't have the answer, either. I am saying, we are imposing legislation on the parking.
Can we agree that if it is the desire of this committee to vote these out, and then we can investigate that and always come back at a later date to amend it, if we have to?
I don't want to 145 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 beat it to death here.
It will take us to February before we can get back to get another hearing. So rather than do that, take it under advisement. Fair enough? Councilwoman Miller.
I have two quick questions for you around accessibility, ADA. Who monitors accessible parking in private lots? Is that up to the owners?
Do you mean who monitors whether they have the appropriate number of spaces?
Like, I see in this bill, in public lots, there are a required number of accessible spaces. Is there the same type of requirement in private lots because of ADA?
All off-street parking facilities are under the same requirements in the ADA to provide a certain number of standard handicapped parking spaces and van-accessible spaces. And it is based on the total capacity of the garage. And that's regardless of whether it 146 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 is a public or a privately owned garage.
Okay. And one other question for Rich, the Parking Authority. The bill that we talked about today in terms of towing vehicles illegally parked on sidewalks.
We are going to go back to the previous bill. I think Mr. Jordan may want to stick around for this.
Right. Bill 11 No. 673. So I assume that the Philadelphia Parking Authority or the Police Department will come out and tow the vehicles that are illegally parked on sidewalks?
That would be what the bill requests, yes. Currently we tow cars off of sidewalks if they are in established tow zones. If they are outside of the boundaries of established tow districts, we do not tow them. This bill would create sidewalk parking as a towable offense no matter where it was located.
Now, honestly, the same response that I gave to Councilman Rizzo in terms of towing out of reserved spaces. We have the facilities and the equipment to tow in Center City and parts of University City. I could not promise that in every instance we would be able to tow citywide every car that was parked on a sidewalk.
Okay. So that, I guess, the responsibility will be between the Parking Authority and the Police Department?
Okay. When someone parks in a driveway -- and I know that's different than parking it on the sidewalk -- but if they block the driveway of a private home, someone told me that you can actually call a tow truck, a towing company, and get that car towed. You know, you have to pay for it personally. Do you know if that's true or not? In fact, it was a police officer that said that.
I don't know for sure. I don't want to hazard a guess, and it might be 148 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 wrong. My understanding was that it must be towed by a city official, unless the city contracted for a specific towing responsibility, such as they have done with abandoned vehicles. But from the street, I'm just not sure. I didn't think it was possible, but it may be. That would be a question for the City Solicitor, I guess. I am not qualified to answer it.
Okay. We will ask that. Because you know that is a problem. Just like people park on sidewalks and block pedestrians, they also park in drive in front of driveways and block in cars and residents. And that's a big problem in my district. So, okay. All right. Thank you.
I was just moving the speaker in place. I didn't have any questions.
Any other questions 149 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 for these witnesses? Hearing none. Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? If so, please approach the witness table. Thank you very much, Mr. Margulies. Thank you very much for your cooperation. And I really appreciate your input in helping us. Same to you Ms. Faux. And give my best to Ms. Russo.
May I ask one question? It was too good to be true that I wasn't going to ask any. One question. These used car dealers who throughout the city seem to feel that they can use the sidewalks --
Councilman Cohen, these folks were here testifying on the handicapped parking bills. We did that sidewalk bill about a half hour ago. We had spoke about that. If you have a question, I mean, I might be able to answer it it for you. But the people who were here to testify are all gone on that bill. 150 BILL NOS. 358 and 359
They do ticketing, I guess. If you have a question for Mr. Dickson, I guess you can raise it.
Well, let me just raise the question, then you handle it --
-- as you see appropriate. I was just wondering about the situation. We get many complaints about used car dealers who use the sidewalks in front of their properties as additional space for placing cars with Sale signs.
Let me try to answer that, Mr. Dickson, first. Existing legislation says that you are not, A, supposed to park your car on the sidewalk. The bill that we heard testimony on today, Bill No. 673, will go one step further and say that the police then would have the authorization to tow that vehicle, as well as ticket 151 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 that vehicle. About a year or two ago I introduced a bill, and this committee voted out favorably and it was ultimately passed, that increases the fine for sale of a car on a public highway and/or sidewalk to $300. And I believe on that same bill I believe that it also authorizes the city to tow that vehicle. The problem we had, as I found out, is that the Philadelphia Traffic Court did not have that violation as on the ticket book. So the police, when they took the time to write those violations, were only writing a $25 fine for sale of a car on a highway. And I understand from my conversations with the Administrative Judge at Traffic Court, Judge DeAngelis, that in this new set of ticket books that are being printed, it will reflect the new code and the new fine, which is $300. And hopefully the enforcement will discourage that from happening.
Now, which, if 152 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 any, of the matters you referred to would in your judgment deal with the used-car dealer who uses his immediate sidewalk?
I think both. The bill that we heard testimony on today, 673, and the previous bill, which Council passed a year or two ago, that says it is illegal to sell a car on a highway in the City of Philadelphia.
Now, again, that's, I guess, up to interpretation. One bill today says if you have a car parked on the sidewalk, you are subject to a fine and towing. So they can do that, or they can just write the $300 ticket for having a sale of a car. I understand the technicality "highway" versus "sidewalk." But I think both bills will cover one or the other.
Yes, Councilman. And we received a letter from your 153 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 office the end of last week indicating a number of locations where that's a problem. And we have people visiting them this week to tell them that that practice needs to end or we will begin enforcing the prohibition of parking on the sidewalk.
Very good. I am getting a very prompt answer to our letters. We appreciate it from the Parking Authority.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dickson. Any other witnesses, please come forward, whoever they are. Bruise McElrad, Jennifer DePaul, Jessie Jane Lewis, and Laura whose last name the clerk can't remember. You can come up together, any way you would like. You can all come up. Thank you for your patience in waiting for these hearings to go on. Thank you.
I don't know 154 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 what you guys do in terms of going to the bathroom.
You need to, if you can, put that microphone a little closer to you so we can hear you. And please identify yourself for the record and spell your last name.
Please do bring it as close, say, as I have it to mind.
I commend City Council on the work that has been done to write this ordinance. It is a very good next step toward resolving this parking meter problem. We are moving towards the answer, but I don't think we are there quite yet. I am active in the voting rights campaign in our city and nationally. People with disabilities are now looking at what our elected 155 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 officials are doing for us. Will the proposed ordinance make it easier for people with disabilities to park in town? Probably not. Is the city doing anything to stop the abuse that is taking place? With the proposed ordinance, would tourists with disabilities and their families view Philadelphia as a destination city, or one to, quote, avoid at all costs? Would the ordinance make it easier for people with disabilities to live or work here? Probably not. Would it be easier to shop here? Probably not. We do take longer to do things, this is true. But it is not just the extra hour, but the extra effort. It takes me about five times as much effort to come here, down to this City Council meeting, to testify, for example, than the average person. If I had to return to my car at Logan Square to feed the meter, I would probably just bag 156 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 the whole thing. Or, here is another question. Is it a disabled person's right to shop here, or should Philadelphia just say no to the disabled? A present day Mississippi for people with disabilities, as a friend of mine recently put it. Is this an image Philadelphia wants to portray? We have to be very careful here that the rights of the people you are trying to help are not forfeited. We can't micro manage it all. Jennifer DePaul's letter to Patrick Mulligan shows reasoned thinking. It attempts to examine this issue carefully. I am assuming this is what City Hall is doing, examining carefully and to recognize that nondisabled people cannot make choices for us that we would not make for ourselves. I and others would gladly serve on a committee to help pin these ideas down further. About the abuse. In Philadelphia, many nondisabled people have been taking advantage of free parking at meters, and frequently stay all day, occupying spaces for those who really need them 157 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 and costing the city money. We all agree there is abuse of the system. Let's find away to foil the cheaters. The HP tags and placard system is not a reliable way to identify those who are truly handicapped. A city sticker, which is not automatically renewable, may be an easy solution. One might be more stringent -- one with more stringent requirements, perhaps a narrative report by a doctor with his name, address and phone and signature, and a yearly renewal period like we presently have in our motor vehicle inspections, where a sticker is also required. So what would the criteria be? How can meter-readers determine whether to give tickets or not? Before we get a sticker system in place, where would we begin? Well, the disability must be permanent, no placards. , a special seat, a scooter or wheelchair lift, plainly visible, that would be easy ones for the meter readers to 158 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 spot and would be -- and people should be allowed to park all day in those circumstances. Placards would possibly allow extending the time for one hour. Other disabled people, though, who don't use hand controls, for example, clearly need the extra accommodation. Take Roger Margulies, head of the Mayor's Commission on People With Disabilities. He can walk, albeit with difficulty sometimes, and he drives without hand controls. His disability is permanent. He already has the HP tags, license tags. He could simply apply for the yearly HP windshield sticker for his car. The lower meters, the reserved HP meters in spots, will not solve the problem. Although many people with disabilities cannot use conventional meters, able bodied people will be able to bend down to use the handicapped meter.
So I don't think it is an issue -- it will solve the issue. My daughter, a Masterman student, is interested in law, and recently sent her early application in to Brown University. 159 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 They required her to write an essay on something, a timely issue, that the applicant feels strongly about. She chose the issue that we are here discussing today. Here is the conclusion of her essay: We have all witnessed countless occasions where a perfectly able bodied person has parked in a handicapped spot. I have experienced times, however, when a handicapped parking space is essential or when not having to pay the meter is vital. By repealing the ordinance, it is true that those abusing the situations would be punished. But it is also true that those who really need those spots would be punished, too, and perhaps more severely. Certainly more time and thought need to be put into this before measures are taken. Thank you.
Listening to your testimony, I think a number of the issues that you 160 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 raised we have been trying to deal with for a while.
And most of the comments that you made I believe are issues that we need to address at the state level. I certainly believe, and agree with you, that a better system of issuing placards, plates, stickers, what-have-you, is in need. There is no question to that. And I have, as I said earlier, been working with Senator Fumo's office. And we are trying to see what it is we can do at the state level. But given the constraints of what we can do at the local level, I don't have a crystal ball. You may be right, we may not be creating a better environment than exists today. We may not be creating an opportunity for disabled people to have more time to shop. I don't know. I know what goes on today. I see it with my own eyes. I have walked the streets. I am throughout Center City six, seven days a week, 161 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 morning, afternoon, and evening. And I see the abuse. And what I am hoping is that by eliminating or significantly reducing the abuse, we then raise the availability of spaces for those who are truly disabled. And in Bill 358, we in that bill 9 identify the fact that there will be people who may have vehicles that have wheelchair lifts and/or hand-held devices. And those folks would still be allowed and permitted to park at a meter free all day. I believe I am correct in my interpretation -- or, no. Well, we were thinking of taking that out. But because of the issues that have been raised, we are leaving that in.
That's good. My suggestion for the stickers, it would be a city sticker.
I don't know. And I am not an attorney, and I just don't know that we can do that. I certainly would be more than interested in continuing to investigate. Should 162 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 this get voted out of committee favorably and be passed by City Council, in my mind it is not the end. I just think it is a good beginning. And I would be more than willing to continue to work with all the interested parties to figure out what we can do at the local level, as well as the state level.
Well, there are people that are following me, and I feel that I am --
Logan Circle. I parked near the fountain; by the library, by the fountain.
It is because I travel 163 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 enough times to Center City that I know that if I haven't found a spot by then, probably I won't. So I sort of -- I saw a spot open up, I just grabbed it. And luckily today I just scooted right in.
I just appreciate your testimony, and certainly can identify with some of what you said. I have a daughter who had a leg amputated. So I used to drive her around. And so I have personally encountered some of the same situations that you have, and other people have, that are trying to find an accessible space, you know, with the wheelchair in the trunk and all the other things. So I think that this bill is an important bill. And it does kind of start to address some of the issues that will ultimately hopefully get changed. So I do think it is the beginning. And I think maybe the accessible parking spaces that the Parking Authority is going to install on blocks might also help eventually. Because right now there is none. I can't think of 164 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 any on-street meters that are reserved.
Then what would prevent the person, an able bodied person with a handicapped tag, parking in those metered?
But my question, if I can interrupt, you parked near Logan Circle, you said?
I have a vehicle with sort of a star-wars-type ramp that goes out.
Under this ordinance -- and I am not certain what your vehicle looks like -- but if it was a vehicle that had an obvious lift on it -- 165 BILL NOS. 358 and 359
-- then you could park anywhere you could find a parking space, obviously, free. I know it is not just about you.
I am just citing that as an example. But also, even with that vehicle, because there are so many other people who have handicapped placards and plates -- and we know this to be a fact, although we can't just enforce it properly -- are parked properly closer to City Hall than you parked today, and they shouldn't have a handicapped placard or plate. But the point is, they are taking up, possibly taking up, valuable spaces from people who are truly in need of the space.
I am so thrilled that you are addressing, trying to address, these issues. And when you go down the street, and nowadays I am taking notice -- I wasn't always disabled -- and I am taking notice of, it is every 166 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 other space is taken up by a person who is --
As I stated earlier, recent reports, 1995, 1997 was whatever the numbers were. At that time I think recent reports are -- correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Dickson -- around the 60 percent, 65 percent percentile in the core of Center City --
41 percent in the core of Center City meaning river to river, Arch Street to South Street, I guess, is Center City. Over 40 percent of those spaces are occupied on a daily basis full time by somebody with a placard or plate, 60-something percent in Center City along Chestnut Street alone. And I am an observer, and I know what they do. I saw the car from Jersey that had a tag that expired in December of 1997. They stuck a placard on the dashboard that said, "Handicapped New 167 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 Jersey Driver." And that's the end of it for eight hours. And they are taking up everyone's space, illegally.
I just had a comment with regard to concerns about people parking in these designated handicapped metered spaces who have the plates and placards illegitimately. The only benefit to parking in those spaces, if this passes, is a physical one, that it's with an accessible meter and near a curb cut. So if I as a nondisabled person have a handicapped placard that I obtained illegitimately, there would be no benefit to me parking there because I would still have to pay, just as I would --
You would still have to pay, and you would have to move it within three hours. So you are not going to park it at 8 o'clock in the morning, go to your place of employment, and leave it there until 5:00 or 6 168 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 o'clock, when you leave. And that's what's happening. There are many examples. And what brought this to my attention was the 700 block of Sansom Street, where somewhere between and of 7 the metered parking spaces on that block are 8 occupied Monday through Friday -- and I guess this 9 time of the year Monday through Sunday -- by 10 vehicles that have handicapped placards or plates. 11 And I physically observed people who 12 got out of their car, walked two, three blocks to 13 work. 14 Some of the merchants who complain 15 they are not doing business in the city because 16 taxes are too high and all these other problems, 17 they have these handicapped plates from New Jersey, 18 Delaware, wherever they are, and they run their 19 businesses. I don't think it is fair to any of us. 20 And I know you and I are agreeing on 21 that. I am just making a comment. 22 And this, we hope, will eliminate 23 some of that, thereby freeing up available on-street parking, which is what meters were created to do to get the turnover. 169 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 And we are still going to provide the hour grace period for those folks who have a placard and plate.
Here is another idea. That I think the bigger issue is that we don't have enough off-street parking. And, I mean, I know you are endeavoring to find better ways to resolve that, as well. But I just think that would be -- I didn't address this in my actual testimony.
That's a very good point. And I won't get into any further debate. But we don't want to really talk about revenue. But revenue, everything affects revenue. And in that 1995 or 1997 survey, in the core of Center City -- and I described what the core was -- unpaid legal parking accounted for between and a half and million dollars in lost revenues in meters alone. Now, the Parking Authority could use that money to do a lot of things with, and maybe possibly create new off-street parking facilities. I mean, that's a significant amount of money. 170 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 And, again, I don't want to reduce this to being a fining mill and a money situation. But the reality is, the majority of those people out there are really not entitled to be parking there, and they make life miserable for all of us, including loss of major revenue to the City of Philadelphia. Thank you, Ms. Lewis. Have a nice day. Sir, I think did you want to testify? Sir, would you please identify yourself. MR. BRUCE McELRATH: My name is Bruce McElrath, M-C-E-L-R-A-T-H. And I represent Disabilities Rights Advocacy Group. First of all, I want to thank you for this opportunity to present my testimony in reference to Bills 358 and 359. 359 I am definitely in favor of, because it would help to mandate and enforce the mandate of handicapped parking spaces that should be in parking lots. It would also allow the Philadelphia Police Department and the Philadelphia Parking Authority to go in and ticket those individuals that 171 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 illegally park in handicapped spaces. So I applaud you on that measure. However, Bill 358, which will basically take away free parking from persons with disabilities because of abusive parking or illegal parking by those who are not disabled, first of all, I will agree that there is a lot and widespread abusive parking with handicapped spaces. However, I don't view this as a city problem; I think it comes from the state. When you look at the placards that the Department of Transportation issues to individuals, those placards are good for five years. In the Year 2000, if I am issued a placard or my spouse is issued a placard, and my spouse is deceased in the Year 2001, that's four additional years that that able-bodied spouse has to use that handicapped placard, whether it is legal or illegal. I think one of the ways on cutting down on this abusive parking is if the Department of Transportation limited that expiration date to one year, where each person would have to reapply after 172 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 a year for that handicapped placard. I look at the 70 percent of the disabled population is unemployed. In 1990, the Americans With Disabilities Act was passed. That act was not to, in essence, give the store away to persons with disabilities. But it was a piece of legislation that was put in place to kind of level the playing field for persons with disabilities to help mainstream them back into society. When I get up in the morning, I am independent. And I applaud that right of being independent. But it would take me longer to get dressed because of my disability than it would an able-bodied person. Thus, when I park at a parking meter, and I am given the privilege of being able to park there for free, what that helps me to do, or what it helps to do, is level the playing field. If an able-bodied person is at work or at various places, and would have to come out every three hours to feed a parking meter, it would be much easier for them. 173 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 Because they don't have to take into consideration hills. They don't have to take into consideration maybe the lack of a curb cut. They may not would even have to take into consideration in inclement weather when there is snow, and the city cleans the streets and piles the snow up in front of a curb cut.
Or if you go to various parking lots, such as some of the parking malls, and the handicapped spaces there are filled with snow, where they have plowed the lot to clear the lot for other patrons, not taking into account that disabled people shop, too. When you look at the City of Philadelphia as being the fifth largest city in the nation, who at one time was an industrial city, and now is going into tourism, when we look at the economics that possibly making the City of Philadelphia a disability-friendly city would bring in. Disabled people spend money, as well. But they can only do that if they are afforded the opportunities as able-bodied people are. 174 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 When you look at the laws that are currently on the books, and we talk about enforcement, we all know that it is illegal for an able-bodied person to park in handicapped spot, but in essence it happens. When you call the Police Department to ask them to come and ticket that individual, that priority is so low on the list, until your call is never answered. So you still have people that are abusing the system. I think that we should all work together in trying to overcome this handicap abuse. But I don't think that people that are in desperate need of a service or an accommodation should be punished for a few of those who refuse to abide by the law. So I ask your consideration. I offer you a challenge. Fortunately, many of you do not have physical disabilities. But I ask that before you consider passing this piece of legislation, that you honestly consider, if at all possible, doing your day's work in a wheelchair, trying to accomplish your everyday 175 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 mission in a wheelchair. Each and every one of you that I face today have people in your districts that you represent that have disabilities, some through no 6 fault of their own. , and was robbed and shot four times, thus enabling me in the condition that I am in now. It never dawned on me the importance of a curb cut until I became an individual that had to utilize a wheelchair for mobility. Now that curb cut is very important to me because it gives me my independence to travel on a sidewalk safely, so that I don't have to roll in the street and possibly be hit by a car. So I ask that before you make this decision of taking free parking away from individuals that have disabilities, I ask that you strongly consider the other instances that one has to take into account, and that is the efforts that one has to put forth in a wheelchair to even go back and pay a meter; to get in and out of a car having 176 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 to fold up a wheelchair, pull it across you, put it in the back seat, put yourself in a position where you are able to drive a car, close a door. The other thing that I ask you to look upon is, fortunately, I have a pretty good income. So it doesn't matter to me if I have to pay a parking lot, or even if I have to use a parking garage to pay or dollars. I am in Center City 10 practically every day. 11 But for those people that have to 12 come to Center City that are on limited incomes, I 13 ask you to take in mind that if they are disabled 14 and they are not able to use a parking meter and 15 have to refeed a meter, and then not even so much 16 the fact of refeeding the meter, but only able to 17 park there for three hours, which would in turn make 18 them park or utilize a garage, to have to pay 15 or 19 20 dollars a day is a large amount of money for a 20 person on a fixed income. When you look at senior citizens that may drive, that may have disabilities, and they go to a doctor's office, you may have a o'clock appointment, but nobody is guaranteed that you are going to get seen by a doctor at o'clock. 177 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 Sometimes it is o'clock before you can even see a doctor to come back out of that office.
4 I parked in a parking lot today -- it 5 is going to cost me about 15 or 20 dollars -- just to exercise my right to come here and give testimony at a Public Hearing. If I was on a low income, I could not afford that. Don't ask me to take public transportation or to utilize the Paratransit service. Because anybody knows that they have done better, but the service is not what it should be. You may catch a Paratransit van that may take you to your destination, but may not come back to pick you up. You may try to catch a bus in which a wheelchair lift is not working and may be passed by. So all of these obstacles that are put in people's way that have disabilities, I ask that you members give strong consideration. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else who wishes to testify? 178 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 And also, sir, I just want to comment that, as you may have heard my earlier statement to Ms. Lewis, that I will continue to work, I am sure this committee will be willing to work with me, even at the state level. And I agree on those issues. I think there should be periodic reexamination or reissuance of placards or plates or maybe a sticker system. I certainly think that that would probably eliminate more than a significant amount of the problems that we are encountering with those folks who are abusing the system. I think that's our biggest problem out there, I really do. And this may not be the best solution to it. And obviously we had a disagreement at least on one of the bills. I understood you to say you do support 359, but you have a problem with 358. I said at the onset, this is not a perfect solution to the problem. But, in my opinion, I think it gets us a little further away. And I think it really heightens the awareness to the people at PennDOT or the state who issue all these placards and plates, I mean, literally with very little investigation at all, to 179 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 my knowledge. And we can bring some of this testimony with us when we go speak to those folks at the state level.
For the record, I think it might be an interesting concept that since we all agree that the issuance and the process that's used in issuing the handicapped placards and license plates, maybe you would consider a letter, you as the Chairman and we as the members, to the Governor asking for some immediate relief for evaluation of the process. I would be more than happy to support a letter like that to Harrisburg.
I think we could do the letter. But I still think it would require an act of the state legislature to do that. And that's why I am working with Senator Fumo's office, to see if we can at least begin to make a working committee, similar we did at the city level, to address those issues and come up with something that makes more sense than what we have today.
From what I 180 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 understand, like the Parking Authority made an adjustment here today on the way that these meters would be viewed that would be placed in the district, business districts, that PennDOT also has the authority to make certain adjustments to the program as it exists. So I believe administratively many of the issues that we have concerns with would not require the legislature's involvement. So I don't think we want to limit it to the Secretary of Transportation --
I am not limiting anything. I said I am open for discussion, and I am willing to continue to work with the appropriate folks to figure out what we need to do at the state level. And if it is a letter to the Governor, fine. I think a letter to the Governor will initiate him to say, Go talk to so and so. 181 BILL NOS. 358 and 359
Maybe there are certain things internally that they can do.
Thank you. Thank you, sir, again. And the next witness, please. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record. MS. JENNIFER DePAUL: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Jennifer DePaul, and I am an advocate with the Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association. To my right is Laura Schronger, the Regional Administrator for EPVA. I realize it is a late hour, and I will try to be brief with our comments. Thank you for the opportunity to present comments on the proposed amendments to Bill 19 No. " I am speaking on behalf of the Eastern Paralyzed Veterans' Association, or EPVA, a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to enhancing the lives of veterans with spinal cord injury or disease by assuring quality health care, 182 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 promoting research, and advocating for civil rights and independence. Last June, EPVA submitted written comments and presented testimony to the members of the Streets Committee. At that time we recommended that Council investigate more proactive means to address the parking needs of both the disabled community and business owners in Philadelphia. Before preparing written comments for this committee, EPVA researched other cities and discovered that there are technological and creative solutions which could be examined before the city altered its existing ordinance on handicapped parking. We feel that the current version of Bill 358 contains several of these technological and creative solutions that EPVA has supported for the past six months. In fact, it is our opinion that this ordinance, with the proposed amendments, coincides with both the spirit and intent of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The primary issue at hand pertains to 183 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 the exemption for physically handicapped persons and disabled or severely disabled veterans from parking time limits and parking meter fees. The proposed ordinance provides that a motor vehicle bearing a handicapped or disabled plate or placard may park free of charge for a period of 60 minutes in excess of the maximum time limit, rather than for an unlimited period of time, on streets where parking is limited, but not prohibited, under certain terms and conditions. This position is identical to that outlined in Pennsylvania Vehicle Law. As we stated last June, EPVA supports equal access to all services provided by state and local government agencies, as outlined in Title 2 of the ADA. Since the committee's last review of this ordinance, several changes have been proposed which in EPVA's opinion are beneficial to all parties involved. The first proposed amendment involves the installation of accessible parking meters, which will be usable by persons with disabilities throughout the city. Additionally, the city will create 184 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 one reserved accessible parking space to be located on the shortest accessible route of travel to the closest accessible curb ramp on each hundred block in the City of Philadelphia on which there is metered parking. We feel that both of these amendments are examples of proactive steps which will enable people with disabilities who drive in the city to park in metered spaces, have an extra hour accommodation at no charge because of mobility limitations, and subsequently participate in their communities and be active members in society. EPVA would like to take this opportunity, however, to urge the Parking Authority to ensure that the accessible features of these parking meters are properly maintained, as mandated by federal law. This includes both the removal of snow and debris from the area surrounding these meters and also ensuring that all technological means of providing access to these meters are fully investigated. The ability of individuals with disabilities to use Smart cards and other payment 185 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 methods, such as debt cards, can significantly increase the usability of parking meters for drivers with mobility limitations.
EPVA also supports the proposed amendment to Title of the Philadelphia Code, which 7 adds provisions to require accessible parking spaces 8 in public garages and lots, under certain terms and 9 conditions. In closing, EPVA would like to stress that we have a history of supporting legislation which enables individuals with disabilities to become active participants in society. Since the passage of the ADA ten years ago, people with disabilities have proven that, with slight accommodations, such as one additional hour at a metered parking space and lowered parking meter heights, equality can be readily achieved and can also benefit all individuals at the same time. Finally, it is EPVA's position that the proposed amendments to Bill 358 are both fair and equitable, and this version of the bill 24 satisfies the concerns of all stakeholders in this issue. 186 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 Thank you for the opportunity to present the views and comments of EPVA.
Thank you. Do you care to testify, ma'am? Thank you. Any questions? I thank you for your patience. I know it has been a long day. Thank you for waiting. And I also thank you for your help in developing these two pieces of legislation. And I won't repeat what I said earlier. This is only a beginning. I fully intend to investigate this from a selfish reason, because I just want to eliminate as much of the abuse that's going on out there as possible. Because I know that it is injurious to everyone else, and I am fully committed to doing that. Any other folks who wish to testify? What I am going to do now is reenter into the public record the amendments that were proposed at the last meeting back in June, I believe, so that the record is correct, and then we will move into the public meeting. 187 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 Proposed amendment to Bill No. 3 000359. Amend Subsection 9-601(2)(a)(.8)(g) as follows: "City of Philadelphia Police Officers and Parking Authority officials shall be authorized to enter public garages for the purposes of," strike ensuring the legal use of all excessive parking space, enter "enforcing the provisions of Subsection 12-1117(4)(b) relating to improper parking and accessible parking spaces." Further amend Subsection 9-601(4)(a)(.8)(e) as follows: "City of Philadelphia Police Officers and Parking Authority officials shall be authorized to enter public," scratch "parking," "enter parking lots for the purpose of," strike, "ensuring the legal use of all accessible parking spaces," enter "enforcing the provisions of Subsection 12-1117(4)(b) relating to the improper parking in accessible parking spaces." This completes the Public Hearing on the Committee of Streets and Services. (Public Hearing adjourned.) - - - 188 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING of the COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Monday, December 4, 2000 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Streets and Services, held in Room 400, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 358, 359, 673, 681, 704, 719, 720, 611, 660, 41 - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO, Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER - - - 189 PUBLIC MEETING
We will now go into a public meeting on the Committee of Streets and Services. Councilman Cohen, I think in your absence we had introduced two amendments to Bill No. 7 358 and 359. And I would ask that you make a recommendation that those amendments be adopted.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendments offered previously to Bills 358 and 359 be accepted by the committee. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that the amendments to Bill Nos. 358 and 359 be adopted. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The amendments are adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 358 as amended.
I move that Bill 23 358 as amended be approved by this committee and reported out favorably, together with a suspension of Rules to permit first reading at the next Council 190 PUBLIC MEETING meeting. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 358 as amended be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 359 as amended.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 359 as amended be reported out with a favorable recommendation by this committee, and with a request for suspension of Rules to permit first reading at the next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 359 as amended be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the Rules of Council be 191 PUBLIC MEETING suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The bill is approved as amended. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 673.
Mr. Chairman, I move to Bill 673 be reported out with a favorable recommendation, together with a request for suspension of Rules to permit first reading at the next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 673 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen 192 PUBLIC MEETING for a motion on Bill No. 681.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 681 be reported out with a favorable recommendation, and with the request for suspension of Rules to permit first reading at the next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It was been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 681 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 704.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 704 be reported out with a favorable recommendation by this committee, and with a request for suspension of Rules to permit first reading at the next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and 193 PUBLIC MEETING properly seconded that Bill No. 704 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved. Bill No. 719 is being held at the request of the sponsor of the bill, as is Bill No. 11 720. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Resolution No. 611.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Resolution 611 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with the request for approval by the full Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Resolution No. 611 be reported out of this committee for approval by the full City Council. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? 194 PUBLIC MEETING The resolution is approved. Resolution No. 41 is being held by the sponsor of the bill, at the request of the sponsor of the bill. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 660, retaining walls.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 660 be reported out with a favorable recommendation, and with the request for suspension of Rules to permit first reading. Thank God. (Duly seconded.)
Properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 660 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved. That concludes this public meeting.
My thanks to Council Members Clark and Nutter both particularly on 660.
Thank you all for your 195 PUBLIC MEETING patience in helping me get through the testimony. (Public Meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.) - - - 196 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 Monday, December 4, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES _____________________________________ DEBRA A. WHITEHEAD, RPR